|
Post by soterking on Sept 11, 2007 9:30:34 GMT -5
Joseph,
They are leaving this information out because it is conspiratorial and not true. Have you ever thought about that??
We have the Nicean creed and it's canons...you can read it for yourself.
soter king
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 11, 2007 20:11:02 GMT -5
It is fact that the nicean council is when the baptism of the trinity became cannon. It was judged by Constantine who at the time was not a christian of any sort. Nor held any beliefs. He was still a pagan and held to many pagan practices. It is Fact that the Logos theory was concocted to explain who Jesus was to the upper class of Rome. That at the time the Majority of Believers were in fact Oneness believing Christians. Which is to say the believed in ONE absolute God in number, not unity. They were considered to have a Jewish standpoint of who God is. Romans didn't want to be like the Jews, in fact trinitarians persucuted Jews because they also rejected the trinity. The Nicean creed is cannon for the Catholic church. It is where their doctrine originates from. Every amemdment in the cannon always refers back to the Nicean fathers never before and they always add to it.
Catholics consider anyone baptized in the triune form to be catholic regardless of what you call yourself. Throughout history the battle with rebaptizing converts who had been baptized in the trinity but under a different church other then Catholic. It was amended in their creed that any such person baptized in the names of the trinity need not be baptized again for they have entered into the catholic faith.
Those that are apostolic had been around before the Nicean creed even before the Logos theory became popular. Many trinitarian writers have mentioned them and on many ocasion stated that is was the majority. Any one baptized in Jesus name had to be rebaptized because the considered it to be invalid.
As Josheph said you have to do some extensive research to find all the info needed. But now adays it is a widley known subject and topic. If u just google it you can find out this information yourself.
The doctrine of the trinity was established using fear, and tyranny. It is caked in blood, many where tourchered(sp) and killed in the name of the trinity, those that rebaptized in Jesus name where drowned in the name of the trinity. I know somone will say that oneness believers killed people too. I have yet to find where they did, I have yet to find where they even started a conflict. i have a whole lot more on the subject and would be happy to discuss it if any has any question.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 12, 2007 12:00:45 GMT -5
Seraphim,
It is fact that the nicean council is when the baptism of the trinity became cannon. [/color]
Well since you say that it is a "fact" then it should be easy for you to show me the evidence, from the Nicean Creed and it's canons, that agrees with your assertion.
It was judged by Constantine who at the time was not a christian of any sort. Nor held any beliefs. He was still a pagan and held to many pagan practices.
Hmmm. Constantine did not hold any beliefs but yet he was able to make some sort of judgment concerning the creed. Doesn't make much sense to me.
gotta go, soter
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 13, 2007 5:03:17 GMT -5
Constantine's Conversion When Diocletian and Maximian announced their retirement in 305, the problem posed by the Christians was unresolved and the persecution in progress. Upon coming to power Constantine unilaterally ended all persecution in his territories, even providing for restitution. His personal devotions, however, he offered first to Mars and then increasingly to Apollo, reverenced as Sol Invictus. The next significant event in Constantine's religious development occurred in 312. Lactantius, whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son Crispus [[11]] and who therefore must have been close to the imperial family, reports that during the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge Constantine was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers. [[12]] Twenty-five years later Eusebius gives us a far different, more elaborate, and less convincing account in his Life of Constantine. [[13]] When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome - neither the time nor the location is specified - they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor" (hoc signo victor eris or ). During the next night, so Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the labarum.
Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of "the God of the Christians" and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day on, although his understanding of the Christian faith at this time was quite superficial. It has often been supposed that Constantine's profession of Christianity was a matter of political expediency more than of religious conviction; upon closer examination this view cannot be sustained. Constantine did not receive baptism until shortly before his death (see below). It would be a mistake to interpret this as a lack of sincerity or commitment; in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life.[[14]]
In February 313, probably, Constantine and Licinius met at Milan. On this occasion Constantine's half-sister Constantia was wed to Licinius. Also on this occasion, the two emperors formulated a common religious policy. Several months later Licinius issued an edict which is commonly but erroneously known as the Edict of Milan. [[15]] Unlike Constantine, Licinius did not commit himself personally to Christianity; even his commitment to toleration eventually gave way to renewed persecution. Constantine's profession of Christianity was not an unmixed blessing to the church. Constantine used the church as an instrument of imperial policy, imposed upon it his imperial ideology, and thus deprived it of much of the independence which it had previously enjoyed.
Shortly after Easter (3 April) 337 Constantine began to feel ill. He traveled to Drepanum, now named Helenopolis in honor of his mother, where he prayed at the tomb of his mother's favorite saint, the martyr Lucian. From there he proceeded to the suburbs of Nicomedia, and there he was baptized, as both Eusebius and Jerome report; but only Jerome adds another significant fact: the baptism was performed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. [[38]]
As time went on Constantine should become ever more involved with the Christian church. He appeared at first to have very little grasp of the basic beliefs governing Christian faith. But gradually he must have become more acquainted with them. So much so that he sought to resolve theological disputes among the church itself. In this role he summoned the bishops of the western provinces to Arelate (Arles) in AD 314, after the so-called Donatist schism had split the church in Africa. If this willingness to resolve matters through peaceful debate showed one side of Constantine, then his brutal enforcement of the decisions reached at such meetings showed the other. Following the decision of the council of bishops at Arelate, donatist churches were confiscated and the followers of this branch of Christianity were brutally repressed. Evidently Constantine was also capable of persecuting Christians, if they were deemed to be the 'wrong type of Christians'.
That is from two differnt sources that I googled and found. Both tell you that (not in here) He was BAPTIZED on his death bead. He was not a Christian. He was also baptized in the trinity not in the name of Jesus. Constantine was the ruler of Rome that all the credectials he needed to officiate the council. If you look at one of them it tells you how he offered up to the god Apollo and another one. If you want more I can give u more. But i suggetst YOU look it up instead of claiming others information is false. Give information that says other wise.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 13, 2007 5:06:59 GMT -5
Here is some more if you still dont believe. It talks about how he worshiped the sun god and thought that Christ and the sun god where the same.
Constantine's conversion to Christianity has generated much discussion. In later years he told the historian Eusebius that before his encounter with Maxentius he had seen a cross of light superimposed on the sun with the inscription above it: in hoc signo vinces (in this sign you shall conquer). Since the cross was the Christian symbol, he had his troops inscribe the monogram of Christ on their shields before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and his subsequent success in battle convinced him that he had the protection of the Christian god. Theretofore Constantine had probably been a worshiper of the Unconquered Sun, and in the beginning he appears to have thought that Christ and the Sun were identical. Constantine's coinage for some time continued to celebrate the Sun, and as late as 321 his order for the observation of Sunday gave as a reason that the day was solemnized "by the veneration of the Sun."
Soter you really need to reaseach this cause you talk out your neck saying prove it. why dont you look it up and disprove it once again. But I can give you more if you want it. Once again this is not mine this is a third site about him that I found this info.
All the stuff is widley known you just refuse to except it.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 13, 2007 5:17:23 GMT -5
Oh and excuse me let me make a correction.
It is fact that the tinity doctrine was made the official doctrin of the catholic church (which claime to be the true chruch) hence trinity baptism started to become popular and used within the chatholic church.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 14, 2007 9:31:05 GMT -5
Seraphim,
If you read mine and Joseph's conversation you'll find that my questions were concerning the creed itself. I want the evidence that would back up his assertions, and yours, found in the creed and/or it's canons. If it cannot be found then dismissing the creed at the start is not warranted and is not arguing in a consistent manner.
The truth is...there were plenty of Arians, Trinitarians, and Modalists during that time.
So what??
That has nothing to do with what the creed itself states.
The inception, birth, or codefication of the RCC doesn't matter either...especially when a person cannot find the "birth certificate" in the creed, it's canons, or the surrounding environment.
There was a diversity of opinions concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son...which on the face disproves the assertion of a monolithic Roman Catholic system.
gotta go, soter
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 14, 2007 23:13:51 GMT -5
you also asked for evidence that constatine worhipped pagan gods. Since you asserted that if he was over the council he had to be christian. I gave you an answer. The Creed was written when at time. Who used the creed, certainly it was not everyone. What made this creed valid?
You are talking about a man made creed and doctrine that had nothing to do with Christ nor the teachings of the Apostles.
History has pointed out when the Logos doctrine was established or thougth up. Who used it and what the original Church teachings were. It certainly was not trinity nor did they beleive it. The trinity is stricly a roman doctrine. It is not based of judiac christianity. U make it seems as if the creed existed before the nicean council and it did not.
Maybe i am missing your point as to the creed?
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by joseph7 on Sept 16, 2007 22:03:08 GMT -5
The information IS true and it is NOT conspiritorial, the fact they are leaving it out NOW is conspiritorial because seeing most protestant denominations are trinitarian it would have served THEM no usefull purpose to expose what the RCC did.Constantine was a secret sun god worshiper also.That is documented and you can look at the sun god religion and it is almost Identical to roman catholicism in every way EXCEPT the names.The fact you do not find the Apostles using trinity titles in baptism in the book of acts shows me it was changed by someone seeing they used the name JESUS not father son holy ghost.
|
|
|
Post by joseph7 on Sept 17, 2007 18:24:33 GMT -5
Also considering the fact most of the information came out of CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIAS and was put out by the RCC, I have to say the information is true.The RCC is well known for taking things out of print which exposes her deeds as evil.
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 18, 2007 6:56:31 GMT -5
Seraphim,
Uh...I've never asked what Constantine believed and to say that he was OVER the council is saying more than what the reality was.
He called the council to bring unity to his kingdom...but as far as him giving a hoot what decisions were made at the council that is asking more than history can give and is irrelevant to the council itself. Since he wanted unity he would align himself with the decision of the council...however, as history attests that unity was not realized even after the council.
gotta go, soter
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 18, 2007 9:23:33 GMT -5
Seraphim,
Exactly what is in the creed that you would disagree with?
soter
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 21, 2007 18:49:20 GMT -5
For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.
Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. To start off with 1-3 I disagree with as apart of the creed. but Wait theres more and I will provide but here is the first of it.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 21, 2007 18:56:51 GMT -5
oh and just to clarify the above was copied and pasted about the nicean creed. Jesus was birthed into the world that was his beginning he was not eternal before he was.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 24, 2007 9:27:54 GMT -5
Seraphim,
...and why would you disagree with the statements..."God from God" (meaning He's deity)..."begotten not made" (again stating His deity and taken from the scriptures themselves...also, if He is made then He is not God for He is a contingent being)..."from the substance of the Father" (homoousios, which again means that He's God).
Now Im thinking you're a Oneness Pentecostal and for the life of me I can't see why you would have any problem with the above...for all that it proclaims is the unequivocal deity of Jesus.
Why would you disagree with that??
If you do disagree with it because of it's implicit claim of Jesus' eternality then you have to disagree with the whole of the creed...and the deity of Christ. Which would make you an Arian...are you??
soter
|
|
|
Post by joseph7 on Sept 24, 2007 19:10:14 GMT -5
GOD didnt split HIMSELF into 2 beings.It was the FATHER WHO dwelled in JESUS , not a "god the son become flesh". Read Isaiah 9:5-6 and John 14:7-11.
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 26, 2007 5:27:33 GMT -5
not arian, Jesus was not eteranl before he was born, scripture does not support that, that is what the creed states. the creed is set up to support that Jesus was eteranally begotten at the begining. hence God the son. Not the Son of God.
The creed means that it was God the son that dwealt in Jesus not the father. thus i do not support the creed. It was established by the roman catholic church and it was their doctrine. Not the doctrine of the Aposltes or Jesus.
It is fairly simple why I don't support the creed all the other rambling about me being arian or whatever is just you fishing for stuff that is not there.
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Sept 26, 2007 9:31:12 GMT -5
Joseph,
No trinitarian believes that God split Himself into two beings. So I'll discuss what the trinity states and not what you think trinitarians beleive.
Seraphim,
If the Son is not eternal then in no sense, in time or otherwise, could He be God. A "thought" cannot be God...an "idea" cannot be God because they are both products of a mind therefore contingent. God told Jeremiah that before He was born He knew him, meaning there was mind activity or a thought or an idea called "Jeremiah" in the mind of God before this "Jeremiah idea" became incarnate. Now where do you differentiate between the Logos of John 1:1 and Jeremiah?? How come the Logos is called "God" but not the "Jeremiah idea"??
Since God knows all that will be, and knowing is a state of mind, i.e. thought and/or idea...then what differentiates the Logos of John 1:1 and everything else that God knows or has an idea about??
Any idea??
Soter King
|
|
|
Post by seriphim74 on Sept 27, 2007 0:58:39 GMT -5
I am sorry was that question serious?
If the Logos=word, then would God's word be seperate from him. And since God is Spirit wouldn't him and his word be the same. John 1 says that the Logos was the very same God it did not say the word was a God. Just as u pointed out about Jeremaih Jesus existed in the mind of God. For scriptures say Jesus was MADE of a women MADE under the law. also Unto us a child is BORN. Birth is a begining u cant exist before u were born unless u prexisted in the mind of God as u so well put it.
The fact that u uses Jerimiah then by the creed u follow would mean that Jeremiah was eternal too. I mean by your idea it would seem that God wisdom is seperate from him also. Prov 8 would certainly make it seem that way.
At the time of Jeus' birth he physically existed. Before then he was in the mind of God the pre plan of God.
The word says there is only ONE God that is the Father and one mediator between God and man that is the MAN (not God) chirst Jesus. Jesus was fully man Full of God when he walked the earth. He was exalted at his resurection where he could bodly claim that all power was given to him in heaven and earth.
Let me ask you u this who spoke the Logos? and how can the Logos be seperated from the one that spoke it?
Praise Him
|
|
|
Post by joseph7 on Oct 7, 2007 14:46:46 GMT -5
Even OUR own words are a part of ourselves.It is an outward extension of the heart, our thoughts which make us up in total. "The word was WITH GOD...", the VERY SAME WAY our words are with US until we speak them, "THE WORD WAS GOD" as our words are an expression of what we are.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa Carol on Oct 8, 2007 13:11:30 GMT -5
Even OUR own words are a part of ourselves. It is an outward extension of the heart, our thoughts which make us up in total. "The word was WITH GOD...", the VERY SAME WAY our words are with US until we speak them, "THE WORD WAS GOD" as our words are an expression of what we are. AMEN
|
|
|
Post by soterking on Nov 16, 2007 10:29:28 GMT -5
Why is it that some have problems following an argument??
Seraphim,
I was asking a question of exegesis. If you can simply commit the definition of "an idea" to the word Logos...then juxtaposing that with Jeremiah then why doesn't the same definition and consequent attributes apply to the "Jeremiah idea" the same as they do with the Logos, using your definition of the Logos, because just as much as the Logos was , simply, in the mind of God, so to was Jeremiah.
In the same way that the Logos is God in John 1:1 why can't it be said that Jeremiah is God?? They both existed in the mind of God, according to you.
soter king
|
|
|
Post by sabellius on Jan 6, 2008 12:38:52 GMT -5
Shalom Shalom
God created the FIRST Adam a LIVING SOUL which is the Image not physical image.It is the SOUL that is labeled the image for it is neither male nor female which is reason there is only ONE PERSON and not any more than ONE.
Thus the Trinity in explanation is thus a LIE and not the TRUTH .As the NT is commentary of the OLD BOOKS called the OLD TESTAMENT and references to ONE and not any more.
Sabellius
|
|
|
Post by evangel on Jan 22, 2009 21:27:22 GMT -5
God is one as Humanity is one. There is but one nature that is God, that nature is of spiritual substance and it is manifested in three persons. There is but one nature that is human, that nature in dwells our flessh, bones and blood. It is manifested in billions of persons.
|
|