The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

As for the Trinity Doctrine, it did NOT originate with Christianity but was a pagan belief that was adopted into Christianity years later
HENCE CHRISTIANITY = PAGAN BELIEF!!
" Constantine’s Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?
Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.
That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”
The Athanasian Creed
THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”
Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”
So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” "

TRUTH WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH OVER FALSEHOOD (well until Habit7 calls a council meeting to unite modern christian beliefs)

[Habit7]

Remind me what was the question with federal law?

[djaggs]

Constantine lived between 272-337 AD and the first Council of Nicea was 325 AD

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

It is obvious that the decisions of the Nicean council were guided by the writings of the early fathers of the Church. They believed in the concept of the Holy Trinity but it was not yet officially formulated into official Church doctrine as yet.

[djaggs]

Emperor Constantine's Nicene council is usually pointed to as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Trinity was present in the church long before Constantine.

The term Trinitas was popularized by Tertullian almost 100 years before the Nicene council in his debate against Praxeas. However, he was not the first to use the term, a man Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in 160 was the first to use the term (that we have in writing), many years before in his epistle to Autolycus The 2nd,xv..We can assume it was used prior to Theophilus and was held as a common church belief with the many quotes that are left to us in history by the early church pastors. Athenagoras representing the whole Churches belief wrote, that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians.10.3) The term was used to simply describe the three that simultaneously exist as the one God. A man named Praxeas promoted what is called Monarchianism, which held a strict form of monotheistic progression. That the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Spirit. This is what is called modalism in it's simplest form, What is better termed Oneness today. Despite the accusation's of the Church inventing and promoting the Trinity. We find the Church in Rome and elsewhere falling prey to numerous heresies that they tried to keep out.

As we see from history the doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching. The Catholic Church gets blamed for inventing the Trinity yet when we look through it's history it tells a different story. History shows that it was Trinitarians that first resisted a single church Government with a Pope as its head, they did not invent it. Zephyrinus (210 AD.) and Callistus (220 AD.) were the first bishops to claim Mt.16:18 to themselves, they were both modalistic in their view of God. Tertullian called him an usurper saying, "as if he was the Bishop of Bishop's." So it was Oneness believers who first wanted to be head of the whole Church, not Constantine. Adolf Harnack in his book the History of Dogma actually states that "Modalism…was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome." (3:53). Which certainly proposes a problem for those who claim a Roman origin of the Trinity. This occurred before Constantine and Arius' heresy won after Constantine which Rome promoted for yet another 50 years.

The truth is that there was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice. It was not until hundred's of year's later, 5th cent. to the 7th cent., that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.

Before we can understand the council of Nicea we need to at least understand Constantine and what took place. In 312 AD, Constantine claimed a vision from God, a shape similar to a cross in front of the sun. Many believe it was then that he declared his conversion to Christianity. Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky, with the Greek words en toutoi nika- in this sign conquer. Early the next morning, (this is according to Eusebius whom Constantinegave this account to). Constantine dreamed that a voice commanded him to have his soldiers mark upon their shields the letter X with a line drawn through it and curled around the top ...

He heard a voice say that he would conquer in the sign that he had seen. Constantine painted the perverted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. The victory was directly linked to the sign he had seen.

It is assumed it was Jesus Christ whom he accepted. The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god, while at the same time professing to be a Christian to bring a political religious unity to his empire. Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god, his coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople.

Under Constantine in 312 AD, Christianity was adopted by Rome. He repealed the persecution edicts of Diocletian. Constantine 'Christianised' the Roman Empire and made it the religion of the state. He also paganized Christianity in Rome. Constantine's plan to have unification and peace in his empire succeeded and “Christianized Rome” and a political church was made to rule. Satan began the process of corrupting the church from within. Christianity was slowly infiltrated with a pagan system and joining the church with the world political system. Baptism made one a Christian and they brought their pagan religion in to be synthesized with the church. Saints and Images entered the Church under Christian `names, the worship of relics. In Eastern Orthodoxy, icons had intrinsic power.

Historians disagree whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent and superstitious. Constantine waited until he was dying before asking to be baptized. Christianity became politically correct. Many people joined the Church for other reasons than forgiveness of sins and a changed life.

Constantine did not care about the theological issues as much as he did keeping the peace and his power play. The succeeding popes eventually claimed the emperor's titles to themselves, Pontifex Maximus and Vicar of Christ. Over the course of time the true Christians separated themselves from the corrupted church, began to call the popes Antichrist and were martyred.

Many claim that the Trinity doctrine was invented by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicaea in Bithynia, (Turkey) in the 4th century. History has a different story! Its been said if one tells a lie long enough, and hard enough, people will begin to believe it.

[rocknrolla]

2. Constraining causes force people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. Non-constraining causes do not force people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action. For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to walk on the edge of a tall building's roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.

about constraining forces.. the author is missing a point i drew earlier. if he is referring to consequences then everyone always has this type of free will. for instance a soldier must follow his orders or risk being shot on the spot by his commanding officer. some soldiers may be constrained by this consequence. while another whilst knowing full well the consequences can choose to disobey the order.

3. Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined. Determinism holds that everything is causally determined (i.e., that prior events and conditions necessitate every event).

4. Incompatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are incompatible; it rejects determinism and affirms human freedom. Compatibilism holds that determinism and human freedom are compatible.

5. Libertarian free will is the ability either to do something or not. Free agency is the ability to do whatever a person wants to do (apart from constraining causes). This difference is not a small one. For example, do non-Christians have the inherent ability either to choose to trust Christ or not? Is such a decision ultimately dependent on their will?

author demonstrates his confusion

6. God's general sovereignty holds that God is in charge of everything without controlling everything. God's specific sovereignty holds that God ordains everything and that he controls everything to accomplish his purposes.

What are biblical and theological reasons for compatibilism and against incompatibilism?

1. The Bible never says that humans are free in the sense that they are autonomously able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. Libertarian free will is often merely assumed based on common-sense experience but not proved.

2. God is absolutely sovereign. He "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). He does whatever he wants, and no one can stop him (Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:34-35).

3. Humans are morally responsible, which requires that they be free. There is no biblical reason that God cannot cause real human choices. The Bible grounds human accountability in God's authority as our creator and judge, not in libertarian free will.

4. Both (1) God's absolute sovereignty and (2) human freedom and responsibility are simultaneously true. Here are just a few of many passages in which both elements are present without any hint of contradiction. "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.... The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:9, 33). "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23). "For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27- 28).

5. The Bible condemns some people for acts not done with a libertarian free will. For example, Judas Iscariot was destined to betray Jesus, which means that he did not have the ability either to do it or not.


6. God is omniscient (e.g., he predicts future events). John Feinberg observes, "If indeterminism is correct, I do not see how God can be said to foreknow the future. If God actually knows what will (not just might) occur in the future, the future must be set and some sense of determinism applies. God's foreknowledge is not the cause of the future, but it guarantees that what God knows must occur, regardless of how it is brought about" ("God Ordains All Things," in Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom [ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger; Downers Grove: IVP, 1986], 33- 34).

just as in the example with the soldier, the consequences does not change ones free will. it is always there and the final decision made is your true will being manifest even if it means u change ur original plan. the soldier may consider disobeying the order, but may use his free will to also change his mind and decide that he'll follow it and live to see his kids after the mission is completed.

10. God's people do not have free wills in heaven in the libertarian sense. Will God's people be able to sin in heaven? If not, then they will not have a libertarian free will, and thus a libertarian free will is not necessary for people to be genuinely free.

in Heaven you have the free will to make the right choice. what does this mean? it means that you understand the role and willfully make the choice to do the right thing. noone is forcing u.

Is libertarian free will the reason for the origin of sin?

Short answer: No.

When addressing this hugely difficult question, it is helpful to consider the following:
1. God is not the author or agent of evil, and he is not culpable for evil.

2. Satan is not God's equal opposite (i.e., a God-versus-Satan dualism).

3. God, who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, ordained that sin would enter his universe. (See the short essay in this series entitled "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering and Evil?") God sovereignly works through secondary causes (such as humans) such that he is not culpable for evil but the secondary causes are.

4. Satan and then Adam and Eve sinned because they wanted to sin, and they are morally responsible to God for it. (The ability of humans to sin has four historical stages. First, Adam and Eve were initially able to sin. Second, after their fall, all unregenerate humans [i.e., those who are spiritually dead] are not able not to sin. Third, regenerate humans [i.e., those whom God has given spiritual life] are able not to sin. Fourth, glorified regenerate humans are not able to sin.)

here adam and eve were born perfect, had free will, but were INNOCENT. they did not yet learn the lesson of using free will to do the right thing for they did not even know right from wrong.. left from right.. or good from evil. upon utilizing that free will to disobey is what gave them the knowledge of good and evil. it was their first time, innocent amateurs in the use of free will department.

the author finds the question difficult because he didnt completely nail the concept of libertarian free will previously. here we see more evidence that this tree was a setup. all part of the plan. the punishment was our fall from heaven which was actually the beginning of the next stage in the process where we must fall and start from the bottom and work our way back up to receiving eternal life and glory in the perfect spirit. to become like him just like he planned. this time knowing right from wrong.. but willfully doing right.

5. Tension remains because compatibilists cannot explain exactly how God can ordain all things without being the author or agent of evil. It is at places like that that your head will start spinning if you try to put all the puzzle pieces together (we don't have all the pieces!). A far better option is to acknowledge that this is a mystery that we finite and fallen humans simply cannot comprehend exhaustively.

again because of his identification of free will he now contradicts his statements on determinism where i already stated because God creates a plan and sees what is going to happen as he is creating it doesnt mean he is interfering with free will. not sure i would call that determinism. God is certainly on a different level and cannot be judged. he knows what he is doing.

6. There is no easy answer to explaining why God ordained the origin of sin in the first place. John Piper offers a helpful pastoral perspective in Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008). (This is available online for free as a PDF: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bss/bss.pdf. See esp. pp. 39-64.) Why doesn't God simply wipe out Satan?

see where he end up?

Piper concludes, "The ultimate answer . . . is that 'all things were created through [Christ] and for [Christ]' (Col. 1:16). God foresaw all that Satan would do if he created Satan and permitted him to rebel. In choosing to create him, he was choosing to fold all of that evil into his purpose for creation. That purpose for creation was the glory of his Son. All things, including Satan and all his followers, were created with this in view" (p. 48).

or maybe even commanded satan to rebel.

Here's an analogy: if a person is locked in a room but doesn't want to get out, then even though he can't get out, he is not there against his will.

this statement i found largely hilarious in its truth. the rest explains itself i believe.

nice find btw.

[djaggs]

As for the Trinity Doctrine, it did NOT originate with Christianity but was a pagan belief that was adopted into Christianity years later

"? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” "

You quote E.W. Hopkins but you fail to mention that he was not even a Christian and he also said....
"the life, temptation, miracles, parables, and even the disciples of Jesus have been derived directly from Buddhism"

He was a bible hater who set out to discredit the Bible, please check your sources before you quote. Methinks you are a Jehovah Witness.

The same places where you are quoting from Hopkins book he actually says earlier in the passage-

"The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John " (c. 100). "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p 336)

So he actually affirms that the doctrine of the Trinity appears in scripture. He also goes onto say about the early church.....

The church ... also believed with the first simple Christians that Jesus Christ was God on earth." (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p339, all quoted within the same paragraph)

[rocknrolla]

As for the Trinity Doctrine, it did NOT originate with Christianity but was a pagan belief that was adopted into Christianity years later
HENCE CHRISTIANITY = PAGAN BELIEF!!
" Constantine’s Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?
Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.
That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”
The Athanasian Creed
THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”
Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”
So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.” "

TRUTH WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH OVER FALSEHOOD (well until Habit7 calls a council meeting to unite modern christian beliefs)

the council of nicea are scholars. this takes away nothing from the fact that the holy trinity is designed as a symbolic representation of the universal secret. 1+1=3 which is very much an accurate depiction of the human concept that must be adhered to and championed, to live in balance with God's will. the universal concept is that of a man and woman coming together to create a child which is in essence 3 entities from the union of 2. it is also the reason for regarding sexual intercourse as sacred as it is within the laws of balance and adherence to God's will (the only way that achieves the sacred reproduction of a new life). and why gay sex is a shameful act not in accordance and adherence to God's intended purpose for us and the laws of balance. considered a rebellion.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Perfect man fell

So he was not perfect then?

I don't belief man has free will, only God has free will.

Man has free will

which is it?
Well it's obvious here that Christians have the free will to decide for themselves whether man has free will or not!

In Islam angels do not have free will. In Christianity however, angels do have free will.
In Islam Satan is a Jinn (one of Allah's creations that is made of smokeless flame and can have supernatural powers).

In Christianity however, Satan is a fallen angel; an angel that disobeyed God.
Does this imply that GOD is imperfect in that HE was unable to create angels to obey HIM? It's ironic though that Satan "fell" but then challenged GOD or is in command of this realm, according to christianity.

Duane,
What's your opinion? Which concept makes sense or is more logical?

well logic is "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration". We cannot demonstrate which is true since we have never seen an angel nor a jinn so we must resort to inferring. To infer is "to deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning" however there is no evidence other than varying claims from BOTH sides and so the reasoning is that either both claims are wrong or one is right, since both can't be right.

So what evidence is there that either one is right?

If we are to consider other belief systems, many adherents to Hinduism believe in fate and destiny as preordained by an all knowing being. This is analogous to someone acting in a play, they can improvise their lines but at the end of the day they are required to follow the storyline - they do not have free will if their role is predestined. "Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has stated that man does have limited free will; he can decide whether or not to surrender to the will of Krishna. All other material happenings and their implications are inconceivably predestined."

"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…" - Moses Maimonides

If God has already chosen / knows who will be saved and who will be damned, this predestination means that those who have been chosen for damnation cannot exercise free will in order to become "saved". In the same vein, an all knowing God already knows that a person who is born in a very rural area of Tibet will grow up there and be a Buddhist his entire life; did God send that soul to be born and grow up in Tibet to be a Buddhist?

[rocknrolla]

Perfect man fell

So he was not perfect then?

I don't belief man has free will, only God has free will.

Man has free will

which is it?
Well it's obvious here that Christians have the free will to decide for themselves whether man has free will or not!

In Islam angels do not have free will. In Christianity however, angels do have free will.
In Islam Satan is a Jinn (one of Allah's creations that is made of smokeless flame and can have supernatural powers).

In Christianity however, Satan is a fallen angel; an angel that disobeyed God.
Does this imply that GOD is imperfect in that HE was unable to create angels to obey HIM? It's ironic though that Satan "fell" but then challenged GOD or is in command of this realm, according to christianity.

Duane,
What's your opinion? Which concept makes sense or is more logical?

well logic is "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration". We cannot demonstrate which is true since we have never seen an angel nor a jinn so we must resort to inferring. To infer is "to deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning" however there is no evidence other than varying claims from BOTH sides and so the reasoning is that either both claims are wrong or one is right, since both can't be right.

So what evidence is there that either one is right?

If we are to consider other belief systems, many adherents to Hinduism believe in fate and destiny as preordained by an all knowing being. This is analogous to someone acting in a play, they can improvise their lines but at the end of the day they are required to follow the storyline - they do not have free will if their role is predestined. "Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has stated that man does have limited free will; he can decide whether or not to surrender to the will of Krishna. All other material happenings and their implications are inconceivably predestined."

"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…" - Moses Maimonides

If God has already chosen / knows who will be saved and who will be damned, this predestination means that those who have been chosen for damnation cannot exercise free will in order to become "saved". In the same vein, an all knowing God already knows that a person who is born in a very rural area of Tibet will grow up there and be a Buddhist his entire life; did God send that soul to be born and grow up in Tibet to be a Buddhist?

this paradox is conquered by recognizing that God sent the devil here to tempt us whilst we still have the free choice to succumb to temptation or not. the idea is that doing good will bring u closer and closer to absolute free will (purposeful intent) as u become like God. whilst succumbing to temptation will move u further away from freedom.

in that aspect we see sin leads to greater and greater restriction and righteousness leads to absolute freedom in the perfect spiritual state/life essence/soul. newton's law shows itself here as this is how the universe machine works and accounts. karma also heavily prevalent.

the choice is ours and our destinies are forged by our choices as we interact with the universe and it responds. by our works and our prayers God will clear a path for us if we aspire to righteousness. God does not choose who will be saved. we choose by our actions and choices. but God already saw which choices we were going to make and there is a different outcome for both parties.. the righteous and succumbers.

what God has done is sent us here to master the knowledge of good and evil and why good is the right choice and to learn what good/evil really means. the environment we are in provides us a limited form of free will to command.. not the full blown purposeful intent, but the free choice aspect. from mastering this knowledge of utilizing the will on it's basic level, we are then granted access to the higher levels of will. thus there is a training and development program running aimed at guiding us to the truth by bringing the backlash when we do wrong and rewarding us with God's grace when we aim to live in righteousness.

a real life example of purposeful intent or excercising of advanced free will is in meditation and the astral plane. focus and intent are the 2 only requirements to will the spirit out of the body. this is a physical process as the spirit is literally/physically felt and seen as it is being willed to slip thru the skin and stand on its own. however one would be hard pressed to detect and mobilize the will for this physical process without first attaining samadhi/Holy Spirit restoring of Soul. further advancement would show in willful intent to perform miracles.. making an apple appear out of thin air for instance or levitation and other logic defying acts.

[AdamB]

Original Sin...what original sin?

Original sin not original any more and it never was!! The bible supports each person being responsible for their own actions. However, christians have skewed the concept to incorporate blaming Adam for their disobedience and "Jesus killing himself" to save them - a concept they have innovated. They think it to be appropriate because it incorporates the pagan beliefs of GOD having a son...and all the drama that goes with it.

It is totally false since:
1. GOD does not have a son.
2. The alleged son did not die.
3. They try to pass the buck to someone else.
4. They are now free to sin and burden the alleged son.
5. They are in for a "rude awakening"!!

[Habit7]

AdamB explain your views on the Islamic doctrines of kitman and taqiyya and why should we even trust your posts?

[bluefete]

The Religion Discussion:

We are all made in the image and likeness of God - Not Monkeys!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

AdamB explain your views on the Islamic doctrines of kitman and taqiyya and why should we even trust your posts?

AdamB is a Sunni Muslim and taqiyya is mostly a Shia term/concept.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Who says that we are made in the image and likeness of monkeys? LOL

Scientific evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and we share 96% of DNA structure with them.

AdamB explain your views on the Islamic doctrines of kitman and taqiyya and why should we even trust your posts?

AdamB is a Sunni Muslim and taqiyya is mostly a Shia term/concept.

[anoojra]

We are made in Gods image and likeness in the sense that we can display the qualities of God.

[anoojra]

We are made in Gods image and likeness in the sense that we can display the qualities of God.

[Habit7]

Who says that we are made in the image and likeness of monkeys? LOL

Well tell us who is saying it?

Scientific evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and we share 96% of DNA structure with them.

You mind presenting to us this common ancestor to which there is scientific evidence?

Why stop at chimpanzees? Argue that our DNA are 90% cat, 80% cow, 75% mouse, 60% fruit fly and 50% banana

50% difference between man and banana equates to a lot

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ you have opposable thumbs like a banana?

[maj. tom]

Humans are one of the 4 existing Great Apes today, classified under the Family Hominidae.

The rest of the Hominidae family have come and gone extinct and evolution has left these 4 today.

[AdamB]

Habit7,
Why should we trust your views on the christian concepts of Trinity and Original Sin and Salvation when they are sketchy in terms of what conclusions are being drawn from the relevant scriptures that "promote or support" those concepts?

Why should your views be preferred over others like Roman Catholicism?

What is your claim to fame?

[Habit7]

My views concerning Christianity are consistent with the Bible to which the early church fathers and generations of orthodox Christians up until today are also consistent with, and I too share their views.

If you find a greater consistency with the Bible in Roman Catholicism then that is a claim you have to prove, but presenting ambiguity to dissolve the truth wouldnt further your view. There are Shia Muslims who disagree with you, to find out who is true wouldnt it take an objective reading of the Quran and the Hadiths to prove who is right and who is wrong?

I have no claim to flame. But even when I am faced with hard questions about my faith I try to answer or I say I dont know. I do not attempt to lob missiles of accusatory questions and then run away from an equal attack.

[Kasey]

First of all, I speak of my own mind. I dont quote material to justify my writings, like most of you here. I can think for myself, and I understand that quoting ONLY ONE religious scripture CANNOT justify an issue put ON A PUBLIC forum where ther are individuals of VARIOUS religions.

OBVIOUSLY it will be a 'Football match' style debate.

Habit7, I'm confused as to how man 'was' perfect and became imperfect. How can something perfect become imperfect? If it did, then it was not perfect in the first place.

On another agrument, if something is perfect and becomes imperfect, then one can say that there was the potential to become imperfect. If one is applying this logic to everything, then since God is perfect, then isnt there the potential to become imperfect? Is he or isnt he? What standard does god fall in?

[Habit7]

Firstly, claiming that you "speak your mind" is just as absolute as someone sharing their religious view. You reference your views which have be shaped by external factors, someone else references their religion, the difference is they cite their views better.



If I had a perfect criminal record and I subsequently committed a crime them my criminal record becomes imperfect. Man was created perfect with the potential to become imperfect.

Can God who is perfect become imperfect? Whatever attributes God has they are not attributes that dwell outside of God and He happens meet these attributes above all other beings. By God saying He is holy, just, merciful, loving, etc God doesnt meet these standards, He is the standard of holy, just, merciful, loving, etc.

So God being perfect, whatever He does is perfect. Imperfection is measured by what He deems to be imperfect. So perfect man given a scope to live in perfection, choose to leave that scope and thus suffers the consequences.

[bluefete]

Humans are one of the 4 existing Great Apes today, classified under the Family Hominidae.

The rest of the Hominidae family have come and gone extinct and evolution has left these 4 today.

Says who? People who don't believe in God? What is your source of this info?

[bluefete]

Who says that we are made in the image and likeness of monkeys? LOL

Well tell us who is saying it?

Scientific evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and we share 96% of DNA structure with them.

You mind presenting to us this common ancestor to which there is scientific evidence? He cannot because they are still searching for the missing link!

Why stop at chimpanzees? Argue that our DNA are 90% cat, 80% cow, 75% mouse, 60% fruit fly and 50% banana

50% difference between man and banana equates to a lot Don't worry. Just now they will link us to flowers

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

So God being perfect, whatever He does is perfect. Imperfection is measured by what He deems to be imperfect.

So wiping out almost all life and all humans but eight in a global flood is perfect because God did it?

When God kills someone it is perfect?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Who says that we are made in the image and likeness of monkeys? LOL

Well tell us who is saying it?

Scientific evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and we share 96% of DNA structure with them.

You mind presenting to us this common ancestor to which there is scientific evidence? He cannot because they are still searching for the missing link!

Why stop at chimpanzees? Argue that our DNA are 90% cat, 80% cow, 75% mouse, 60% fruit fly and 50% banana

50% difference between man and banana equates to a lot Don't worry. Just now they will link us to flowers

LOL if they find 5 links you will find 4 gaps and still claim it is incomplete. Evolution happens, deal with it.

Yet you follow information given to you about creation based on faith.

Infact you cannot agree on it among each other either with some saying young earth and others saying old earth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Man was created perfect with the potential to become imperfect.

then that is not perfect in the omnipotent grandeur that you attribute to God. That's like building a bridge that has the potential to collapse i.e. not perfect.

[Habit7]

So God being perfect, whatever He does is perfect. Imperfection is measured by what He deems to be imperfect.

So wiping out almost all life and all humans but eight in a global flood is perfect because God did it?

When God kills someone it is perfect?

Who says it wrong to kill? Where are you getting this moral standard from? Is it just your opinion?

The Bible says it wrong to murder while allowing justified killings, but you need to make your claim why it is wrong for a Holy Creator to judge his rebellious creation.

[AdamB]

^Think along the lines of knowledge, wisdom and justice.