Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Lexilogio

Council of Nicea

I'd be interested to hear people's views at present on the Council of Nicea. Were the decisions good ones? Was it a step forward for Christianity, or backwards? Do you accept the Nicean creed, and if not, why not. What aspects do you disagree with?
JamesJah

You might find the answer Lexi  a lot easer if you try to establish when the heads of some Christian groups gave up promoting the fruits of the spirit, and started to cosy up to the rulers of the counties that they were living in.
Paul

Cool!

This, I guess, depends entirely upon ones ecclesiology. As an Orthodox Christian I celebrate it as a holy council convened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, its creed and canons infallibly defining the "faith once delivered to the saints"and recognised by the Church as being ecumenical both by its fruits and having been accepted by the whole Church. We celebrate this, as we do with all the ecumenical councils, in our liturgies but especially in a feast we call "The Triumph Of Orthodoxy". The council was necessary in addressing the error of Arius and his disciples.
Lexilogio

Paul wrote:
Cool!

This, I guess, depends entirely upon ones ecclesiology. As an Orthodox Christian I celebrate it as a holy council convened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, its creed and canons infallibly defining the "faith once delivered to the saints"and recognised by the Church as being ecumenical both by its fruits and having been accepted by the whole Church. We celebrate this, as we do with all the ecumenical councils, in our liturgies but especially in a feast we call "The Triumph Of Orthodoxy". The council was necessary in addressing the error of Arius and his disciples.


Do you recite the Nicean creed?
Paul

Yes, but without the Filioque, naturally.
Lexilogio

Paul wrote:
Yes, but without the Filioque, naturally.


And that is the fascinating part.

I agree that the Arian heresy needed to be addressed. We seem to have lost the ability to sit down and academically discuss theological issues.

So you no longer consider Jesus to be a part of God? Do you believe he is divine?
Ketty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413955/Nicene-Creed

    We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

    Through Him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried.

    On the third day He rose again in fulfilment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the
    Father.

    He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified.

    He has spoken through the Prophets.

    We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

    We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

    We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


It's not something we recite in my 'home' church, but I have recited it when attending Anglican churches/cathedrals.
Paul

Yes we do believe that Christ is true God, that the Son is one of the persons of the Godhead. We just believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is also the issue of the Filioque being an addition made by the West without the consent of the whole Church (that's forgetting the theological error, at least as far as the East is concerned). Orthodoxy would argue that it was something Charlemagne used to drive a wedge between East and West and that this marks the beginning of the fall of the West (culminating in the events of 1054).
Lexilogio

Paul wrote:
Yes we do believe that Christ is true God, that the Son is one of the persons of the Godhead. We just believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is also the issue of the Filioque being an addition made by the West without the consent of the whole Church (that's forgetting the theological error, at least as far as the East is concerned). Orthodoxy would argue that it was something Charlemagne used to drive a wedge between East and West and that this marks the beginning of the fall of the West (culminating in the events of 1054).


Fair enough. So what is the evidence that the Filioque was an addition? I didn't know this was the view of the Orthodox church.
Paul

The origins of the Filioque lie somewhere in Spain in the sixth or seventh century. It was then used in the Frankish empire during the time of Charlemagne and eventually in Rome too depite one bishop of Rome having the Creed without the Filioque enscribed in silver tablets in reponse to the Filioque being used by Charlemagne.
Jim

Many Reformed churches ( I detest the word 'Protestant') would deny it, but all of us owe mucch to the council of Nicea. Not only did it establish a creed in which we all firmly hold, rooted completely in Scripture, but it also effectively ended the Gnosticism which had sprung from Hellenic mysticsm in the late second century.

Even the quasi-Christian groups of today, whether they acknowledge it or no, owe much of the stability of their core doctrinal basis to Nicea.
OK, the structure of ecclesiastical governance in both East and West which was established by this, and other councils, was, in the view of many theologians, Orthodox, Catholic and Reformed, a mistake, based as it was on the over-beaurocratic structure of Imperial government. This led to inevitable corruption in the higher ranks of the church - in both East and West - and the rest, unfortunately, is history. This should not, however, take anything away from what was achieved at Nicea.
JamesJah

Did Jesus give this illustration of the problem the church would run into?

Matthew 13:24, 25
Another illustration he set before them, saying:
The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and over sowed weeds in among the wheat, and left.
Lexilogio

JamesJah wrote:
Did Jesus give this illustration of the problem the church would run into?

Matthew 13:24, 25
Another illustration he set before them, saying:
The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and over sowed weeds in among the wheat, and left.


James, this is a discussion, not another thread for you to spout the same sanctimonious rubbish. Now unless you are capable of discussing what was actually said, or agreed at Nicea, then I suggest you stop adding.
Jim

Before you jump into Scripture quoting mode, James, please remember that the very canon from which you quote would not exist were it not for the church councils which finally established it. Take a look at the canon lists ( There are seven that I know of, dating from c170-320AD). Look at the differences; some books we take for granted were not so firmly fixed in the canon without these church councils: other books which the early church acknowledged as scripture almost universally are no longer seen as such - again, thanks to the church councils. Whether you, or I, like it or not, we have a legacy in common handed down from the third and fourth century church councils that we cannot lightly dismiss.
JamesJah

Your bios towards my quote has not allowed you to see the significance of it Jim, you missed the point that there also had to have been wheat Christians they were not all weeds now were they?

During the Council many of the wheat Christians had their opinion overridden by the weeds
Jim

So which parts of the canon, in your opinion, should have been retained, and which parts ditched?
Should some of the books no longer in the canon be restored?
If not, why not?
Paul

How did this get onto the canon of scripture? None of the ecumenical councils, to my knowledge, list any canon (of scripture). When I mentioned the canons earlier on I was referring to the decrees of the council, such as those concerning the celebration of Easter or the forbidding kneeling on Sundays and Pentecost, for instance.
JamesJah

Jim wrote:
So which parts of the canon, in your opinion, should have been retained, and which parts ditched?
Should some of the books no longer in the canon be restored?
If not, why not?




The apocrypha should have been removed perhaps the Maccabeus kept separate as a bit of useful history
Paul

Apocrypha? Isn't this a misuse of the term? The Early Church, even in Jerusalem (re: The Pilgrimage of Egeria), used exclusively the Septuagint including those books not used by the Jews, but then which books the Jews use is irrelevant.
bnabernard

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm#62

I note in one place on this site they speak of the scritures being judged by eye witness and being in the presence of Jesus, yet then go on to include Paul.
Seems wierd to me to ignore Gnostic teaching on account of it being falsely atributed to Godly knowledge or presence, then excuse Paul?

However I thought I would give the link in case anybody wants to have a read up, maybe refresh,  

bernard (hug)
Paul

Anyway, back to the Council. This the creed the Council professed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father.  By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth.  Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man.  He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven.  And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead.  And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.

And the Council goes on to say:

And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

The creed professed by the Nicene fathers was then confirmed and expanded later at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), and this is the creed (Niceno-Constantinopolitan) we profess in the liturgy today.

Here you can find the twenty canons of the Council too: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html
JamesJah

What most persons have missed about the books of the bible is that they are the bits of a jigsaw puzzle, when fitted together make a picture.

If you know what the picture should be then you know if a bit fits or not.

Even though there had been many writers there was only one author which meant each writer could not have been the author it had to have been some one who had not died over the thousands of years of the book being written.
Jim

Yes, Paul;
And, replying to both yourself and Bernie here, remember that the Council could not have come to this conclusion were it not for a complete, recognised canon of New Testament Scripture, agreed in common. Of course, we would say that this was at the behest of the Holy Spirit, but there were, also, very good reasons for having the canon in front of them, complete and immutable.
Firstly, as you know, Paul, the N.T as we know it was written between 50-100 A.D. ( though personally I'd go for 50-85). The Gnostic stuff, at its' earliest, dated from c190, and was churned out as late as c320 - thus having absolutely no connection with anyone living in New Testament times and diverging manifestly from Gospel and other N.T. documentary doctrines. On those grounds alone, as well as authority, the Gnostic stuff cannot be regarded as anything other than a curiosity.
Other first century N.T - style documents, while valuable and doctrinally sound, were rejected on the grounds of dubious authorship.
Thus, when the Council sat down to deliberate, there were no doubts over the canonicity of the documents with which they worked.
Paul

Indeed, Jim. Though the canon of scripture was something that was largely a product of local custom the fact that all the local Churches had virtually the same canon (not that there was never any discussion) is a clear sign that this was the work of the Holy Spirit. The profession of faith by the Council is, as you rightly point out, lies firmly in those scriptures. The canons of the Council (often forgotten) rightly bring some kind of uniformity to the practice of the Church in such matters as the celebration of Easter, the election of bishops, the correct posture for prayer etc.
bnabernard

In my own reasoning I have to stand in the manner of debate and in that reasoning I find that the Holy Spirit was ther to maintian a continiume of the truth through selcted people.
Therefore the truth of any matter is not reliant on the perishable script but the imperishable spirit.
Following that reasoning then there is no reason for council among men.

Explain: Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus validated his position by works of the Father, ''If you do not believe my words confirm them in my works'' this act of confirmation was passed on through his direct apostles whom were complete in performance of words and works.

A council sits and judges for their interpretation and words and works become justified according to men, ratified 'on paper' 'in the written word' and now is accessible for men of disrepute to study and in study become imitators.
Adding to this, if there is in council a difference of opinion, a vote, then the eviedence of the spirit is in question, do we debate that the day is day and the night is night, no it is evident in it's light and darkness, the presence of the sun and the absence of the sun.
Hence if a man has God in him then God will shine through as the light of the man in words and works.

If a man comes forward with words and works but does not confess the Father, then he is not of God, remember that Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus confessed the Father. However if a man comes forward with words and works but has not the Father then who is the power behind him, and why is there a power that can imitate the power of the Father, even is there?

There is the implication that the Holy Spirit would deminish and that a cloud would come over the truth, this then is to teach that the Holy Spirit is perishable and unable to stand against a other power, or is willing to cede power, to 'step aside' and allow man to come to his own conclusion?
Rather a strange arrangement.

However, the object of this post is to question the need for councils to sit and vote and in sitting define on script what is and what is not.

I certainly agree with those who understand that given a clear path an adversary will sieze the oppotunity to grasp the truth and bend it to suit his own ends, to form an imitation of truth, to provide a fork in a road as if ever there was a truth to be known it was apparent to Noah and his family, yet how many forks in the road appeared as we walk forward from the time of the deluge?

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

It is even easer than that Bernard.

The words in harmony with flesh are flesh and the words in harmony with spirit are spirit.

By their fruit you will know them, their works will give them away.
LeClerc

Re: Council of Nicea

Hi Lexi

Lexilogio wrote:
I'd be interested to hear people's views at present on the Council of Nicea. Were the decisions good ones? Was it a step forward for Christianity, or backwards? Do you accept the Nicean creed, and if not, why not. What aspects do you disagree with?


Two questions if I may.

Who called it, and why was it called ?

LeClerc
Lexilogio

Re: Council of Nicea

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Lexi

Lexilogio wrote:
I'd be interested to hear people's views at present on the Council of Nicea. Were the decisions good ones? Was it a step forward for Christianity, or backwards? Do you accept the Nicean creed, and if not, why not. What aspects do you disagree with?


Two questions if I may.

Who called it, and why was it called ?

LeClerc


It was held at Nicea, and called by the Roman Emperor.

Now perhaps you'd like to give your views on it?
Jim

Re: Council of Nicea

Let's be honest, Lexi.
Although, on the whole, the Council was a success in its outcome, the reasons for it were, shall we say, duplicitous?
Although Constantine espoused Christianity inits' triune form as the official religion of the Empire, his motives were probably less than spiritual.
He needed manpower to shore up the borders. What he didn't need was a fractured church, so he banged heads together to unify the church whether the church wanted to be unified or not. He also needed something he could work with, hence the centralised hierarchical structures which were not scriptural, but necessary to maintain Imperial cohesion in a state religion. He maintained the title - and office - of Pontifex Maximus - essentialy a pagan ornament carried on to the Christian superstructure.
While it did unify the church (briefly) the over-emphasis on rank and class in the church led to corruption, decadence and the anti-christian barbarism of both Eastern and Western branches.
The Reformed bit inside me harks back to the Luis Palau saying; "God has no grandchildren."
We're all His children, and, as far as I know, He has no favourites among us; no-one more or less important than any other.
Maybe we, as the church, need to see that a bit more.
Paul

Constantine the Great is venerated as a Saint in the East. Personally I do believe the events of his conversion, the discovery of the True Cross by his mother in a dream etc. He saw the threat (a spiritual threat) posed by Arius and his disciples and convened the Council which put an end to the controversy. The result was a victory for Orthodoxy which bore much fruit, thus it was accepted by the whole Church and was considered ecumenical.

I don't know what Jim means by "hierarchy". Does he mean the hierarchy among bishops? In which case I might agree that this is (from an Eastern petspective) merely an administrative convenience for a more "efficient" governing of the Church and which is one of the issues between East and West (whereas in the West primacy is considered part of the faith). If Jim's beef is with bishops governing the local Church with presbyters answering each to their own bishop, then it can be shown quite easily that this existed from the beginning.
bnabernard

Paul, don't you think that smacks a bit like, 'I'd rather die for what I have than, have the other', shame realy because what the other would have been you have no knowledge of as it did not come about, what did come about was the sword, corruption, death, a blood trail to beat all blood trails.
Disunity, disgust, dissapointment, murder, all of these things in the name of the holy spirit, have people no conscience is history realy no example of fruits?
Alas I sigh as once again I see and say, ''never mind the quality feel the width''
But look the cloth is in tatters and shrunk and now beyond any recognition, will God truly wrap a child in such a blanket.


bernard (hug)
Jim

Paul;
Agreed - Constantine was no Christian - except his so-called deathbed conversion - and whether that was a matter of spiritual expediency or a nod t ecclesiastcal convention only he and God knew.
Certainly he was building and dedicating temples to "Solus Invicta" two years after the Milvian Bridge.
He was nothing if not a pragmatist.
I agree, also, that the Eastern Church was, and is, more fragmentary in its' governance, mainly this was no theological construct but a matter of political necessity. However, to a lesser extent than the Western Church, The Eastern Church structure was moulded on the Greco-Roman style of Byzantine authority, with its fair share of double dealing with the state and vice-versa. Both codes had their fair share of power grabbing, debauched political mavericks who cared little for faith, less for the common man, and too much about their kith and kin and self-agrandissment.
Luckily the East suffered from this to a lesser degree than the West, but it suffered nonetheless.
Power corrupts, and any system which grants power to an elite class or individual, be it civil or ecclesiastical, attracts corruption.
JamesJah

Which church then is there that is not contaminated by that religion?
Powwow

Mine you silly. lol
Jim

There is only one church, James.
The church is the body of believers, of many traditions, who acknowledge Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as LORD, Saviour, Messiah and friend.
Lexilogio

I do think Constantine was a Christian when he died, and was a believer. I also think he was flawed - in that he was unable to put his Christianity above his office. That said, he used it to good effect. The council was his attempt to bring about unity because a split would be damaging to the empire. And I suspect he liked the idea of the empire running the church.

But it worked.
JamesJah

Can a person be a pope and a christian?

1 Corinthians 11:1
Become imitators of me, even as I am of Christ.
bnabernard

Lexilogio wrote:
I do think Constantine was a Christian when he died, and was a believer. I also think he was flawed - in that he was unable to put his Christianity above his office. That said, he used it to good effect. The council was his attempt to bring about unity because a split would be damaging to the empire. And I suspect he liked the idea of the empire running the church.

But it worked.


Come on Lex, are you realy serious or is this an end of year joke,    It's a good one though      

bernard (hug)
Jim

Can a person be a pope and a Christian?
Isn't that between God and the individual concerned?
JamesJah

Quite right Jim how do we know if some did not repent before they died?

If we saw Jesus walking down the road what would he look like I wonder?

Matthew 7:1, 2
Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.

LeClerc

Re: Council of Nicea

Hi Lexi

Lexilogio wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Lexi

Lexilogio wrote:
I'd be interested to hear people's views at present on the Council of Nicea. Were the decisions good ones? Was it a step forward for Christianity, or backwards? Do you accept the Nicean creed, and if not, why not. What aspects do you disagree with?


Two questions if I may.

Who called it, and why was it called ?

LeClerc


It was held at Nicea, and called by the Roman Emperor.

Now perhaps you'd like to give your views on it?


In 324 AD,when Licinius began persecuting Christians again, Constantine seized the opportunity to overthrow him, put him to death, and became sole ruler of the Roman empire. Upon his return from victory over Licinius, he was stunned to find the religion he had so avidly supported on the brink of tearing his empire in half.

What was it that was at the centre of this great dispute.

Prior to this around A.D. 318, Arius, an elder in Alexandria in Egypt, told his bishop, Alexander, that he believed that The Messiah Y'shua was created from nothing and had no existence prior to being created.

Alexander immediately took offense, and a controversy raged between Arius and Alexander that continued for several years. Alexander, despite urgings from other elders and surrounding bishops, took no punitive measures toward Arius at first. Finally, in 321, he gathered more than 100 bishops from Egypt and surrounding countries and excommunicated him.

Arius, however, was not moved. He went north to Nicomedia, where he found a sympathetic ear in Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. Nicomedia, in modern Turkey, held the imperial court, making it one of the more important cities in the empire. As a result, Eusebius was one of the most influential bishops in the east.

Quote:

Confusion prevailed everywhere. One could see not only the prelates of the churches engaged in debates, but the people divided as well, some siding with one party and some with the other. This affair was carried out to so disgraceful an extent that Christianity became the subject of popular ridicule, even in the theaters.
Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. I:6.


Apparently, Eusebius and Arius were convincing because the controversy spread so widely that the emperor Constantine the Great feared that it would split his empire.

It is commonly said that the Council of Nicea was called to determine whether The Messiah Y'shua was God.

It would be more accurate to say that the Council of Nicea met to determine what the Son of God was made of.

Exerts taken from ''In the Beginning was The Logos''.

LeClerc
bnabernard

Quote:
Confusion prevailed everywhere. One could see not only the prelates of the churches engaged in debates, but the people divided as well, some siding with one party and some with the other. This affair was carried out to so disgraceful an extent that Christianity became the subject of popular ridicule, even in the theaters.
Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. I:6.


Not much change there then.

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Quote:
Apparently, Eusebius and Arius were convincing because the controversy spread so widely that the emperor Constantine the Great feared that it would split his empire.


 What realy hits you is this remark made in support of constantine, and the way it refers to 'his empire' which in my mind sums up what was being built in preference to Gods empire.

What it does in fact say at the end of the day is that there was a choice, go with God or go with constantine.

However have we only reports from the 'winner' must ask the next tory rep to give a ref for the lab party.

bernard (hug)
Jim

However the politico-ecclesiastical chicanary turned out, the Creed was a masterpiece of theology, as, with the orthodox ( note the small ;o; ) Scriptures at their disposal, the theologians managed to distill a masterpiece - even if, in the process, they spawned a million headache-inducing theology seminars packed with jargon in the process.
bnabernard

Prior to this around A.D. 318, Arius, an elder in Alexandria in Egypt, told his bishop, Alexander, that he believed that The Messiah Y'shua was created from nothing and had no existence prior to being created.

The body, the flesh, can only be construed as created it is made up of atoms and is in a continual state of creation, the water content on it's own, hydrogen and oxygen, the sugars and the starches, etc etc etc, from a what, 10 lb child to a ten stone man, hair growth nail growth, all the product of creation.
When the plants digest the dust and convert it into eadible substance it is part of a cycle of life to the flesh, and surely here we are seeing the dust as atoms because the plant does not leave a hole behind, sure it feeds on carbons in the air etc (cue a hortriculturist   ) but all that just explains the meaning of dust to dust.

It would seem frrom the scant knowledge that I;ve read of this guy arias that he had quite a rational aproach to understanding far ahead of his peers, probably led by the holy spirit, however I find it hard to see fault with his reasoning that the fleshly body that was Yeshua was anything but a created body.
Therefore one can only conclude that it was either a recepticle like a box, or a reincarnation?


bernard (hug)
JamesJah

High Bernard

Will knowing how the Almighty God made Jesus give us ever lasting life?

I thought it is a funny thing about dust Einstein showed that the dust was made of light now is that interesting or not?

Then the bible does say knowledge puffs up but love builds up does it not?

(1 Corinthians 8:1, 2
Now concerning foods offered to idols: we know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he has acquired knowledge of something, he does not yet know [it] just as he ought to know [it].

Did most Christians go to sleep around the time of Constantine?
Jim

Er...
Sure;ly the whole point of the first part of the Creed was an affirmation, based soley and completely on and in scripture, is that Jesus  was NOT made or created?
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Er...
Sure;ly the whole point of the first part of the Creed was an affirmation, based soley and completely on and in scripture, is that Jesus  was NOT made or created?


Well it sounds like Jesus was a spaceman then, must have snuck Mary in on the quite, However.

From a distance the univers must look like a single ball of light and then as you get closer it becomes gradualy more explained into balls of light, and then balls that reflect light as distances appear between stars and planets, a bit like our scientists looking into the construction of matter as they find distance between the atoms and the bits and bobs that make up atoms.
Now they look for the God particle, something so small that they can't yet detect it.

What seems to escape notice is that nothing continues to get bigger as they look for something smaller.


Jim. do you believe that the body of Jesus was out of this world and not part of creation?

bernard (hug)
cyberman

bnabernard wrote:

From a distance the univers must look like a single ball of light


How can one be at a distance from the universe? Where would you be? Do you mean a three-dimensional ball?
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
High Bernard

Will knowing how the Almighty God made Jesus give us ever lasting life?


At last James you acknowledge the NWT to be in error.

John 17 New World Translation
3This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

LeClerc
LeClerc

Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Prior to this around A.D. 318, Arius, an elder in Alexandria in Egypt, told his bishop, Alexander, that he believed that The Messiah Y'shua was created from nothing and had no existence prior to being created.

The body, the flesh, can only be construed as created it is made up of atoms and is in a continual state of creation, the water content on it's own, hydrogen and oxygen, the sugars and the starches, etc etc etc, from a what, 10 lb child to a ten stone man, hair growth nail growth, all the product of creation.
When the plants digest the dust and convert it into eadible substance it is part of a cycle of life to the flesh, and surely here we are seeing the dust as atoms because the plant does not leave a hole behind, sure it feeds on carbons in the air etc (cue a hortriculturist   ) but all that just explains the meaning of dust to dust.

It would seem frrom the scant knowledge that I;ve read of this guy arias that he had quite a rational aproach to understanding far ahead of his peers, probably led by the holy spirit, however I find it hard to see fault with his reasoning that the fleshly body that was Yeshua was anything but a created body.
Therefore one can only conclude that it was either a recepticle like a box, or a reincarnation?
bernard (hug)


Still denying the truth contained in the scriptures Bernie ?

John 1
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do you believe The Logos (Word) existed before becoming flesh ?

LeClerc
bnabernard

So you admit then that Yeshua was created flesh.

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
So you admit then that Yeshua was created flesh.

bernard (hug)


Do I take that to mean you cannot answer.

bnabernard wrote:
Prior to this around A.D. 318, Arius, an elder in Alexandria in Egypt, told his bishop, Alexander, that he believed that The Messiah Y'shua was created from nothing and had no existence prior to being created.

The body, the flesh, can only be construed as created it is made up of atoms and is in a continual state of creation, the water content on it's own, hydrogen and oxygen, the sugars and the starches, etc etc etc, from a what, 10 lb child to a ten stone man, hair growth nail growth, all the product of creation.
When the plants digest the dust and convert it into eadible substance it is part of a cycle of life to the flesh, and surely here we are seeing the dust as atoms because the plant does not leave a hole behind, sure it feeds on carbons in the air etc (cue a hortriculturist   ) but all that just explains the meaning of dust to dust.

It would seem frrom the scant knowledge that I;ve read of this guy arias that he had quite a rational aproach to understanding far ahead of his peers, probably led by the holy spirit, however I find it hard to see fault with his reasoning that the fleshly body that was Yeshua was anything but a created body.
Therefore one can only conclude that it was either a recepticle like a box, or a reincarnation?
bernard (hug)


Still denying the truth contained in the scriptures Bernie ?

John 1
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do you believe The Logos (Word) existed before becoming flesh ?

LeClerc
bnabernard

cyberman wrote:
bnabernard wrote:

From a distance the univers must look like a single ball of light


How can one be at a distance from the universe? Where would you be? Do you mean a three-dimensional ball?


I'm imagining being somwhere else outside of the universe, into infinity and beyond as buzz might say.
The further away you get then the more compact the universe would become resembling a disc of light like a distant star.

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)
cyberman

bnabernard wrote:
cyberman wrote:
bnabernard wrote:

From a distance the univers must look like a single ball of light


How can one be at a distance from the universe? Where would you be? Do you mean a three-dimensional ball?


I'm imagining being somwhere else outside of the universe, into infinity and beyond as buzz might say.
The further away you get then the more compact the universe would become resembling a disc of light like a distant star.

bernard (hug)


But how can there be space between you and the universe? Is that space part of the universe? Or is it part of something else?
LeClerc

Hi Bernard

bnabernard wrote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)


According to the scripture you have quoted, those things which make up flesh, including water, were made by whom ?

LeClerc
bnabernard

If a person is outside of the universe (into infinity) then one must be part of something else, which does not rule the something else out from being part of the universe, ie nothing is everywhere.

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernard

bnabernard wrote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)


According to the scripture you have quoted, those things which make up flesh, including water, were made by whom ?

LeClerc


By made do you mean created?

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernard

bnabernard wrote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)


According to the scripture you have quoted, those things which make up flesh, including water, were made by whom ?

LeClerc


By made do you mean created?

bernard (hug)


Yes that is what I mean.

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,

LeClerc
bnabernard

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernard

bnabernard wrote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)


According to the scripture you have quoted, those things which make up flesh, including water, were made by whom ?

LeClerc


By made do you mean created?

bernard (hug)


Yes that is what I mean.

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,

LeClerc


But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
................
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
..............................

45:5   I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
........................................

Are you refering to the Father YHWH?

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Bernard

bnabernard wrote:
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Flesh is a thing made of lots of things and a priority is water.

bernard (hug)


According to the scripture you have quoted, those things which make up flesh, including water, were made by whom ?

LeClerc


By made do you mean created?

bernard (hug)


Yes that is what I mean.

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,

LeClerc


But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
................
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
..............................

45:5   I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
........................................

Are you refering to the Father YHWH?

bernard (hug)


Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
High Bernard

Will knowing how the Almighty God made Jesus give us ever lasting life?


At last James you acknowledge the NWT to be in error.

John 17 New World Translation
3This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

LeClerc


Christianity was called the way meaning the direction to walk, which is what that scripture also means LerClerc

It has nothing to do with substance or how to transmit a spirit creature into the foetus of a woman.

One thing Jesus was for a certainty is a human.

He had to fit the perfect law of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, which is why man had to go for man. Something most WT readers know about because they are helped to see what the bible really teaches.
LeClerc

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
High Bernard

Will knowing how the Almighty God made Jesus give us ever lasting life?


At last James you acknowledge the NWT to be in error.

John 17 New World Translation
3This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

LeClerc


Christianity was called the way meaning the direction to walk, which is what that scripture also means LerClerc

It has nothing to do with substance or how to transmit a spirit creature into the foetus of a woman.

One thing Jesus was for a certainty is a human.

He had to fit the perfect law of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, which is why man had to go for man. Something most WT readers know about because they are helped to see what the bible really teaches.


Then why did the NWT translate the passage the way they have.

Here is the Greek.

17:3  αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

Nice try James but you and the NWT have been caught out.

LeClerc
JamesJah

You should know by now LerClerc that I have the Greek which I do not have a problem with even in this case, why do you have a problem with it?

I know many translators have a problem with Greek terminology would you be one of them by any chance?
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
You should know by now LerClerc that I have the Greek which I do not have a problem with even in this case, why do you have a problem with it?

I know many translators have a problem with Greek terminology would you be one of them by any chance?




LeClerc
JamesJah

LeClerc wrote:
Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
You should know by now LerClerc that I have the Greek which I do not have a problem with even in this case, why do you have a problem with it?

I know many translators have a problem with Greek terminology would you be one of them by any chance?




LeClerc


Who sent forth whom LerClerc?
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
You should know by now LerClerc that I have the Greek which I do not have a problem with even in this case, why do you have a problem with it?

I know many translators have a problem with Greek terminology would you be one of them by any chance?




LeClerc


Who sent forth whom LerClerc?


Faced with the truth in front you, the only answer, diversion tactics.

Now where is your problem with the Greek, it there for all to see and how the NWT have manipulated the translation.

The Word came forth from the Father, want to twist that as well

John 16
27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. 28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

LeClerc
LeClerc
JamesJah

Where was he going?

Who was he going to when he gets there where will he sit?
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
You should know by now LerClerc that I have the Greek which I do not have a problem with even in this case, why do you have a problem with it?

I know many translators have a problem with Greek terminology would you be one of them by any chance?




LeClerc


Who sent forth whom LerClerc?


Faced with the truth in front you, the only answer, diversion tactics.

Now where is your problem with the Greek, it there for all to see and how the NWT have manipulated the translation.

The Word came forth from the Father, want to twist that as well

John 16
27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. 28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

LeClerc
JamesJah

What do you understand the word to be exactly LerClerc?
LeClerc

Morning james

JamesJah wrote:
What do you understand the word to be exactly LerClerc?


What does scripture teach James

1 John 1 NWT
1That which was from [the] beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have viewed attentively and our hands felt, concerning the word of life,2(yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to ​YOU​ the everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us,)

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

I prefer the Aramaic ''Miltha'' to the English ''Word''

LeClerc
JamesJah

Hallow again LerClerc

I prefer spokes person it makes things much plainer than it is the same God.
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
Hallow again LerClerc

I prefer spokes person it makes things much plainer than it is the same God.


Which brings us back on track about Nicea.

Out of what substance was the one you refer too as spokes person formed ?

LeClerc
JamesJah

Hallow again LerClerc

Do you know why humans can not see the answer to that question?

1 John 3:2, 3
Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be.

We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.
And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
Hallow again LerClerc

I prefer spokes person it makes things much plainer than it is the same God.


Which brings us back on track about Nicea.

Out of what substance was the one you refer too as spokes person formed ?

Still waiting James, no answer as usual.

LeClerc
bnabernard

Dust.

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

I think you will find Bernard the very, very, clever people will be able to say light.

Any one know what light is made of?


Isaiah 40:26
Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name.

Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

Back to Einstein’s E=MC squared
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
I think you will find Bernard the very, very, clever people will be able to say light.

Any one know what light is made of?


Isaiah 40:26
Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name.

Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

Back to Einstein’s E=MC squared


Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Dust.

bernard (hug)


The WT teaching then, that the Word is the first of God's creation is not true then.

Since according to both of your replies the substance out which the Word was created must have been the first of God's creation.

The truth is, The Word came forth out of YHWH and is by substance therefore YHWH.

LeClerc
JamesJah

LerClerc, your round the houses logic brings us back to the first lie spoken by Satan.

the reason I have showen but you do not see what it is saying, THAT ALL things are made of energy so the all come from the same scorce.

Genesis 3:4, 5
At this the serpent said to the woman: you positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
LerClerc, your round the houses logic brings us back to the first lie spoken by Satan.

the reason I have showen but you do not see what it is saying, THAT ALL things are made of energy so the all come from the same scorce.

Genesis 3:4, 5
At this the serpent said to the woman: you positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.


The energy to which you refer, are you saying this energy is YHWH ?

Are you now saying YHWH created all that exists out of Himself ?

LeClerc
JamesJah

What are you saying LerClerc?
LeClerc

Hi James

JamesJah wrote:
What are you saying LerClerc?


Well having read what you have posted

JamesJah wrote:
LerClerc, your round the houses logic brings us back to the first lie spoken by Satan.

the reason I have showen but you do not see what it is saying, THAT ALL things are made of energy so the all come from the same scorce.

Genesis 3:4, 5
At this the serpent said to the woman: you positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.


I am asking you

The energy to which you refer, are you saying this energy is YHWH ?

Are you now saying YHWH created all that exists out of Himself ?

LeClerc
bnabernard

LeClerc do you say that YHWH has a size, a dimension?

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

It seems to me that he is saying Jesus is made of Jehovah so he is Jehovah,

Did Jesus say that when he was here NO he did not, he says his Father was greater, which brings us back to rank and order in the universe or chain of command something the equal God Head denies, does it not?
bnabernard

Being in charge of the universe is one thing but being in charge of infinity is another. A God could not be Almighty if said God was not awre and in charge of infinity because another God could be somewhere else and be equal or even superior, it would be a case of the most almighty God presently known.
Now that takes something beyond my imagination to be in charge of infinity cos when I try to imagine it it just goes on and on.

Whatever exist's on an equal standing with infinity must equally be infinite.

And something equal to infinity is hardly going to be represented as a man/flesh on a grain of sand in the universe, so I wonder what size and dimension our friend Leclerc puts on God  

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

He Almighty God that is Bernard, can name the stars so there is a limit to the universe then is there not or is he still giving them names?

Isaiah 40:26
Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:


Whatever exists on an equal standing with infinity must equally be infinite.



Agreed

bnabernard wrote:


And something equal to infinity is hardly going to be represented as a man/flesh on a grain of sand in the universe,


Why not?  It's His created grain of sand in His created universe where He created Ad-am in His image, for His purposes . . . and the rest, as they say is history.  It's a sign of His infinite love that He became flesh in Christ Jesus.
Jim

In our conceptualisation, the idea of God pouring Himself into human form as Jesus is incomprehensable, as is, in all honesty, the depths of the concept of tri-unity.
IN OUR CONCEPTUALISATION.
But we are NOT GOD. How can we possibly fathom His purposes?

How can we possibly relate to that which is so far beyond anything we can put into words?
We don't have to.
As scripture says;
"God was in the world, reconciling the world to Himself..."
JamesJah

Most Clergies cop out to explaining the trinity is that it is a mystery, which it is because there is no such thing mentioned in scripture.

There is no three gods equal in power substance and glory, so why keep harping on the subject, is it because most are afraid of what one Almighty God might require of us?
bnabernard

For the moment I'm minded of the christmas films where a person wishes they had never been born, then an angel shows them what life would have been like without them.

It's the concept, now take for instance Adam, shown the out come of his sin and given the oppotunity to return as the obedient son of God.


However, Jim Ketty you speak of things beyond the imagination and satisfy yourselves with 'a mystery' when science in it's attempt to equal God reveals mysteries for you.

Flesh is dust, but then all of creation is dust, a plant does turn into a pile of dust, a bush is not a heap of mud nor the massive trees, they process the dust/dirt they harvest the energy in the dirt, and we harvest the energy in the plants and flesh is formed.
Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus was the harvested energy of the dust Fully human and on a daily basis he harvested the energy from the dirt through the process of the cycle of life presented through nature.

People of faith look to a future time when they will encounter their deceased, people of faith believe in a resurection of the dead, those asleep in the earth, where is their memories. I gave mention to the tacograph of a lorry, it records well you know what it records, and this history of the lorry remains on file, God is spirit and a mans tacograph his spirit more like the memory of a computor where the memory can be stored and re-instated when a new body for it is recreated.

God being infinite has no outside, therefore what is created is created from within and remains within, and my many references to Moses stricking the rock when God told him to speak to the rock are simply indications that the man has a relationship with God, his mind is not dead to God, God works through the man of Moses, and so it is with his cherished prophets, therefore for these people to be resurected to life with God on examination would show that Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus was not the first because they prerquisit him (come before him) which means that Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus has been risen from the dead before even Enoch.

It also means that he was the first to die, the first to die and the first of the resurection, Adam died according to being alive to God yet he lived on through the flesh and his memory returned to the flesh, he becomes the second Adam, he reclaims his inheritence in the flesh as his spirit is restored.

He is reborn alive to God his Father, his spirit is now the alive spirit of God, this is no mystery that a man becomes alive in Gods spirit as Gods spirit is life, there is no life but the life of God, the brain activity of a man alive to God suppasses that of a man dead to God.

However I hate making long posts, no-one reads them , and they take to long, so I'll leave them thoughts on the table for now in the sure and certain knowledge that no one will read it and no one will understand it  

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

The lack of sleep is getting to your head Bernard.

There is a solar wind due on the 8 or 9 so do not expect snow here for a while.

http://spaceweather.com/


Tin helmets are not too plentiful these days.
bnabernard

Tin helmet    I've already had the lightning bolt without the tin helmet, what should I do now, encourage it to have another go  maddddd.gif  
now where's the baco foil

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

You Bernard obviously needed one with a half dozen earthling rods, it should save the burn marks shredding your shirt.

It looks like the world is just waking up to hot, hot, hot, judging by all the programs on tonight.

But the scripture do say they will not repent do they not?

Revelation 16:9
the men were scorched with great heat, but they blasphemed the name of God, who has the authority over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give glory to him.

So what does this mean is it because of the weather or is it because of mans inhumanity to man?

Matthew 24:22
In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.
LeClerc

Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
It seems to me that he is saying Jesus is made of Jehovah so he is Jehovah,

Did Jesus say that when he was here NO he did not, he says his Father was greater, which brings us back to rank and order in the universe or chain of command something the equal God Head denies, does it not?


If the Father was not greater than The Word made flesh the Word would not have truly become flesh.

LeClerc
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:


However I hate making long posts, no-one reads them , . . .


Depends on who writes 'em Bernie.    
bnabernard

Yes Kett but then I figure anyone reading wot I post is either into self flagulation or a hampton court maze enthusiast  

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

Who spoke the word while the word was flesh?
LeClerc

Morning James

JamesJah wrote:
Who spoke the word while the word was flesh?


The same one who spoke the word to Abraham. It was this word which became flesh.

Genesis 15 NWT
5He now brought him outside and said: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars, if you are possibly able to count them.” And he went on to say to him: “So your seed will become.”

In the above passage who is he

You will find the answer in verse 1.

LeClerc
JamesJah

Afternoon LerClerc

A messenger of the Almighty who else?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum