• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's Vote on Jesus

Skwim

Veteran Member
Skwim wrote...…..
Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

The Anointed...…. Our God who filled the man Jesus with his spirit in order to reveal himself to us and the awesome sacrifice he makes for the body in which he had developed, was indeed with us.

As to the ridiculous and erroneous belief that Jesus was born of some supposed ever virgin, taught by the worthless shepherd, let me explain.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

“The Greek word Parthenos is ambiguous but the Hebrew term “Almah”[Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to Greek in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” like the word 'Parthenos' refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication. To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,” by David Jeffery. There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.”

Also The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.”

As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.

Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah who is pregnant will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)

The point of the prophecy is not in the fact that an unmarried woman would bear a son, but that a child conceived out of wedlock (A *******) would be seen as the vessel in which the Lord would reveal himself to us, (“God is with us.”)

In 1st Chronicles 17: 13; Concerning Solomon, who was born of the adulterous union of David and Bathsbeba and the murder of her husband Uriah, God says of Solomon, “I shall be his Father and he shall be my Son” and God blesses him with the rulership of one of the most glorious periods in Jewish history.

The word for Tabernacle, mishkan, is a derivative of the same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the Bible, e.g. Psalm 132:5 ("Before I find a place for God, mishkanot (dwelling-places) for the Strong One of Israel.") Accordingly, in classic Jewish thought, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable. Some Christian theologians have connected the concept of Shekhinah to the Greek term "Parousia", "presence" "arrival," which is used in the New Testament in a similar way for "Divine Presence".

The Light of man came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body of the man Jesus that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down mentally/spiritually and fill with his spirit, that body that his Father had prepared for him, the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

Hebrew 10: 5; For when the anointed one was about to come into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and burnt offerings you did not want, but a body you have prepared for me, etc.”

That body was the man Jesus, of who we read, before he was given divine glory by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, See Acts 3: 13; Hebrew 5: 7-10; “In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. But even though he was A son of God, (Not God’s Son, or THE son of God, but A son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong’s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God’s word, see Psalms 82: 6; ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are sons of the Most High.’) HE learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience, and could then be used as the host body through which our God, ‘The Son of Man’ could then revealed himself, through the life, the miracles and the words that would be seen and heard through his obedient servant and earthy image, who did, nor spoke one word on his own authority other than that which he was commanded by the Lord our saviour.)

The one who God had prepared for his heavenly anointed one, then became the source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise all those, who are united to him also.

From the Revised Standard Version, Luke 2: 36; “And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, [84] having lived with her husband 7 years from her virginity [married at the age of 70] lived with her husband until he was murdered when she was 77 and as a widow for 7 years til she was 84 when her grandson Jesus was born.

As a widow, Anna/Hanna remained in her Parthenia= state of seclusion for 7 years, from the death of her husband [Heli] in 13 BC, until the birth of Jesus in 6 BC, but this does not mean that she was a virgin. A more accurate rendering of the term “Parthenos” is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner. An unmarried woman with children and no partner, would be a Parthenos.

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including the authors of the Septuigint and Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; were in no way implying that Mary was a virgin when they were forced to use the Greek term ‘Parthenos’ in translating Isiah 7: 14.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

The Good News Bible: Catholic Study Edition: Proverbs 30; 19; translate the Hebrew term “Almah” as woman. “And a man and a woman falling in love.”

The New Revised Standard bible, likewise translates the Hebrew “ALMAH,” as “GIRL.” “The way of a ship on the seas, and the way of a man with a girl.”

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos. "Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

I will respond to the rest of your post when we return from the city sometime later today.
I don't respond to plagiarized material.

.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I don't respond to plagiarized material.

.

And from where do you believe it was plagiarized except from the book that I have been in the process of writing for the last thirty odd years?

If Jesus had been born of a virgin birth, this would have been the greatest of all miracles and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all the gospel writers, but we see that Mark, the son of Peter and John the beloved disciple ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story, and both began their account of the salvation of man, with the baptism of Jesus when he was born of the spirit of our Lord which descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

Matthew reveals that the birth of Jesus happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet; "A YOUNG WOMAN who is pregnant will bear a son and call his name Emanuel."

Luke on the other hand, never knew the man Jesus and wrote his account which he received second hand from other people.

But he does reveal that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, or Heli. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) written in Brackets in Luke 3: 23; was a later interpolation by those who wished to cast doubt on the human birth of Jesus, as was Luke 3: 22; changed by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine to make it seem that Jesus was already the Son of God before his baptism.

But in Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”...…. THIS DAY; the day of his baptism.

Now to respond to the rest of your post.

Skwim wrote...….. John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

The Anointed...…. Our Lord God and savior, The Son of Man, who is the chosen heir and successor to the previous Most High in the creation, and who pays the penalty for the sins of the body in which he developed, who had descended from his high point in time and said to Abraham, who had chosen him as his God; "In blessing, I will bless you and in multiplying, I will multiply you.

And it was he who said to Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 18; "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put MY WORDS in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not heed to MY WORDS that the prophet speaks in my name.

"I and my Father are one," were not the words of the man Jesus, but the words of our Lord God and saviour, The Son of Man, the MOST HIGH in the creation, who pays the penalty for the sins of the body in which he developed.

Whose words were these in reference to the body of Jesus which had been filled by the spirit=information=words of the Lord which had descended upon him in the form of a dove? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

They were the words that Jesus was commanded to say by our Lord, who raised the body of Jesus, the earthly temple, which had been filled with his spirit.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17: 30-31; "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day [The Great Sabbath of one thousand years, which is the future reality of the weekly Sabbath] when he will judge the world with justice by means of the MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from death."

It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who said through his obedient servant Jesus; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up

Skwim wrote......…. Now I don't know how one reconciles the contradiction, but the fact remains that the gospel of John does identify Jesus as god.

The Anointed...….. Well, if you don't know yet, you will by the time I finish responding to your post.

To be continued, God willing, when time permits
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
The limited evidence we have on this is that the 1st century Church had not really formulated much of any personal theology on Jesus' relationship with God other than he was of God in some way(s). The theology on this was to evolve over time, and the reality was that some politics did come into play as the 4th century Church wanted to bring into the fold those involved in Arianism, which actually did work, btw.

The reality is that no one can really know for sure exactly what Jesus' relationship was to God because not enough information is given. OTOH, we do know that the 1st century Church did believe that Jesus was more than a prophet and "the Messiah", which then begs the question what was he? Some in the 2nd century thought that Jesus was a or the super-angel seated right next to God.

So, is the Trinitarian concept right or wrong? The answer: there's really no way to tell, thus any conclusion is nothing more than a guess. But what is clear is that the early Church going back to the first century believed he was unlike any other previous person vis-a-vis God, so he certainly was not viewed as being merely a man.

In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”

So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will. Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

From the book, “Jesus the Evidence” by Ian Wilson. In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.”

Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established in the minds of the gullible..
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
The early Christians (first century) were adoptionists, contrary to this
Adoptionism - Wikipedia
Paul says that Jesus was physically descended from David, which could only be true if he were the son of Joseph, and declared the son of God by his resurection. Mark, like a good adoptionist, starts with Jesus's baptism. Josephus records that the Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah, not that the considered him divine. Clement of Rome called Jesus the "mirror of God" but never the son of God. All the material making Jesus a divinity dates from the second century.

What do I think? I think that he was a rather intolerant and bigoted Jewish preacher who came to consider himself the Messiah. He'd be shocked by Christianity.

You have said; "Jesus was physically descended from David, which could only be true if he were the son of Joseph." But which Joseph are you referring to? Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and was the step father of the man Jesus, or Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, also called Heli, who is the biological father of Jesus.?
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Versus:

Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!

John 1:1-3; 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... 1;14- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,​


Now I don't know how one reconciles the contradiction, but the fact remains that the gospel of John does identify Jesus as god.

.

.
J
Skwim wrote...…. J
ohn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “
My Lord and my God!
The Anointed...…. It was not uncommon for Jews in Northern Galilee to have three names. The Jewish name Jude, who was called the twin, the Greek name Didymus, which means twin, and Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramiac for twin, Thomas Didymus Jude, the half brother of Jesus. But was he an actual twin, or did he simply hold a striking resemblance to one with who he shared a common father?

When the Son of Man, our Lord God and saviour, who cannot die, abandoned his chosen heir and successor on the cross and ceased to be an individual entity by releasing the spirits of the righteous, which had been gathered to the bosom of Abraham on which he had evolved until the days of Jesus.

Three days later those righteous spirits came out of their graves and entered the city and showed themselves as the risen Christ, the anointed one.

One would think that those spirits who came out of their graves three days later and entered the city would reveal themselves first to the family of Jesus, who was the compilation of those spirits, being born of that genetic line, [The body that the Father had prepared for his son, “The Son of Man,”] and this is exactly what we see.
The first to see one of they, who were of the body of the risen Christ, the 365 day old unblemished Lamb, the sacrificial offering prepared for us by God, were his Mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas and her [Daughter-in-law] Mary Magdalene, who, although looking straight at him, thought that he was the gardener, until he spoke her name.

The next to who one of the risen body of Christ appeared, were the carpenter ‘Cleophas’ who is also called Alpheas, and Simon/Simeon, his son, who was the half-brother of Jesus, and who was to inherit the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision after his half-brother, 'James the righteous,' was killed at the instigation of the same Sadducee sect that had James the full brother of Jesus killed.

Although Cleophas and Simon walked and talked with one of the risen body of Christ for some 11 kilometres to the small town of Emmaus, they did not recognise him for who he was, until Simon saw the manner in which he broke the bread.

See John 20: 19 to 24; Cleophas then returned to Jerusalem, where the disciples, which included Simon Peter and Simon the Patriot, the only two of the twelve disciples by the name Simon, were cowering in a darkened room. The only one of the twelve who was absent that evening when Jesus appeared in that dimly lit room in the form that they recognised as Jesus, was Thomas Jude another half-brother of Jesus, the one who was called the Twin, although nowhere does the bible say that he was an actual twin or whether he just held a striking resemblance to someone else, perhaps one with who he shared a common father.

But back to Cleophas, who said to the disciples, who would have opened the door for him, "He has risen, he appeared to Simon," who was of course Simon the son of Cleophas and half-brother to Jesus and the one who succeeded ‘James the younger’ as the head of the church founded by their brother Jesus.

It was then that a figure appeared in that dimly lit room in the form that they recognised as Jesus, the following week, Jesus appeared in the locked room, where this time, Thomas who was called the ‘TWIN’ was with the other disciples.

See John 21: 1 to 12; Then there were the seven disciples who were fishing on Lake Galilee having no success at all, when someone on the bank told them to throw their net on the right side of the boat in which they caught 153 fishes, later on while sitting down to eat with the person who had a fire prepared with fish on it and some bread, not one of the seven disciples of Jesus who had walked and talked with him, dared to ask who he was, but they understood that he was of the risen body of Christ. Even when he ascended up into heaven as a cloud, some of the 11 disciples doubted that it was he.

When Thoman called the ‘TWIN’ finally saw the risen Jesus, he THOUGHT that he was his God, but Jesus ‘KNEW’ that, like his brothers, he was no more than a man. Admitably a man chosen by the Lord and raised from death in order that He would be the heavenly head to the risen body of the anointed one, who are to take the thrones that are prepared for them and rule with Jesus as Kings for the thousand year Sabbath, as seen in Acts 17: 30-31; In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by means of the MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from the dead.”
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It's interesting that much of the Christian perception of Jesus is a result of nothing more than a simple vote. Granted that the outcome of that vote was quite lopsided, but had the losing side prevailed people today would have a far different concept of Jesus, which might be . . .


"The Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures.
source
But instead . . . . .

"The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the Nicene Creed. This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ's true divinity, rejecting Arius's heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what [they thought] the Bible already taught.
source

Considering the shaky basis of Jesus' character---resting on the vote of mere mortals---one has to wonder if they got it right or not. I know, I know, some will say the vote was guided by the hand of god so it can't be wrong, but this is nothing more than brash, needful assertion. No one knows this as fact. So let's not go there.

However, I am interested in other thoughts. What ya got?

.

1) Councils 300 years after Christ are less authoritative than the scriptures, on any doctrine.

2) You seem a wee bit obsessed with Christianity. Why?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles...
When I read your first line above, I knew what would follow suit, and I was right.

The reality is that we simply do not know with certainty what that original "truth" was, so it's difficult to take what else you wrote seriously.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's interesting that much of the Christian perception of Jesus is a result of nothing more than a simple vote. Granted that the outcome of that vote was quite lopsided, but had the losing side prevailed people today would have a far different concept of Jesus, which might be . . .


"The Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures.
source
But instead . . . . .

"The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the Nicene Creed. This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ's true divinity, rejecting Arius's heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what [they thought] the Bible already taught.
source

Considering the shaky basis of Jesus' character---resting on the vote of mere mortals---one has to wonder if they got it right or not. I know, I know, some will say the vote was guided by the hand of god so it can't be wrong, but this is nothing more than brash, needful assertion. No one knows this as fact. So let's not go there.

However, I am interested in other thoughts. What ya got?

.

I noticed your source that also said "and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, " which suggests that his opposition was a new thought and not what was believed previously.

Quite frankly, I believe the "vote" is mute.

"in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God"...."And the Word was made flesh".

It is black and white.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Versus:

Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!

John 1:1-3; 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... 1;14- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,​


Now I don't know how one reconciles the contradiction, but the fact remains that the gospel of John does identify Jesus as god.

.

.
I don't see the contradiction... can you be a little more specific?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
1) Councils 300 years after Christ are less authoritative than the scriptures, on any doctrine.

2) You seem a wee bit obsessed with Christianity. Why?
No Obsession at all, but because Christianity fraught with a lack of reason and panders to human weaknesses it's hardly a justifiable belief system by which to guide one's life, and I believe I can help those who have been taken in by its faults. Plus, many Christians are determined to insinuate the religion into secular areas of life where it doesn't belong, which prompts me to try to put the brakes to such ambitions.

Now, you seem a bit taken with defending Christianity. Why? Why do you care what non-Christians think about your religion?

.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I don't see the contradiction... can you be a little more specific?
Anointed said "No Gospel claims that the man Jesus is God," and quoted John 20:17 " "Go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father, my God and their God." as evidence.

Which contradicts what the verses in Matthew and John I quoted say, indicating he is god.

.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Anointed said "No Gospel claims that the man Jesus is God," and quoted John 20:17 " "Go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father, my God and their God." as evidence.

Which contradicts what the verses in Matthew and John I quoted say, indicating he is god.

.
No contradiction at all. That is why people get confused as they take one scripture at the expense of the rest of the scriptures. Like taking one sentence out of a chapter of a book and declaring that is the meaning of the whole of chapter.

One is before the incarnation, as God, the other as the Son of Man.
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Anointed said "No Gospel claims that the man Jesus is God," and quoted John 20:17 " "Go and tell my brothers that I am ascending to my Father and their Father, my God and their God." as evidence.

Which contradicts what the verses in Matthew and John I quoted say, indicating he is god.

.

The Greek word “LOGOS” which has been translated as “WORD”, should be seen as ‘The thoughts in the mind which are to be expressed.

The Logos is the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originate and to which all must return.

The term, “LOGOS” pertains to the very plan from the outset. [The creation of a universal body in which a Supreme mind or personality of Godhead to that body, develops.] In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was God and was with God, who is "The Supreme Personality of Godhead to have developed within the Logos," He 'The LIGHT OF MAN' All the wisdom, knowledge and insight gained from the body of mankind was the Light and Life within the Logos.

And you believe the false doctrine of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, that the Logos was the man Jesus, do you?

John the Baptist was not that LIGHT but was sent to bear witness of that light, who commanded him to baptize with water, which was symbolic of the Great flood [1 Peter 3: 21] when the old man [ADAM] was submerged in water and the new man [Enoch the Anointed one] arose.

John was told by the LIGHT OF MAN, that the man upon who he saw the spirit descend, was the one chosen to baptize with the spirit.

John 1: 32; And John [The Baptist] gave this testimony: "I saw the spirit [Of the Lord] come down like a dove from heaven and stay on him.

Now although John Knew that Jesus the son of his cousin Mary was greater than he, and he considered himself unworthy to baptize him, he continued.

I still did not know that he was the one, but God, who sent me to baptize with water had said to me, 'You will see the spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen it, said John, and I tell you that he is the Son of God."

John knew this, because he had heard the heavenly voice say to Jesus, "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

Of course John was to later doubt if his cousin's son was the chosen Messiah or if they had to wait for another.

If john had believed that his cousin Mary, was still a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, which would have been the greatest of all miracles, he never would have doubted.

Nope John 1 does not reveal that Jesus is God as taught by the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, that worthless shepherd that God promised In Zechariah 11: 12-17; that he would raise up in that land after he, who revealed himself through his chosen servant Jesus, was rejected by the Jews.

Nor is there any verse in Matthew which states that the man Jesus is God.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No Obsession at all, but because Christianity fraught with a lack of reason and panders to human weaknesses it's hardly a justifiable belief system by which to guide one's life, and I believe I can help those who have been taken in by its faults. Plus, many Christians are determined to insinuate the religion into secular areas of life where it doesn't belong, which prompts me to try to put the brakes to such ambitions.

Now, you seem a bit taken with defending Christianity. Why? Why do you care what non-Christians think about your religion?

.

Thank you so much for helping me with my issues! Hopefully, you can rescue many such persons from the hope of Jesus Christ and eternal life, until they are all convinced that life is meaningless and they will rot after death, buried, forgotten, not lamented. What is the name of your "rescue ministry"? Can I write a check to your organization, to keep pressing on until all persons are devoid of hope, bleak, and depressed?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It's interesting that much of the Christian perception of Jesus is a result of nothing more than a simple vote. Granted that the outcome of that vote was quite lopsided, but had the losing side prevailed people today would have a far different concept of Jesus, which might be . . .


"The Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures.
source
But instead . . . . .

"The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the Nicene Creed. This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ's true divinity, rejecting Arius's heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what [they thought] the Bible already taught.
source

Considering the shaky basis of Jesus' character---resting on the vote of mere mortals---one has to wonder if they got it right or not. I know, I know, some will say the vote was guided by the hand of god so it can't be wrong, but this is nothing more than brash, needful assertion. No one knows this as fact. So let's not go there.

However, I am interested in other thoughts. What ya got?

.
Far be it from me to tell Christians how to conduct their religion. I don't want them messing with Judaism, so I'm not going to tell them how to determine their own doctrine. If they want to do it with a Bishop's vote, that's their business.

However, just an FYI for the thread, it was not a vote of just anyone that took place. The Christian church believed (and some of its sects still believe) that the bishops inherit the authority of the Apostles. Thus, when the bishops act as a group, they act infallibly. Each bishop by himself is fallible. Thus you have bishps that will vote incorrectly. But according to these christians, the vote is infallible just as the New Testament is inspired.

Again, that's not what I believe, but is what they believe. Therefore it does no good saying, "What if the vote had gone the other way." For this religion, there was divine intervention in how the vote went, so it couldn't have gone any other way, in their eyes.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for helping me with my issues! Hopefully, you can rescue many such persons from the hope of Jesus Christ and eternal life, until they are all convinced that life is meaningless and they will rot after death, buried, forgotten, not lamented. What is the name of your "rescue ministry"? Can I write a check to your organization, to keep pressing on until all persons are devoid of hope, bleak, and depressed?

Love your post mate, keep up the good work.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you so much for helping me with my issues! Hopefully, you can rescue many such persons from the hope of Jesus Christ and eternal life, until they are all convinced that life is meaningless and they will rot after death, buried, forgotten, not lamented. What is the name of your "rescue ministry"? Can I write a check to your organization, to keep pressing on until all persons are devoid of hope, bleak, and depressed?

Well, when I think of some of the subject matter of Skwim's posts, I think his organization and "rescue ministry" might look something like this:

DSC_3428.jpg


As opposed to this:

GregSleepingInChurch.jpg


Which seems more devoid of hope, bleak, and depressed?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Thank you so much for helping me with my issues! Hopefully, you can rescue many such persons from the hope of Jesus Christ and eternal life, until they are all convinced that life is meaningless and they will rot after death, buried, forgotten, not lamented. What is the name of your "rescue ministry"? Can I write a check to your organization, to keep pressing on until all persons are devoid of hope, bleak, and depressed?
Oh no you don't! You pull this little dodge far too often around here: ignoring someone's question in favor of posing your own. So if you want answers to your questions, and even if you don't, you first have to answer mine.

1) You seem a bit taken with defending Christianity. Why?

2) Why do you care what non-Christians think about your religion?

.
 
Top