To me as an outside observer, this raises the question, what is the Church about, if not the relationship with God? After all, it was founded by Jesus himself.
Woke Christianity
- Thread starter Faithfulservant
- Start date
To me as an outside observer, this raises the question, what is the Church about, if not the relationship with God? After all, it was founded by Jesus himself.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 517
- Points
- 88
My biblical understanding on the matter would have to be moved to its own thread because it would take so long to explain. I don't equate getting to the promised land to "success." Just a fulfilled promise. A paradise with God himself? If you don't have faith you won't have success on that endeavor. Like I said, complicated subject. I read the Bible from an objective stance and got such a different answer on the future of mankind from that which I learned from Christians and Jews.
God does not accept polytheism.It's not about what you or I accept, it is about what God accepts.
Almighty God does not like arrogance, either.
The doctrine of the trinity does not specifically appear in the Bible.
It is a doctrine that evolved over decades .. God knows best why the church made it a major tenet of belief.
I do not see it as "useful", to accuse other Christians of polytheism .. when we point the finger at others, there are 3 fingers pointing at ourselves.
Its origin does.
Indeed.
I'm just stating relevant historical data. You asked the question, I answered. The evidence speaks for itself.
Nor does the doctrine of Arius. It's a question of interpretation.
We adhere to the words of Jesus:
"the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).
I do not think so.
We see that there was a major problem that developed in the 4th. century between the established church of the Roman state and a significant amount of other Christians.
I do not for one moment believe that it was all about one man .. Arius.
It was more fundamental .. one view was that Jesus is God, and another that he was "Divine",
but subordinate to the One God, the Father .. not equal.
Now, you can dress it up and claim all sorts of illogicalities and heresies about one man, Arius,
but that does not change the basic facts of the matter.
Constantine, with his emperor hat on, wanted to unify the state and church, and presided over an
ecumenical council. The "Jesus is God" view was voted in, and he enforced it.
Later on, when he was no longer emperor, he got baptised by a so-called Arian just before his death.
There seems to have been considerable doubt that he considered the vote representing true faith in his mind,
.wouldn't you say?
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why the focus on Constantine and this arian priest. I personally don't find any relevance to what men do or say apart from the Apostles as they were THE witnesses to Jesus Christ. One man's action that is opposite of what is taught in scripture doesn't negate what scripture teaches.. or it shouldn't. We see people today falling away from the faith why not in the 4th century. The word warns of it happening.
OK. You're entitled to your opinion.
Indeed. At one point the empire was 70% Arian. You make a lot about anti-Arian emperors, but not so much about anti-Niceaen emperors.
What emerges is the fact that orthodoxy emerges despite the desire of emperors to determine the doctrines one way or the other.
Nor do I, just answering your original point.
And as the evidence shows, emperors had a hard time enforcing anything.
before his death.
Oh, no doubt.
Eusebius of Nicomedia was related to Constantine, and owed his progression to his influence at court, and the great power he wielded in the church was derived from that source.
During his time in the imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathisers. Eusebius served Constantine, Constantius II and tutored Julian the Apostate. There is no doubt he promoted Arianism among the royal family – his infliuence is probably greater than Arius'.
The Arian influence grew so strong during his tenure in the imperial court that it was not until the end of the Constantinian dynasty that it lost its influence in the empire. Eusebius modified Arian belief somewhat, to make it more palatable, and he is considered the leader and organiser of the Arian movement after Arius.
At Nicaea he signed the Confession, but only after a long opposition. His continued defence of Arius angered the emperor, and a few months after the council he was sent into exile due to his continual contacts with Arius and his followers. Three years later, it seems he succeeded in regaining imperial favour by convincing Constantine that Arius and his views do not in fact conflict with the proclaimed Nicene Creed. After his return in 329 he brought the whole machinery of the state government into action in order to impose his views upon the Church.
Eusebius was a skilled politician. Upon his return from exile he regained lost ground and expelled many of his Nicaean opponents, including holders of his office, notably Athanasius, even though Athanasius was regarded as a "man of God" by Constantine. Another major feat was getting himself appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, the expelled Paul I of Constantinople would eventually return as Patriarch after Eusebius' death.
Eusebius brought Ulfilas into the Arian priesthood and sent the latter to convert the heathen Goths.
Even after his death, Constantius II attempted to convert the Roman Empire to Arianism by creating Arian Councils and official Arian Doctrines.
"On the whole, Constantine and his successors made life pretty miserable for Church leaders committed to the Nicene decision and its Trinitarian formula."
Ellingsen, Mark (1999). Reclaiming Our Roots: An Inclusive Introduction to Church History, Vol. I, The Late First Century to the Eve of the Reformation. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.
..because this is when the Roman Empire adopted "the Christian faith" as a state religion.
Before this, they persecuted Christians for their belief .. it was an offshoot of Judaism that they despised,
and wanted to control.
They were .. but it is only tradition that ascribes the Gospels directly to the Apostles.
Most scholars believe that they were anonymous.
That does not mean that they are based on false witness .. it just means that they are not the words of disciples,
and so third-hand.
It's all about interpretation. When a struggling Empire that adopts a religion as their state religion,
which they were formerly persecuting, insists on a particular interpretation to the point of death,
it needs close scrutiny, imo.
I wasn't aware that Arian Emperors burnt texts, or ordered other Christians to be persecuted and killed.
OK
OK
I am obviously triggered by the word woke, and the word triggered, lol
Therefore you set yourself up by the title and grouping and categorizing people as a cluster of the same
It is all good, your conversations here (this time) seem much more open and accepting than I recall
One of us may have changed, or both of us aged a little!
Ah, well sadly they did.
Got any particular emperor in mind?
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Wisdom in years I suppose. My fight is a different caliber. I get"triggered" by certain things still but not as many as I used to! My faith in my Lord is the absolute most important thing to me and its really hard for me to watch Him slandered or made less than. Right now I feel the biggest topic on I/O is the diety of Christ. We have a couple of people that just won't let up. I believe in defending my faith with the Word of God but it's not even being considered. Who are they trying to convince.. us Christians? It seems less like dialogue and more like an attack that's just my opinion though.
Most Christians believe that Jesus is God.
The protestant church is based on The Catholic creed.
..and the Orthodox and Catholic faith only disagree on minor technicalities.
..but Jehovah's witness, Mormons and others do exist. They consider themselves to be Christians,
but most Christians claim the title of "Christian" for their own creed and denounce them.
i.e. one cannot be a Christian if they do not believe that Jesus is God
This is historical, and all part of our test as human beings.
Do we insist on what we know, and what we are raised with as being "complete truth",
or are we prepared to look into these things more closely?
Clearly, we can't all be following "complete truth", and somewhere along the lines, some of us are being duped by satan.
It is only natural, that a belief we have had for many years, and is being challenged, is going to feel like "an attack".
However, a real attack is one that involves deceit, and enmity.
Is that really what you see?
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
We are His bride and His body of which He is the head. Dysfunctional for now but one day it will be as it should be. He is infinitely patient with us as His grace is sufficient.
If I believed in an omnipotent G!d, I would think I would know she could not be slandered or made less than
I think things people say often speaks volumes about themselves, and am pleased with myself when I consider the source and accurately evaluate the need for a reply
The deity of Christ is only a belief of Christians, and evidently not all of them.
Topics are held in the forefront not only by their detractors, but also their supporters, thoughts in mind appear in kind, what ya think about ya bring about it is a circle
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons do have their own books that they consider supercedes the bible so they don't follow a purely biblical reference. Christians that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible believe in the Trinity and the diety of Christ. I would emphatically add that I believe God has a remnant in every religion. He calls and they listen. One of my favorite books is Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi. I found it to be a beautiful testimony.