Jesus 100% man?

[outhouse]

So he wasn't divine?

he was said to be divine by people that never knew him, met him, viewed him, heard him, or lived where he did, not even the same culture or religion.

how credible could that possible be coming from a time when many mortal men were deified and claimed to be the son of god ???????

 

[outhouse]

We're really talking about two different Jesuses here: The historic Jesus and the mythic Jesus. I use the mythic Jesus a lot in the formulation of metaphor. But I also fully understand the historic Jesus. Historically speaking, Jesus was probably born from human parents.

really there are 3 jesus charactors, and the truth falls into one of these three. In order of credibility.

historical jesus = the real mortal man

biblical jesus = as its written

mythical jesus = fiction

 

[CynthiaCypher]

false

his divinity was defined by Constantines influence, nothing more.

If a few more bishops had been present that thought the opposite, Constantine would have ruled not the same substance as he father.


all Constantine wanted was a unified church, and thats why he ordered bishops to vote for unification or banishment.

We are talking Christology here not you're ******** political views . Now if you want to add substance to your arguments instead of spouting ******** then continue.

 

[Rocky S]

false

his divinity was defined by Constantines influence, nothing more.

If a few more bishops had been present that thought the opposite, Constantine would have ruled not the same substance as he father.


all Constantine wanted was a unified church, and that's why he ordered bishops to vote for unification or banishment.

No, this was believed before his conversion to Christianity in around 312, and when he(Constantine) legalized Christianity while he was emperor of Rome. Sorry ,and I do say this out of concern, but unbelief in this fact of what I gave in my reply concerning Jesus, before this one, is not christian and is in fact heretical. .

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Fact is Constantine had little to with the formulation of theology. If he did modern Christians would all be Arians and quasi-Pelagians like he was.

People tend to forget the fact that Constantine was a fricking Arian!

 

[outhouse]

No, this was believed before his conversion to Christianity in around 312,

yes it was believed by many.

but not all churches and bishops followed this.

before 325 there was no clear definition.

 

[outhouse]

Fact is Constantine had little to with the formulation of theology. If he did modern Christians would all be Arians and quasi-Pelagians like he was.

not the theology, but without his influence in forcing his decision who knows how the bishops would have defined it and who knows when they ever would have agreed without being forced to vote ONE way.

 

[outhouse]

We are talking Christology here not you're ******** political views . Now if you want to add substance to your arguments instead of spouting ******** then continue.

history is history deal with it. this isnt a personal view here

 

[BobbyisStrange]

I´ll wait for you to organize your thoughts a bit, you still sound unsure if you understood and I think you almost got it

If anything my comment closely related pantheism...but definitely not the trinity. But I don't get into that everything is god idea, because then I just say why call it god.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

not the theology, but without his influence in forcing his decision who knows how the bishops would have defined it and who knows when they ever would have agreed without being forced to vote ONE way.

He was an Arian. The only thing he wanted was to see the church unified. His interest wasn't politics but in the unification of his religion. He was an Arian. Why would an Arian do that? Constantine could have just said **** you all we are going to believe Arius is right and that there is no such thing as original sin and we can all work out our salvation.

Facts are facts.

 

[Me Myself]

If anything my comment closely related pantheism...but definitely not the trinity. But I don't get into that everything is god idea, because then I just say why call it god.

It depends. I find my reasons to call it god being:

It´s omnipotent

It´s omniscient

It is itself (so it is 100% emphatical with all it´s beings)

So for me it cover the omnimax the best way it can do so.

I would agree that it doesn´t resemble the mainstream interpretation of the trinity. Actualy, I should just say it doesn´t, but the trinity does has intense symbolism for me, so I justy feel odd saying so

 

[outhouse]

He was an Arian. The only thing he wanted was to see the church unified. His interest wasn't politics but in the unification of his religion. He was an Arian. Why would an Arian do that? Constantine could have just said **** you all we are going to believe Arius is right and that there is no such thing as original sin and we can all work out our salvation.

Facts are facts.

I stated all he wanted was unification. yet you argued it

he arian views flip flopped during life but you already knew that.

he was many things and not just a arian, he had his hands in many religious ideas thoughout his whole life