The God or Not God Discussion

[johan]

With respect to the "evidence" argument that always comes up with God, it has always made sense to me that faith is what makes religion religion. If God came and knocked on your door and confirmed his existence, it would take away the choice whether to believe, and then you'd be left with compliance.

 

But thinking about it now though, it isn't clear to me exactly why faith is necessary when it's obvious that compliance is plenty hard on its own.

 

Christianity makes it even harder, because not only do you have to have faith in God, but also in Jesus.

[BetheButterfly]

With respect to the "evidence" argument that always comes up with God, it has always made sense to me that faith is what makes religion religion. If God came and knocked on your door and confirmed his existence, it would take away the choice whether to believe, and then you'd be left with compliance.

 

Aye! So true! Personally, I have wished many times that God would show Himself to everybody, but He doesn't. He wants people to seek and find Him, having faith in Him. This is an important part of free will.

 

But thinking about it now though, it isn't clear to me exactly why faith is necessary when it's obvious that compliance is plenty hard on its own.

 

I think faith is necessary because God doesn't want us to be robots, to automatically comply. He wants us to trust in Him, and that's what faith is - trusting when you can't currently see 100% the outcome.

 

Christianity makes it even harder, because not only do you have to have faith in God, but also in Jesus.

 

I disagree with this. To me, trusting in Jesus makes having faith in God much easier. I would be an Atheist if not for Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ helps me understand better the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Creator of life.

[endlessabyss]

I would be an Atheist if not for Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ helps me understand better the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Creator of life.

 

I don't understand why when people lose faith in their religion they would become an atheist?

 

 

Even some of the earlier Christians didn't believe Jesus to be God, but rather His Son, or Logos; two different entities.

 

 

The more I examined the arguments for and against Jesus it definitely put a dent in my faith in Christianity, but in God? No. The evidence for a Creator is right there in front of me, autonomous of religion.

 

 

Scholars, such as Julius Evola, have helped me tremendously sort out my spirituality.

[BetheButterfly]

I don't understand why when people lose faith in their religion they would become an atheist?

 

Because religion requires faith in the Unseen. Most Christians who lose their faith become either Agnostic or Atheist, because they have lost their faith. Some who lose their faith in Jesus being God become Muslims, since Islam denies that Jesus is God.

 

Even some of the earlier Christians didn't believe Jesus to be God, but rather His Son, or Logos; two different entities.

However, they believed in Jesus. Without Jesus, it is possible they would have lost their faith in God too.

 

Interestingly, Islam does believe in Jesus (as a good prophet), though Islam rejects the testimony of Jesus' apostles, accusing their testimony as being corrupted. (Islam also accuses the Jewish Scriptures as being corrupted too).

 

The more I examined the arguments for and against Jesus it definitely put a dent in my faith in Christianity, but in God? No. The evidence for a Creator is right there in front of me, autonomous of religion.

Everyone is different.

 

Scholars, such as Julius Evola, have helped me tremendously sort out my spirituality.

Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMashiach) is my compass.

[johan]

I think faith is necessary because God doesn't want us to be robots, to automatically comply. He wants us to trust in Him, and that's what faith is - trusting when you can't currently see 100% the outcome.

 

Except we wouldn't be robots, the way I see it. This is why I suddenly don't understand the value of faith. To "automatically comply" would be to suddenly stop sinning. To no longer be a sinner. I don't think that would happen. If God actually showed up, we'd be sinners in His presence and sinners when not. Still struggling the same struggles and battling hypocrisy. Free will and the choice whether or not to do bad things would still be a problem for us. So what good is the added challenge of faith?

[BetheButterfly]

Except we wouldn't be robots, the way I see it. This is why I suddenly don't understand the value of faith. To "automatically comply" would be to suddenly stop sinning. To no longer be a sinner. I don't think that would happen. If God actually showed up, we'd be sinners in His presence and sinners when not. Still struggling the same struggles and battling hypocrisy. Free will and the choice whether or not to do bad things would still be a problem for us.

 

Good point. God used to show Himself to the Children of Israel in miraculous ways, like the cloud by day and fire by night, to lead them to their Promised Land. However, many grumbled at the lack of comfort and got tired of the manna He provided them to eat. So, seeing more "evidence" of God did not make the Children of Israel always behave, hmm?

So what good is the added challenge of faith?

I think having to have faith in God's existence instead of seeing God in more concrete ways provides more freedom. One has more freedom to reject God when the choice to believe He exists is involved whereas one has less freedom to reject God when God is more concretely seen. For example, the Law of Moses was given with a lot of concrete evidence for God's existence, including seeing God kill those who disobeyed Him. That's pretty scary.

 

The Children of Israel had enough evidence of God's existence to not doubt His existence. Now, they did have to have faith that they would reach and inhabit the Promised Land, which is why God got mad at them when they were afraid of the giants in the land. Of the 12 spies sent by the Children of Israel into the land, God allowed only 2 to live: Caleb and Joshua, because the other 10 did not have faith that God would get them into the Promised Land. God punished them for their lack of faith in Him settling them into the Promised Land, even though the spies did believe He exists.

 

So anyways, the added challenge of having faith that God exists allows people more freedom to reject God. Even when people don't need faith concerning God's existence, God still requires faith, such as faith in believing He fulfills His promises.

[Weezy1973]

What I am saying is we both assert Jesus existed.

 

Agreed. With different levels of certainty I suspect, but for the most part we're on the same side here.

 

Jesus is Yahweh.

 

This, of course, is where you lose me.

 

If you want me to demonstrate that point, that is an internal debate.

 

What do you mean by internal debate? I'd love for there to be evidence that Yahweh (or any god for that matter) exists.

 

For me, this issue is not the crux of this thread, but you are free to disagree. My main issue was comparing Jesus to the tooth fairy (at least that is why I entered originally).

 

A shockingly great conversation we've been having considering we've been centering on completely different issues!

 

You don't know those sources, but automatically assume they are more historically reliable. Why?

 

More historically reliable being the operative word. All history, especially when taken from one source, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially history taken from such an early period and the known effects of interpolation.

 

That being said, I would find the gospels to be less historically reliable for the same reason I'm suspect of research on climate change conducted by scientists working for oil companies or the research conducted on lung cancer by scientists working for tobacco companies. Not to say their findings aren't accurate, but when they're the only ones coming to the same conclusions that happen to fall in line with their financial backers, it makes one wonder. That's a definite tangent, but I'm sure you get the metaphor.

 

But if you want to use Josephus, why don't you accept the following?

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

He was [the] Christ

. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for

he appeared to them alive again the third day

; a

s the divine prophets had foretold

these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians,

so

named from him, are not extinct at this day.

 

Well, first, it's not like I'm alone in not accepting that. In fact, the general view amongst scholars is that this passage was subject to Christian interpolation. It's even suggested that the whole passage was invented by Christian apologists. I'm not of that mind personally, and I suspect there is some accuracy in the passage, but certainly not the parts you put in bold.

 

Okay, I see what you mean. I still do not think this is comparing apples to apples. I do think we can provide evidence the tooth fairy does not exist. Besides the fact everyone knows, culturally speaking the tooth fairy is a fake story, the story goes if you leave a tooth under your pillow, it will get replaced with money by the tooth fairy. All one needs do is record their child's room once they lose a tooth and they will see no evidence the tooth is replaced with money by an entity called the tooth fairy. Aside from being a bit creepy that one would need to do this, most parents will also know they are the one that replaces the tooth with money. Very easy to prove there is no tooth fairy.

 

...unless the tooth fairy no longer works in the tooth trade. Retired. But certainly still in existence...

 

 

 

Is there any parts of the bible (the bible is a collection of documents) that are written in a historical, literary genre?

 

Yes. Just like there are parts of the Koran written in a historical, literary genre.

 

Can any parts of the bible be historical or is it all discounted immediately because it is a religious set of documents?

 

It is not a collection of documents designed to recount history. It is collection of religious documents selected by Christian church leaders to promote Christianity. Within the writings, there are certainly references to historical places, events and people, some of which are likely accurate and some are not. Historical accuracy was not the primary consideration when it came to choosing books to be included in the bible. It may not have been a consideration at all.

 

As I referred to above with my oil company and tobacco company scientists, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed considering the motivation of the people selecting which books to include and the motivation of the authors of the books.

 

 

Please note, I said the gospels and I said that because they have been critiqued the heaviest from a textual criticism perspective. Textual criticism is based on the scientific method of critique which is why I thought you would like it. And yes, I think the reliability of the gospels can be tested using textual criticism. They can be criticized internally, one against the other, and externally against other copies of manuscripts.

 

Oh, thanks for this. So are you talking about both canonical and non-canonical gospels? I will say, that you've certainly pushed me to do more research in these areas which I'm very thankful for.

 

And that being said, the one thing that is glaringly obvious when doing this research, is that there is hardly consensus amongst scholars in the field as to the historical accuracy of the gospels. And, following from that, I would suggest that anybody that is drawing certainty as to whether or not God actually currently exists, from the gospels, is likely doing so out of a desire to confirm their already held beliefs. Confirmation bias.

 

Anyway, good discussing with you friend. I've enjoyed getting to know you. Keep questioning!

 

I've enjoyed getting to know you too!

[pie2]

That being said, I would find the gospels to be less historically reliable for the same reason I'm suspect of research on climate change conducted by scientists working for oil companies or the research conducted on lung cancer by scientists working for tobacco companies. Not to say their findings aren't accurate, but when they're the only ones coming to the same conclusions that happen to fall in line with their financial backers, it makes one wonder. That's a definite tangent, but I'm sure you get the metaphor.

 

It is not a collection of documents designed to recount history. It is collection of religious documents selected by Christian church leaders to promote Christianity. Within the writings, there are certainly references to historical places, events and people, some of which are likely accurate and some are not. Historical accuracy was not the primary consideration when it came to choosing books to be included in the bible. It may not have been a consideration at all.

 

So, which books or documents about Jesus' life do you think should be considered that aren't included in the bible?

 

(I see you ignored my previous post...thanks Weezy! )

[pureinheart]

I could find 20 kids who will testify that there's a Santa Claus, an Easter bunny or the Tooth Fairy, and I can come up with at least as much "anecdotal evidence" as you can for their existence.

 

Hey Wiser, have you ever questioned something, anything that required a certain amount of revelation concerning that matter in order to understand it? Personally, I think all of the evidence is there already without being anecdotal.

 

IMO it's more about understanding God rather than a question of His existence- I've seen much less evidence than in most things/gods people run after...

[wizer]

Hey Wiser, have you ever questioned something, anything that required a certain amount of revelation concerning that matter in order to understand it? Personally, I think all of the evidence is there already without being anecdotal.

 

IMO it's more about understanding God rather than a question of His existence- I've seen much less evidence than in most things/gods people run after...

 

It's "wizer".

[autumnnight]

I'll say again, when someone like Weezy asks questions and probes and challenges, I think there is a real desire to dialog.

 

When all someone can do is be a smart ass and take pot shots and demean, there's something else going on. And that something is not a problem with the people who believe in God.

[pureinheart]

It's "wizer".

 

Sorry, it was autocorrect.

[TheFinalWord]

Agreed. With different levels of certainty I suspect, but for the most part we're on the same side here.

 

This, of course, is where you lose me.

 

Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, "I am". Here is a link.

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

 

What do you mean by internal debate? I'd love for there to be evidence that Yahweh (or any god for that matter) exists.

 

Internal from the idea that, the Muslims, for example, do not accept that Jesus was God (Yahweh), but only a prophet. Was Jesus God, or not? That is an internal debate that can be addressed, primarily, theologically.

 

A shockingly great conversation we've been having considering we've been centering on completely different issues!

 

Agreed!

 

More historically reliable being the operative word. All history, especially when taken from one source, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially history taken from such an early period and the known effects of interpolation.

 

Yes, I agree, but this is where textual criticism comes into play. Textual criticism can be used to sort out the interpolations, exaggerations, etc.

 

That being said, I would find the gospels to be less historically reliable for the same reason I'm suspect of research on climate change conducted by scientists working for oil companies or the research conducted on lung cancer by scientists working for tobacco companies. Not to say their findings aren't accurate, but when they're the only ones coming to the same conclusions that happen to fall in line with their financial backers, it makes one wonder. That's a definite tangent, but I'm sure you get the metaphor.

 

I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think we are comparing the same things. Anecdotally, I can tell you research conducted in the private sector is very often much more rigorous than what is conducted in the public sector (academia), for a host of reasons. For one, they have profit motivations and also they often have a lot more money to put into R&D, whereas academia has to face a bureaucratic infrastructure that can be very political.

 

One of the issues with research tying tobacco to cancer was so difficult lies in the issues going from correlation to causation. It takes years for various environmental agents to manifest into cancer. With this type of research, you are also talking about the types of epidemiological designs (like Framingham study) that have to follow-up cohorts over long periods of time. It makes it easy to dispute the findings at first, especially with a very powerful tobacco lobby. The same issue came with DDT. It was first promoted as a great benefit for eradicating malaria.

thing since penicillin until Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. However, the initial skepticism came from the medical community, not private industry. With that said, I agree with you that science (and theology) is constrained by economics and politics. We have limited resources and time and it takes time for sciences, policies, theology, etc. to trickle through "the system."

 

]Well, first, it's not like I'm alone in not accepting that. In fact, the general view amongst scholars is that this passage was subject to Christian interpolation. It's even suggested that the whole passage was invented by Christian apologists. I'm not of that mind personally, and I suspect there is some accuracy in the passage, but certainly not the parts you put in bold.

 

Some of it, perhaps.

 

But how do they know that (or hypothesize) as interpolation? They are using the same methods of textual criticism that they are using when determining the historical reliability of the gospels. That method is how they can show, in a scientific manner, what is true and what is false. Of course, to a degree. There is no 100% certainty here, but there is a scientific approach to critiquing works of antiquity.

 

If you are interested, Dan Wallace is working really hard to scan all existing manuscripts. Pretty interesting website!

 

Home Page

 

Some of Book 18 does appear to be Josephus' writings. It is not very easy to explain it all away as interpolation. However, the point I am making is that the way this is known is through textual criticism. Historians never work with the type of scientific data that can be analyzed and verified with a test tube. The evidence will always be incomplete and inconclusive, but historians do not just throw everything out. They can tell a lot about writing style, comparisons to other copies, etc. Same with the bible. We can apply these methods to the bible and it does appear certain parts of Mark for example, were added later (there is even a footnote in the gospel of Mark telling which parts are likely not in the original). I am a Christian that accepts that process (I can explain theological reasons if you want). Very similar to using Natural History by Pliny the Elder. Just because he described monsters in his book, does not mean his entire encyclopedia should be tossed out or that he had a conspiracy.

 

]...unless the tooth fairy no longer works in the tooth trade. Retired. But certainly still in existence...

 

haha touche’

 

Retired from which monetary system?

 

To me, the tooth fairy is nothing like Jesus. There is no evidence at all that the tooth fairy ever existed. There is good historical evidence that Jesus existed. I can’t prove that 100%, but the simplest explanation of the historical evidence is Jesus existed. I am not aware of any historical evidence the tooth fairy ever existed, retired or no.

 

]Yes. Just like there are parts of the Koran written in a historical, literary genre.

 

It is not a collection of documents designed to recount history. It is collection of religious documents selected by Christian church leaders to promote Christianity. Within the writings, there are certainly references to historical places, events and people, some of which are likely accurate and some are not. Historical accuracy was not the primary consideration when it came to choosing books to be included in the bible. It may not have been a consideration at all.

 

Well, it is important to note they are written in a historical genre. In other words they were not written as intentional fictions, etc. Historical accuracy was definitely part of it. The gospels are claiming to be historical fact (John was likely not written from a historical perspective; mostly theological).

 

Luke even opens up with the assertion:

 

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

With the gospels, no central authority controlled the original gospel manuscripts.

 

Here is a

between Drs. James White and Bert Ehrman. I provided this because these are probably the two most popular scholars on opposite ends of the spectrum of this issue.

 

There were multiple lines of transmission of the NT manuscripts. One reason we know this is there are typographical copyist errors in the gospels (in addition they are scattered over a large region). Large portions cannot be explained away as a conspiracy by the church. We have manuscripts from before the church canonized the bible. So we can dispute certain books, but the gospels were never in dispute. BTW I am not claiming the church has never been corrupt. The bible even discusses the reality of church corruption and how to deal with it. Most of Paul's letters are correcting the church. The book of Revelation is very incendiary towards some of the early churches. So, I agree with you the church can be corrupt and the bible is very cognizant of this, i.e. Paul gave methods for structure and order in the church and how to deal with deceitful, false converts using God for gain.

 

However, church history shows it works itself out. For example, the Protestant Reformation. Important to note, we are dealing with 2000 years of history. I do agree that you are raising good points, and I know our time is limited on here, but I think there is a lot of information to pour through here. Just like I expect you to be skeptical (rightfully so), I also don’t think 2000 years of historical documents can be tossed out as a conspiracy theory.

 

]As I referred to above with my oil company and tobacco company scientists, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed considering the motivation of the people selecting which books to include and the motivation of the authors of the books.

 

I agree! In a lot of cases, the gospel authors state their motivations. They were also willing to die for those motivations, which to me at least think they themselves at least believed their claims. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than the opposite, that they were willing to die (and be imprisoned, tortured, etc.) for something they knew to be false.

 

]

Oh, thanks for this. So are you talking about both canonical and non-canonical gospels? I will say, that you've certainly pushed me to do more research in these areas which I'm very thankful for.

 

Sure! I do think that if you keep it to online sources, you will be lost in a sea of information.

 

But I am glad you are searching. I hope you change your mind, because it would be great to have an intelligent fellow like yourself using your logical mind to advance Christ. Long shot I know, but I can pray

 

]And that being said, the one thing that is glaringly obvious when doing this research, is that there is hardly consensus amongst scholars in the field as to the historical accuracy of the gospels. And, following from that, I would suggest that anybody that is drawing certainty as to whether or not God actually currently exists, from the gospels, is likely doing so out of a desire to confirm their already held beliefs. Confirmation bias.

 

I've enjoyed getting to know you too!

 

Thanks buddy!

 

Well, like most academic fields, you are going to have a litany of opinions. However, there are some agree upon facts (at least by most), such as the historical Jesus, etc. One thing I think I have been able to do is just make a decision. We can also suffer what I call "paralysis by analysis" where we can become so entangled in academic debate that we cannot get anywhere. With the issue of the gospels, we will never have 100% certainty. To me, it is enough that I am convinced. But I understand that is not enough for everyone. I do not claim to know your thought processes or motivations. I can only give account for myself. I personally do not think I am believing based on confirmation bias. I actually resisted Christ for a long time (it is not something I would have naturally wanted to accept), but once I did my life was changes for the better.

 

I agree I do not think you are going to get any one single point of evidence. Philosophically, I think this is intentional by God (that's just my opinion). However, is there enough to say that faith is not just blind, it is built upon justifications?

Edited July 21, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[pureinheart]

Well, like most academic fields, you are going to have a litany of opinions. However, there are some agree upon facts (at least by most), such as the historical Jesus, etc. One thing I think I have been able to do is just make a decision. We can also suffer what I call "paralysis by analysis" where we can become so entangled in academic debate that we cannot get anywhere. With the issue of the gospels, we will never have 100% certainty. To me, it is enough that I am convinced. But I understand that is not enough for everyone. I do not claim to know your thought processes or motivations. I can only give account for myself. I personally do not think I am believing based on confirmation bias. I actually resisted Christ for a long time (it is not something I would have naturally wanted to accept), but once I did my life was changes for the better.

 

I agree I do not think you are going to get any one single point of evidence. Philosophically, I think this is intentional by God (that's just my opinion). However, is there enough to say that faith is not just blind, it is built upon justifications?

 

Funny, for the most part, I thought I was 'saved' and can say on some level that I did walk with God. It's very difficult to explain, but it's something I knew deep down and knew I would be saved as there was a part of me that knew something was missing. I considered other faiths such as Buddhism and was a Catholic at the time.

 

I think it's funny when people say that Christians are 'brainwashed' (that's not really the term I'm looking for). Well, ummm no. Most Christians I know were the most liberal/party animal/hard-headed/I'll do it my way people I've ever known, and would call their conversions a 360 due to a complete and total turn around- we sort of converted willingly, although we were brought to such an end to ourselves that there actually was no choice. I really accepted Jesus on an operating table during the couple of seconds one has before going under... the events leading up to, and after my complete conversion were undeniable... but Weezy, how can I convince you or anyone that my personal experience was as miraculous as it was? I can't.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that this is intentional, if God were to reveal all of the mysteries, what would we have to debate?

[LookAtThisPOst]

 

I have no doubt in my mind that this is intentional, if God were to reveal all of the mysteries, what would we have to debate?

 

Right, if you listen in the Catholic mass when the priest says, "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith." He talked about how as Christians, we should be accepting of the things that happen and submit to the fact that some of what happens is just a mystery and a mystery of faith.

[joystickd]

I believe in God but I believe Christianity now is just a propoganda machine since The Council Of Nicea. Constantine just wanted it to be a form of Roman glory. Why are there no actual depictions according to historians at the time. I believe they were destroyed so they can recreate the image of Jesus. Why else do you think they can now depict him as a Caucasian and have no problems with it? Imagine if Buddha was depicted as a Caucasian the reaction that would happen. No Caucasian was ever in Israel unless it was to take over the country. Now people subscribe to a branch of a Abrahamic religion that only promotes on some level white supremacy. Catholicism in nature is blasphemy. Every other protestant denomination follows suit.

[autumnnight]

I believe in God. I believe that Jesus is His son, born of Mary in Bethlehem. I believe He lived a sinless life and died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins.

 

That has nothing to do with Rome. I'm not Catholic, and I don't think Jesus was white.

[joystickd]

I believe in God. I believe that Jesus is His son, born of Mary in Bethlehem. I believe He lived a sinless life and died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins.

 

That has nothing to do with Rome. I'm not Catholic, and I don't think Jesus was white.

 

Actually Christian beliefs are just a creation of the Council of Nicea which Constantine had some involvement in. Proproganda machine

[OpenBook]

I think it's funny when people say that Christians are 'brainwashed' (that's not really the term I'm looking for). Well, ummm no. Most Christians I know were the most liberal/party animal/hard-headed/I'll do it my way people I've ever known, and would call their conversions a 360 due to a complete and total turn around- we sort of converted willingly, although we were brought to such an end to ourselves that there actually was no choice. I really accepted Jesus on an operating table during the couple of seconds one has before going under... the events leading up to, and after my complete conversion were undeniable... but Weezy, how can I convince you or anyone that my personal experience was as miraculous as it was? I can't.

 

Agreed! You know what sends chills up and down my spine though? The Bible says that He chose US, not the other way around (even though we think we did!). Ephesians 1:4, John 15:16, 1 Peter 2:9,... :bunny:

[autumnnight]

Actually Christian beliefs are just a creation of the Council of Nicea which Constantine had some involvement in. Proproganda machine

 

Nope. Incorrect. Have a nice day.

[joystickd]

Nope. Incorrect. Have a nice day.

 

The First*Council of Nicaea*(/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a*councilof Christian bishops convened inNicaea*in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical*council*was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

 

Let's logically look at this. Why would an Emperor convene something such as this? He did it because he recognized it as a growing religion and knew if he could in someway dictate the doctrine that it would benefit him. Why would a Bishop of Rome take higher precedence than the Bishop of Jerusalem? Come on and don't give me the Peter excuse. Most religions that start one place and have a leader in another don't have that for the greater good of all people.

[OpenBook]

Yes Constantine was human and a weak-fleshed sinner, just like the rest of us. But Christianity spread & flourished as a result of his efforts. He got the job done - the message survived. So nanny-nanny boo boo.

[joystickd]

Yes Constantine was human and a weak-fleshed sinner, just like the rest of us. But Christianity spread & flourished as a result of his efforts. He got the job done - the message survived. So nanny-nanny boo boo.

 

A corrupt message.

 

I believe in God but this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

It's not what God wanted. If it would have been anywhere it would have been in Jerusalem and the High Priest has authority. It would be as it was back in the day. No European or anyone else but a Levite should have the highest authority. It's dictated in the Bible you all read. That is why Christianity is corrupt.

Edited July 24, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Merge

[TheFinalWord]

Actually Christian beliefs are just a creation of the Council of Nicea which Constantine had some involvement in. Proproganda machine

 

The council of Nicaea was mainly established to debate the idea that Jesus was a created being, i.e. The Son was a product of the Father. Arianism was a heresy that arose in the fourth century and stated Christ was a created being, a product of the Father (in the third century the heresy of the day was Modalism, the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine, but not three distinct persons...there is one God that plays three different roles). The Council is famous for carefully laying the foundation for the doctrine of the trinity. Of the council there were the Athanasians (thought Christ and God were of the same substance), the Arians (Christ was created by God; about 6 bishops), 80 or so held a semi-Arian view (Christ and God were of a similar substance, but not the same), and about 200 didn't have an established opinion. The Athanasians won the debate and the Nicene Creed was confirmed by the council. There were political ramifications for this council as well (for Constantine). This wasn't the end of the dispute. It went on until the Council of Alexandria (approx. 360 AD; mainly due to the way the Nicene Creed was translated the word "substance" in Greek). However, the councils conclusions were refined over time, even until modern times with the discovery of the Granville-Sharp construction.

 

The council of Nicaea was not the first council held or the last. Here is a list of early councils.

 

The first council, the Council at Jerusalem, was led by the apostles and elders to determine whether the gentiles (non-Jews) had to obey the Law of Moses in addition to affirming faith in Christ. Their answer was "no."

 

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. Then the apostles and elders...they sent the following letter:

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

 

Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

[pureinheart]

I believe in God but I believe Christianity now is just a propoganda machine since The Council Of Nicea. Constantine just wanted it to be a form of Roman glory. Why are there no actual depictions according to historians at the time. I believe they were destroyed so they can recreate the image of Jesus. Why else do you think they can now depict him as a Caucasian and have no problems with it? Imagine if Buddha was depicted as a Caucasian the reaction that would happen. No Caucasian was ever in Israel unless it was to take over the country. Now people subscribe to a branch of a Abrahamic religion that only promotes on some level white supremacy. Catholicism in nature is blasphemy. Every other protestant denomination follows suit.

 

Oh Lord have mercy JS, not everything white is about white supremacy... that would be like saying every black is about black supremacy- it just isn't the truth.

 

All of the 'likenesses' of Jesus I've ever been exposed to look Jewish to me.

 

Catholicism has some stuff that's off (as does every denomination), but salvation is right on the money and IMO that's the main deal.