Jesus chooses unlikely role models for His listeners

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

Originally Posted by Bishadi

if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born

Just to clarify — Arius would not agree with your statement, in case some might be confused ... Arius thought Jesus was not divine, but not that He was 'simply' a man, either. All that Nicea sought to affirm was that God the Father and God the Son were of the same essential nature, consubstantial, in fact.

Arius' heresy is actually that of monarchianism, the insistence that only God the Father is God, and that the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not of the same order. This was because he could not see beyond ditheism.

Over time, in coming to comprehend the Mystery, theologians would work out the language in terms of perichoresis (Gk) or circumincession (Lt) — the mutual indwelling on each Person in the Other, and the Three Persons in One.

As I have pointed out before, without this as a principle in the Divine Nature, then any possibility of Divine Union between man and God is ruled out.

Arius saw Jesus as some order of intermediate being (who took on flesh) who was in fact the creator and intermediary between God and the world. Arius could not conceive how the Absolute could create anything that was relative and contingent, and certainly could not enter into the material realm. He was simply too wedded to an Hellenic mode of thought to appreciate the depths of Hebraic insight.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

In short, Arius created more questions than answers, always a sign.

Of using common sense.

The Council of Nicea was called to respond to Arius who preached that Jesus Christ was not God

He wasn’t.

Arius saw Jesus as some order of intermediate being (who took on flesh)

as any man who walked on this earth was of flesh and blood, all other renditions are matters of faith, not reality.

witnesses that testify to the true, clear and constant teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is 'true man and true God', 'one person in two natures', 'without division, separation, confusion or change'.

All of faith…. Nothing pure

as each of these ideas are ‘created’ by men…. Not true by God.

You may choose to stand by it, but there is significant argument and evidence that points to the contrary — so it's a matter of faith

And faith does not answer questions but creates more “a sign”

Originally Posted by Bishadi

if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born; the immaculate is the choice of what he shared in knowledge not what people say he is

then you said

Not in the Christian Tradition ... it is not knowledge which saves, it's being. Judgement is not an intelligence text

Then what was the bible written for?

Thomas, the intelligence of your writing is observed but it is only of integrity that removes any position of faith. Faith is of acceptance, not reality or the pursuit of truth.

Until the knowledge is equal to all mankind; then start over.

Half of the terms you used above most people never even see; equality is lost.

When knowledge is pure to each and every person, then it is true to existence.

Where divisions occur is when the honesty of facts are reduced by beliefs.

Or simply when the ignorance of knowledge is complacent to a belief rather than observing reality in fact.

Have you ever seen a god and man as one person? NO? OK then that idea is removed from the conversation. Have you ever seen a man rise from the dead? NO? OK that is another one OUT. If what Jesus taught was Good, then do we see him alive in what he taught? Well Yes! Then see how ‘works’ continue life.

How can that work? Well words transcend time. So the concept felt, then, can be felt… later in time, such the same as prophecies were written then; the future is being affected now by what was written then; hence your beliefs Thomas.


and in all the religions do each suggest a day would come when someone will combine all of mankind?

and how?

By knowledge.

The revealing.

and how was it derived?

by UNDERSTANDING ............ life.....

not here to play Thomas but enjoy the intellect and knowledge; just need to work on pure honesty and no 'false witnessing'

no man ever to walk on this earth meets the definitions of being the one God..... ever!

This is pure truth each may wish to come to gribs with otherwise you may be judged and commit much offense to existence basically for being selfish (retaining belief for your own versus anything good for GOD (existence))

or clearly said; to make a fib based on your belief is an atrocity to God.

Best make real certain before opening the key pad to selfish impositions to existence (God).

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bishadi

Quote:
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning." (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)

Maybe observe the argument in its context.

I do have a little interest in the subject, even though I feel it is a bit antagonistic to thumb noses at Christians on the Christianity board. Such direct assault is hardly conducive to interfaith dialogue.

I attempted to take your advice, and look at the source material you referenced. Funny, but both links you provided are to irrelevent material.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I do have a little interest in the subject, even though I feel it is a bit antagonistic to thumb noses at Christians on the Christianity board. Such direct assault is hardly conducive to interfaith dialogue.

I attempted to take your advice, and look at the source material you referenced. Funny, but both links you provided are to irrelevent material.

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

the information was that Thomas suggest the Nicene council was about Arius' interpretation .... to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God....

that is where this 'i' was and the reference to Arian was; nice to see folk questioning religious belief

them link are from wiki.. not me

most of the material work that shares real contest of faith will have a bit more currect 'evidence'

arXiv.org Search

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

Originally Posted by Bishadi

as any man who walked on this earth was of flesh and blood, all other renditions are matters of faith, not reality.

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Then what was the bible written for?

"This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John 21:24-25

That people might believe.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Or simply when the ignorance of knowledge is complacent to a belief rather than observing reality in fact.

Bishadi — that's such a nonsense! Implicit throughout is the assumption of your own infallibility.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Have you ever seen a god and man as one person?

Actually, yes ... sorry to scuttle your argument, but there you go.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

No it was I, to put the Council of Nicea in context.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God...

Well critically that a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect, view, as I tried to point out. Nicea introduced nothing new ... it affirmed what was believed.

Remember it all came about because Arius' congregation — dockers, fishermen, the poor and working class — suddenly realised that what this guy was preaching was not the faith into which they had been baptised. They complained to the Bishop, who continually tried to reason with Arius, who would not be swayed. So, he was removed from his post. So Arius then got in contact with a political fixer he knew, and the rest, as they say, is history ...

Originally Posted by Bishadi

that is where this 'i' was and the reference to Arian was; nice to see folk questioning religious belief

It always amuses me that people assume 'faith' requires a disconnection of the reasoning faculty. It's a complete nonsense.

Speaking from experience, my faith has been tested harder and more profoundly by my Catholic theology tutors than any question posed here or elsewhere.

Arius questioned, and got it wrong ... so did a host of others ... and so does Bishadi ... now, because none of them can agree amongst themselves (Bishadi, believe me Arius in no way believes what you seem to believe), this points to the fact that in the absence of the given doctrine, all manner of assumptions arise, according to the predeliction of the person in question.

If all the questions pointed in one direction, we'd have significant evidence to say the orthodox might be wrong, but as they don't, but tend to open the gates for everyone's favourite theory ... (both Arius and Luther bemoaned this very fact), then again that's a pretty sound indication that what we're dealing with is degrees of opinion, some informed, some ignorant.

Thomas

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Modern man tends to cast himself in the role of the Samaritan, overlooking the fact that he cannot save himself ... and concentrate on a critique of those who passed by ...

Thomas

To me, Thomas, when Jesus spoke this parable, I get a better painting of Jesus by not looking at it that way, but I have never come across your interpretation before. It seems to ignore the question that Jesus was asked in the first place. Here are some more of my ideas about the parable.

Philliph Yancey says,

The more unsavory the characters, the more at ease they seemed to feel around Jesus. People like these found Jesus appealing: a Samaratin social outcast, a military officer of the tyrant Herod, a quisling tax collector, a recent hostess to seven demons.

In contrast, Jesus got a chilly response from more respectible types. Pious Pharisees thought him uncouth and worldly, a rich ruler walked away shaking his head, and even the open-minded Nicodemus sought a meeting under the cover of darkness.

I [Yancey] remarked to the class how strange this pattern seemed since the Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the people most suspicious of Jesus on earth. What has happened to reverse the pattern of Jesus' day? Why don't sinners like being around us?

Here I can picture Jesus talking with a Samaritan, who Jews did not associate with. Here His character shines, and it resembles Baha'u'llah's. However, the story goes beyond that. The story is to answer the question "Who is my neighbor?" As Jack Miles would say, "In the context of Leviticus 19:18, 'your neighbor' is not defined as anyone you come across." We do not know the ethnicity of the traveler. It does not matter. For me that is the message. . .

As a Baha'i, if I were to play around with your interpretation, I would say that this "Salvific activity of Christ" appears in different persons throughout history, who all sit on the same throne, as the Bab taught, and are all the Samaritan in the parable that illustrates the manifestations attempt to save mankind, but man wishes to follow his own way.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

That's fine, I just thought it peculiar that you suggest others look at the source material you posted, and the links you provided were irrelevent.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

the information was that Thomas suggest the Nicene council was about Arius' interpretation .... to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God....

A significant part of the Nicene Council *was* devoted to the Arian controversy. That wasn't the only reason they gathered however. And the bottom line prevailing reason typically given was the clarification of contrasting opinions among the various sects in existence at that time. So ordered by Emperor Constantine.

I have a thread to this effect on the Ancient Lore and Mythology board called Rome in transition, where I spent a good deal of time looking at various cultural and political aspects of the early Christian movement as it moved from being a fringe group into being an outlawed and quasi-tolerated group until it achieved full political pardon and endorsement. Nicea was crucial to the later transition into political acceptance. I would invite you to bring this element of discussion there.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

nice to see folk questioning religious belief

Thank you, but I am confused as it seems to me you are not so enamored of those who have come to different conclusions than yourself.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

them link are from wiki.. not me

Then I will have to ask, did you copy and paste someone else's material without giving proper credit? If so, then I will ask that you please reference and credit your source material. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I presume you know how and why we ask that you do so. If not, any of the mods including myself will be more than happy to assist by explaining why this is necessary and how it is done.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

most of the material work that shares real contest of faith will have a bit more currect 'evidence'

Ummm, I'm not quite sure I follow what you are trying to say. I wrote my Rome in transition thread where I did rather than on the Christianity board so that I wouldn't seem to be "in-the-face" of the Christian members here, even though I consider myself Christian for following the teachings of Jesus, even though I am a long time member and one I certainly hope is loved and respected here at CR, and even though I am a member that very much loves his brothers and sisters here all over the CR site including those I disagree with.

I think you may be laboring under the impression that a person can waltz in with a brand new revelation and change the minds of the world, or at least the little universe called Christianity, by your mere presence and words. I think you may fail to realize that institutional Christianity has been a working construct that is a sufficient truth for countless millions through the centuries, regardless of its lack of agreement with factual reality.

Christianity is a sufficient truth for conveying essential teachings that transcend the material world of reality and fact.

Stephen J. Gould, a reknowned paleobiologist and sometime atheist, pointed out rather succinctly (more so than I am able) that religion and science are two completely different "magisteria." They are two completely different paradigms for addressing questions. Science is concerned with the "how" questions, Religion is concerned with the "why" questions.

Trying to use one to overlord the other is like trying to open a can of beans with a banana, and makes about as much sense.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

arXiv.org Search

I am not sure why you included this reference, but again it is completely irrelevent. What has a reference to evolution got to do with the subject at hand? By chance was this a mistake?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No it was I, to put the Council of Nicea in context.

Fondest Regards, Thomas.

As a courtesy I haven't put much effort into the history of the Nicene council and other associated aspects of Christian history on the Christianity board because of some of the conflicts it does raise, conflicts that seem to raise the hackles of otherwise decent Christians who are content with a simple spoon-fed version of the faith.

Out of respect I have skirted the issue, but I would appreciate your input as well in the Rome in transition thread, primarily to get a more thorough sense of the competing paradigms that comprised the earliest Christian church.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well critically that a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect, view, as I tried to point out. Nicea introduced nothing new ... it affirmed what was believed.

I think you will find my arguments there a bit better supported if not well presented. While I can agree Nicea did not introduce anything new, I do not agree that it affirmed the *only* views believed at that time, Arius notwithstanding. To wit: the Coptic church, of which I learned while composing that thread, and who appear to hold views that seem to closely resemble my own, and for which there is an equal claim to time in existence with the Catholic faith established at Nicea.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Remember it all came about because Arius' congregation — dockers, fishermen, the poor and working class — suddenly realised that what this guy was preaching was not the faith into which they had been baptised. They complained to the Bishop, who continually tried to reason with Arius, who would not be swayed. So, he was removed from his post. So Arius then got in contact with a political fixer he knew, and the rest, as they say, is history ...

With all due respect, and that *is* a great deal of it, I think this is pretty well "a very ill-informed, and technically incorrect view," which I would prefer not to dwell on here as the details are better presented in context in the transition thread.

Originally Posted by Thomas

It always amuses me that people assume 'faith' requires a disconnection of the reasoning faculty. It's a complete nonsense.

Oh, absolutely! I agree 100%!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Speaking from experience, my faith has been tested harder and more profoundly by my Catholic theology tutors than any question posed here or elsewhere.

My faith is tested daily.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Arius questioned, and got it wrong ... so did a host of others ... and so does Bishadi ... now, because none of them can agree amongst themselves (Bishadi, believe me Arius in no way believes what you seem to believe), this points to the fact that in the absence of the given doctrine, all manner of assumptions arise, according to the predeliction of the person in question.

Do you view it as wrong to question? Or do you view it as only wrong to question authority?

Originally Posted by Thomas

If all the questions pointed in one direction, we'd have significant evidence to say the orthodox might be wrong, but as they don't, but tend to open the gates for everyone's favourite theory ... (both Arius and Luther bemoaned this very fact), then again that's a pretty sound indication that what we're dealing with is degrees of opinion, some informed, some ignorant.

Were the Orthodox correct with the Iconoclastic schism? How about the East-West schism? The Cadaver Synod?

I tread lightly here of respect, but there are boundaries too in which my own considerations have to take precedence. That the Orthodox position is the be all and end all, irrefutably so and infallible; I take issue with that. I do so as politely as I can muster, but I must respectfully disagree, as borne by the evidence of history.

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Philliph Yancey says ...

Such interpretations seem to me to reflect current cultural post-modern notions of Political Correctness, and anti-authoritarianism ... and is essentially humanist. It misses the point of Christ's redemptive activity altogether.

Jesus' relation to the Pharisees might not have been as one-sided as it seems. Remember also that Jesus had 'respectable types' amongst his followers — Nicodemus, as mentioned, and Joseph ... James and John came from an apparently well-heeled family of high social status, so I think this presentation of Jesus as siding with the underdog against the authorities as one sided ... Jesus came to save all, but certainly more was expected of those who have, than those who have not ...

Thomas

[Eclectic Mystic]

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

or what about the one I read today

'Atheism is a non-prophet organization'

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

The people who crucified him didn't seek his forgiveness, while the people who seek his forgiveness didn't crucify him. Unlikely indeed.

Indeed. Tragically, it's more likely — human nature being what it is — that those who sought his forgiveness were also those who crucified Him.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

A significant part of the Nicene Council *was* devoted to the Arian controversy. That wasn't the only reason they gathered however. And the bottom line prevailing reason typically given was the clarification of contrasting opinions among the various sects in existence at that time. So ordered by Emperor Constantine.

I agree… ‘so ordered’

Then I will have to ask, did you copy and paste someone else's material without giving proper credit?

Now this is the kind of BS that bugs me…


so let’s be clear; “nothing being shared is mine!” The story Thoth mentioned ‘light is life’.. well before me…………

NO one owns anything and will go to the grave empty handed no matter how tight we grib;

That possession of knowledge is what this fool will never appreciate or approve of until the end of time.

So nothing being mentioned is mine, created or made up; just revealed by observing enough material to comprehend what the truth actually is. That’s it!

If so, then I will ask that you please reference and credit your source material. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I presume you know how and why we ask that you do so. If not, any of the mods including myself will be more than happy to assist by explaining why this is necessary and how it is done.

Then be specific;

The Darwin thread became a fiasco but it seems much was conveyed even in the heat of battle (lessons learned from a car wreck).

Point being made is the sanchez and grau pubs were only to represent that ‘finally’ someone published a mathematical frame that shares how the genome can ‘evolve’ in a mathematical frame. Now what year was that? And how many knew that ‘evolution’ has never been perfected in math? And now there are a few who can actually look up material to see why; (planck was wrong)

So to share a reference of how planck is wrong, means either you need to know the math, or to share that entropy is questioned within experimental evidence.

There is so much depth that is being affected by the ‘truth’ as well not a single publication on this earth that will reveal all of the changes within one setting;

That is what the final chapter Understanding is for; that book of life.

So in one swoop, faith, science and answers to the questions the whole globe is awaiting comes from one thing “the revealing” and you so happen to be talking to the monkey who bumped into it and simply retained the integrity for decades all the while pursuing the fact to ground it.

Wasn’t my idea….. just trusted God, life and my absolute honor to be pure when addressing facts.

Nothing magical about it!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

... So nothing being mentioned is mine, created or made up; just revealed by observing enough material to comprehend what the truth actually is. That’s it!

Originally Posted by Bishadi

... and you so happen to be talking to the monkey who bumped into it and simply retained the integrity for decades all the while pursuing the fact to ground it. ... just trusted God, life and my absolute honor to be pure when addressing facts.

Is this a declaration of infallibility?

Thomas