Beginning and end of Christianity?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by 2ndpillar, Feb 4, 2021.

  1. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    As we are at the end of the age, the era of the 8th head of the beast (Revelation 17), it seems only right to lay out the beginning and the end of what is to be, and point out an escape mechanism.

    The play book of Christianity starts with the prophet Hosea, in Hosea 3, being told to purchase an adulteress for the equivalent of 30 shekels of silver, and to remain with her for "many days", after which the "sons of Israel" will return to "seek their God and David their king". The process in effect was carried out by 3 shepherds of Zechariah 11, in which one was called "Favor", as in his false gospel of Grace (lawlessness), meaning to be in God's favor.

    The second shepherd was identified in Matthew 27:9 as Judas Iscariot. The 3rd shepherd called "Cords"/"Union", Peter, was named "the worthless shepherd". According to some sources, they were all cursed, and hung from a tree, such as Peter tied to a cross by his own clothing cord, Judas by hanging himself, and apparently the favorite source of killing his enemies, Nero probably had Paul killed by a wooden handled garrote. Yeshua's description of Peter was "Satan" and a "stumbling block to me" (Matthew 16:23). His description of Paul was "least" (Matthew 5:19), such as least being a superlative of little, and the derivative of the name Paul is little.

    The narrative is further carried by Revelation in that it was the 7th head of the beast of Revelation 17, the Roman emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea, which set the foundation of his Roman church, which combined the religion of his soldiers, paganism, with the religion of his mother, Christianity, and set the Trinity doctrine as their standard. Later, in 380 AD, the Nicene Trinity religion was to be decreed the "legitimate Imperial religion", and the only one entitled to call itself "Catholic" (Universal Christianity).

    The Catholic religion had a daughter religion, known as the Protestant religion, and like mother, like daughter. They both comingle the tare seed sown by the devil with the good seed, sown by Yeshua, all generally based on the canon established by the Catholic bishop of Alexandria in 367 AD. Athanasius was also known for his support of the false Trinity doctrine at the council of Nicaea.

    The interesting part is the "end" of Christianity. At the "end of the age", the angels will come and "first" (Mt 13:30) gather out the "tares", the lawless and the stumbling blocks, and "cast them into the furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:39-42). Is there any hope for these sheep led down the path to destruction (Matthew 7:13-15) by the "false prophets". Well yes, they can repent and produce good fruit (Matthew 3), or be "thrown into the fire". They would do well to follow Proverbs 7:2 and Ecclesiastes 12:13, and keep the commandments, for these apply to "every person".
     
  2. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    This looks like proselytizing to me. I think @2ndpillar should get a final warning.
     
  3. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    I disagree. I don't have a problem with him stating his own opinion about the end times and inviting replies in his own thread?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
    Tone Bristow-Stagg likes this.
  4. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Did someone say something that makes you tremble? What I say is true or it isn't. If it is true, you may have a problem. If it is not, then what do you have to worry about? Censure didn't work out for the brown shirts or the black shirts, or will it work for their modern day counterparts. The day of judgment comes with or without permission. One can learn the easy way or the hard way. As the end time is upon us, the demons and their host are becoming frayed at their anticipated end. Howling at the moon will not turn away the coming sunshine.
     
  5. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    Nothing to do with being true or untrue.

    Interfaith forum Code of Conduct
    ----------------------------------------------
    ...
    2. We do not allow IO to be used either as a soapbox to aggressively promote any faith or political view, or see any faith or political view to be aggressively attacked.
    ...
    ----------------------------------------------

    Naturally, members have varying views on what rules a post may violate.
    If rules are enforced in an extreme way, discussion is virtually impossible.
    On the other hand, if posters continually start threads that attack other faiths, it is unacceptable, imo.
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,062
    Likes Received:
    402
    hmmm...

    8th head? I've been listening to folks point finger and accuse "Anti-Christ!" for 40 years, and they haven't gotten it correct yet.

    Yeah, ummm, no.

    At least as early as Psalm 22:
    etc...it continues.

    There are those that say it goes back to Melchizedek and even to Eden.

    Rubbish

    Paulospow'-los of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of 3973, meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle:--Paul, Paulus. ref: Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results (eliyah.com)
    Can also mean "modest" or "humble."

    Sources please? Are you one of those who trashes the Gospels when it suits, and quotes the Gospels when it suits?

    You forgot verse 4

    You forgot verse 8 and verse 12

    picking and choosing to suit an agenda...
     
    RJM Corbet and Thomas like this.
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Juantoo3 has rightly critiqued the general trend of the post above, but (being me) I rarely shy from the opportunity of correcting errors attributed to Constantine and the early church.

    So ...
    ... the Roman emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea, which set the foundation of his Roman church ...
    About right, although, of course, he as patron of the church, the church was not 'his' in that sense.

    ... which combined the religion of his soldiers, paganism, with the religion of his mother, Christianity ...
    Quite wrong.

    ... and set the Trinity doctrine as their standard...
    No, the 'standard' was set way before Nicea. For a start, we have the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19:
    "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

    There was a time when it was claimed the triune formula was an addition to the Gospel, because Eusebius quoted a short form: "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name"

    But we know that Eusebius' short form is the only textual evidence for the short reading. We also know that Eusebius tended to abbreviate and, tellingly, he quotes the long form elsewhere. No known manuscript of Matthew has the short form, indeed all ancient translations have the long reading of Matthew (Latin, Syriac, etc). Bart Ehrman, a critic of some renown, neither a Christian nor a trinitarian, agrees that the long form of the verse is original.

    All the early church commentaries that quote Matthew 28:19 use the long version and not the short: The Didache (1st century), Tertullian (c. 155-240AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265AD), Hippolytus (170-236AD) Cyprian (200-258AD) ... searching the Fathers prior to Nicea produces about two dozen references to baptism according to the Trinitarian formula.

    ... and the only one entitled to call itself "Catholic" (Universal Christianity) ...

    An example of an emperor 'authorising' what was already a common tradition.

    The first known use of the term was by Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (c 110AD). It also appears in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c 155AD) and in the Muratorian fragment (c 177AD). In Tertullian (200AD) and Clement of Alexandria (202AD). Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386AD), drew a distinction between the "Catholic Church" and other groups who referred to themselves as an assembly or church.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  8. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    That is your belief .. it can't be shown to be historically accurate.

    - wikipedia -

    The historical facts show that "the trinity" has always been surrounded by controversy.
    There is no controversy with the shema, so why all the fuss about a concept that can clearly be shown to be from hellenistic roots, and not Jewish roots? [ rhetorical question ]

    It is clear to historians that belief in "the trinity" evolved over a couple of centuries and was eventually employed by the Roman Empire, declaring non-trinitarians as heretical.

    You, of course, are free to believe in what you like, but it cannot be proved historically as you claim.
    Assuming that the Bible canon includes only historical fact [ and is not sectarian ] is ALSO just a belief. The canon also evolved over a similar time frame.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  9. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    Yes but he doesn't believe that. And I think you know he does not.

    What the bulk of his post actually does focus on is:
    Which you choose to ignore, in place of Wikipedia and shallow assertion that scholars involved in serious discussions here believe that the Bible includes only historical fact?
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Well it's historically accurate to say that baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit existed in the Apostolic Era, and that the standard was set well before 325AD.

    As your wiki quote says, the first record of the term 'Trinity' is in Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus, written around 180AD, so well over a hundred years before Nicea:
    "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity of God (Theos), and His Word (Logos), and His Wisdom (Sophia)." (Theophilus to Autoclytus, 2.15).

    What's interesting here is that it's quite possible that the term 'Trinity' was already in general usage, and so would be understood, and certainly that saying 'are types of the Trinity' suggests that the practice of seeing 'types of the Trinity' reflected in the Old Testament Scriptures was a commonplace among theologians.

    Indeed, but, and this is the point, while a dogmatic definition of the Holy Trinity was a cause for much controversy in the early Christian centuries, a simple belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one in God was there from the get-go.

    The Arian dispute came about because the congregation of Arius' diocese, in the docks at Alexandria, complained to their bishop that Arius was teaching a version of Christ which was not the one they had been baptised into, namely that Arius was teaching that 'there was a time when He (Christ) was not', when they had always been told that the Son was co-eternal with the Father.

    Because scholars agree that the Trinity is not Hellenistic, and to assume that Christians imported 'pagan' concepts is easily refutable.

    Well the elements I've dated are historically validated.

    Not what we believe though ....

    No, a much shorter timeframe. The NT text was there most likely before the close of the first century.

    I found this on the Bart Ehrman blog. He's not even a Christian, let alone a Trinitarian, but his comments are worth considering:
    The Trinity is much more than just having these three beings named at once. It’s a distinct way of understanding the three in themselves and in relation to one another. The doctrine states that the Godhead is made up of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not all the same person. They are three persons. Moreover, each of these three persons is fully God. In fact, they are all equal to each other (no one is “superior” to the others) and they are made up of the "same substance." And together, the three of them are the one God. That’s the doctrine. These three are one.

    It is easy for non-Christians to laugh and call it nonsense. But the people who came up with the doctrine were not idiots. Most of the serious theologians who developed the full logic in the fourth and fifth centuries were deep thinkers and highly trained in philosophy. Many of them were smarter, frankly, than you and me. Or at least me. They understood that the doctrine did not pass the normal standards of logic. And that applying those standards to it could not yield sense. If one of them were alive today and you suggested they were an idiot for believing an obviously contradictory view, they may well ask you how well versed you were in quantum physics.

    I don’t believe in a God at all, let alone a Triune one. But it’s not nonsense. It’s far deeper than I’m going to be able to explain, partly because I don’t go that deep philosophically. But I will say that on the other hand, if anyone thinks they fully understand the doctrine, they almost certainly do not understand it... The best theologians would consider the doctrine a mystery, not a logical equation. You don’t believe in mystery? Well, on one level neither do I. But I don’t think you have to be an idiot to believe in it.


    I happen to believe, and I happen to believe my belief can be argued cogently, logically and rationally.

    In the same way, a Muslim believes in the Prophet (pbuh) and that faith can be argued cogently, rationally and logically, but it is nonetheless a matter of conviction – there is no proof that an Angel spoke to a man. About the historicity of the Tradition there is much that is disputed. As you know, I find it hard to accept the idea of the childhood stories of Jesus that have been passed on in Islamic Tradition are true – they were regarded as spurious centuries before, and the documents from which they derive are regarded as fictions by scholars today – but to the Moslem such a belief is, as I said, a matter of conviction, and no amount of logic will sway that. Same for the childhood of the Prophet himself, much is believed to my mythological, but whatever, there is no evidence, no proof, on which one can rely.

    Each to his own.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  11. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    - wikipedia -

    Are you suggesting that John the baptist baptised Jesus "in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit", or didn't John know that God is a trinity?

    Hmm ... looks like an innovation to me.

    What do you mean by "get-go"? During the life of Jesus and His Jewish disciples? I think not!
    From the beginning of the "gentile church"? Quite likely.

    Typical .. making the issue political.

    What scholars? It is a fact that trinities of gods existed in hellenistic beliefs at the time of Jesus. Jewish belief promoted strict monotheism.


    His opinion is noted .. but he doesn't believe in a monotheistic God of Abraham, so what value does his opinion hold? :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  12. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    John probably baptised Jesus in the Essene tradition, imo
    And this is where you fall down every time: you're not trying to listen to scholarship but you're consistently trying to push your own point of view upon others. It doesn't matter what a person believes: it matters whether not what he says is valid?
    Is it been explained to you that it was a point of doctrine, not politics -- which you try to ignore and to obscure by muddying the water instead of addressing the point.

    There are lots of other issues. You keep trying to poo-poo the serious debate about the finer points of a religion that you're not familiar with by jumping over to wiki for quick little bites of instant knowledge in order to inject them into a scholars discussion between experts who have forgotten more than you will ever know about the subject. Imo

    Repeat imo
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  13. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    Doesn't really answer the question .. did John know God is a trinity or not?

    It is true that the Arian controversy was historically highly significant, and it is true that Arians had their own understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God.
    However, orthodox Christians believe that any other creed is heretical. The main reason for this is their insistence of believing in the trinity.
    It is not just about the Arians .. many other creeds and gospels etc. were in circulation, and also denounced.
    It is quite possible that NONE of them had a correct belief .. not amongst the "gentile church", in any case.
    There again, it is also very likely that many Early Christians believed as the Ebionites.

    It is clear that Jesus was not preaching 2 different faiths .. one for Jews, and one for Gentiles :)
    ..so the term "Jewish Christian" has really been invented by orthodox Christians.
    It implies that all the Ebionites were Jews by birth, whereas ANYBODY could have joined them
    if they wished. The important thing is that they believed [ as I do ] that Jesus is the Messiah.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  14. Tone Bristow-Stagg

    Tone Bristow-Stagg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    91
    I can offer my thoughts from the Baha'i Writings and say that Christianity was abrogated by the Message given by Muhammad. So in around AD 622, Christianity needed to embrace the Message of Muhammad.

    The Message of Muhammad was likewise abrogated in AH1260, or AD1844 and the Messages of the Bab and then Baha'u'llah should have been embraced by all people of all Faiths.

    Personally I see the Bible supports this view and that the Message of Muhammad is clearly foretold.

    Personally I see Jesus the Christ and Muhammad have no beginning and no end as those Messages are the Alpha and Omega. They are the beginning that has no beginning and they are the end that has no end.

    So I see Christianity ends only in our chosen frame of reference, because as as a Baha'i, Jesus the Christ and Muhammad and all God's Messengers live on in eternity.

    Regards Tony
     
  15. Cino

    Cino Big Love! (Atheist mystic) Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    930
    Thanks for sharing that.

    One hears very little about the Bab's message, and it is hard to find translations of the Bayan or other writings of his.

    Did Baha'u'llah abrogate the Bab's dispensation? Are there follower's of the Bab who did not embrace Baha'u'llah's message, jost like the adherents of the various Abrahamic faiths did not all upgrade when a newer version became available, as it were? (Asking to understand your views, even if mine differ)

    Do you know of references to the Bab or Baha'u'llah in the Quran? I always assumed Muhammad was understood as the final seal on all matters prophetic, within Islam?
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  16. Tone Bristow-Stagg

    Tone Bristow-Stagg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    91
    This ties into the OP, so I see I can offer a reply.

    I see God abrogates a previous message by changing the laws and at the same time confirms the precious Faiths by refreshing the spiritual fundamentals.

    So with Christianity, it started when in time man first became spiritually aware and became manifest in this world through God's Mesengers. It was at the Baptisim with John, when Jesus was seen as the Christ and the new Message became known. Judaism was abrogated and Jesus as Christ set the new laws, a Jew would have found fulfillment if they had accepted Jesus as Christ.

    With the Bab and Baha'u'llah, it is unique as the Bab abrogated Islam, but also opened the door for the Message to come.

    The Bab's message was subject to approval from the One whom God Would. Make Manifest and the Bab left the Bayan unfinished so it could be completed.

    I personally see that God gave Two Messengers in this age, just to show us they are all One, that they all give us guidance to the same One God.

    I also see that no previous Faith is abrogated in Spirit. What is abrogated is what it has become in this material world.

    Regards Tony
     
  17. Tone Bristow-Stagg

    Tone Bristow-Stagg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    91
    This also ties into the abrogation of a former faith.

    The meaning of the seal of prophecy has been now explained and it can be seen that those that see God gives no more Messages, are not correct. Interestingly many Faiths think they have the last and final Message, yet history shows us more Messengers come.

    Muhammad was the seal of the age of prophecy, to which Christ was part of and as we know Christ promised to return. The Bab and Baha'u'llah brought the age of fulfillment. So one can consider there is no quandary, only a change in our frame of reference.

    Regards Tony
     
  18. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Constantine, as an Augustus Caesar, took upon himself the passed down title of Pontifex Maximus, the head of the Roman pagan church, who convened the Nicene Council, appointed his illiterate generals at retirement as church bishops, paid for maintenance of the church, and exiled perceived church miscreants, such as Arius. The Pontifex Maximus office was originally held by the pagan leaders who kept the gods and the calendar. Julius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus, was keeper of the gods, considered a god himself, and changed the calendar. The current calendar is the product of the Pontifex Maximus, the Roman church Pope Gregory, now known as the Gregorian calendar. As proclaimed leader of the church, the pope, Pontifex Maximus, keeper of the gods and calendar, now considers himself Vicar of Christ, Christ on Earth. Constantine also considered himself a god on earth. Those noted are all dead now, but according to Revelation 16:13, their demon spirits live on. By Roman church dogma, Christ is god, therefore a Christ on earth, would be a god on earth, who would head their Roman church.

    The New York Catechism says, “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of "
     
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,062
    Likes Received:
    402
    Wow, you are all over the place, with no coherence.

    I don't know where to begin, but you are no more than half right on any of your points, and often just flat plain incorrect.

    One point I will highlight; it is true that since the time of Julius and Augustus Caesar, the Roman Emperor was considered a "Son of god," little g, among many Roman gods. Constantine on the other hand, was the first in the long line to downplay that role. He snubbed Rome, particularly the victory sacrifices after Milvian Bridge, thereby dismissing his claim as a "god." As a consummate and pragmatic politician, Constantine walked a fine line between established Roman Paganism and formative Christianity. He was a patron to Christianity, restoring properties and wealth confiscated by his predecessors, and he funded his mother's campaigns to restore and preserve Christian sites - why we now today have such as the Church of the Nativity, Church of the Holy Sepulcher and other sites in the Holy Land. He also built many churches, not least the original St Peters and the Church of the Apostles where he is buried. And while he did oversee the Counsel at Nicea, it is not as though he dictated what was to be agreed. (Frankly, I don't think he cared, he just wanted them to come to a workable agreement) There are political tones, primarily I am referring to his anti-Semitism, that found their way into the mix, Nicea being the final official dissolution of any connection between Judaism and Christianity. Beyond that you will have an extremely difficult time proving your point beyond personal opinion.

    The rest is simply too convoluted and I don't have the time right now, and you couldn't be bothered anyway.
     
    Thomas likes this.
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Wow! :D Citing the New York Catechism – actually the Catechism of Anti-Catholicism!
     

Share This Page