Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?

[Thomas]

I'm in somewhat of a quandary concerning this particular part of your post.

OK...

I think I want to go ahead and read the incarnation into this text and not even mention the trinity.

That would seem sensible. It's a rule of thumb that the Trinity is not 'revealed' in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Would that be okay to do that?

Yes.

Can I still be a Christian and not be under the authority of the catholic church?

Yes.

I mean, I have respect but I don't bow to them? Is that okay with God?

LOL, you'll have to take it up with Him!

 

[stranger]

LOL, you'll have to take it up with Him!

He seems to think it is okay, so I'll put my trust in that. It's just that we're so "ships in the night" sometimes, always just missing one another for this reason or that.

 

[Thomas]

..back to this Arian business..

Oh, Lord ... really?

This also means that they did not include the Gospel of John in their worship.

To clarify for those interested:
Arians regarded the Gospel of John as canonical, they simply interpreted the text differently. Arius actually uses John in support of his theology in his letter to his bishop.

The Gospel of John was included in the Bible canon by Nicene authority.

The Four Gospels were considered canonical prior to 180AD, the first mention of them by name, by Irenaeus of Lyon.

 

[RJM]

When the Abbot of a monastery is voted out, he leaves the monastery -- at least for a while -- to make way for the newly elected abbot to act and set up things without interference. It is still the way works today.

Using the word 'heresy' conjures bloody comparison with the Spanish Inquisition. In fact the real evidence seems to show that Arius was out-voted and it was suggested he made himself scarce for a while, as was/is common practice. The fact that later 'Arians' may have engaged in 'mission creep' does not alter the historical evidence of Arius's own letters, imo ...

 

[RJM]

End of the day it is what it is. God knows what's happening. God uses synchronicity. It's impossible to turn history back 1700 years, to decide it should have been the way that you wanted it to be, to conform with your own beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Arians regarded the Gospel of John as canonical, they simply interpreted the text differently..

I don't think so..
You also tell us that they believed Jesus is God. I don't think so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

End of the day it is what it is. God knows what's happening..

Indeed .. that is the case.

It's impossible to turn history back 1700 years, to decide it should have been the way that you wanted it to be..

Who's turning history back? Certainly not me.
I'm just pointing out that the common belief that Jesus is God evolved in the Roman Empire.

You are free to believe what you like, as am I.
It's interesting to note, also, that some Jews still worship as they did in the time of Jesus i.e. bowing & prostrating

In Judaism, the Tanakh and Talmudic texts as well as writings of Gaonim and Rishonim indicate that prostration was very common among Jewish communities until some point during the Middle Ages.
...
Rabbinical Judaism teaches that when the High Priest spoke the Tetragrammaton in the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur, the people in the courtyard were to prostrate themselves completely as they heard the name spoken aloud.
- wiki -

Who do you think that they prostrate to?
Yes, you are right .. the One and Only!

 

[muhammad_isa]

We know that Jesus prostrated in prayer, as its mentioned in the Gospels.
Jesus, was after all, a Jew.

It is some Roman Christians in the first few centuries, that made him into God.

 

[Tone Bristow-Stagg]

OK... Must admit, a little confused ...

That's Ok, if you ever want to know what they said, more than happy to point you to many thoughts and share my understanding.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

I don't think so...

OK. I tend to rely on history and evidence, not assumptions.

 

[Thomas]

You also tell us that they believed Jesus is God. I don't think so.

Well all four Gospels and the Epistles believe that Jesus is God ...

 

[Thomas]

Who's turning history back? Certainly not me.

No, you're just interpreting it to fit your beliefs going forward.

You're entitled to believe what you like about Arius, I just think it's a shame you won't allow him to speak for himself, even his detractors did that.

Contrary to what you assume, Athanasius and others felt no need to fabricate evidence against him. They had his words, and they had their beliefs ... Bishop Alexander was not quite as good a philosopher as Arius, but in Athanasius, he'd met his match.

It's interesting to note, also, that some Jews still worship as they did in the time of Jesus i.e. bowing & prostrating

Interesting to note that Islam prays in a manner copied from the Christians ... who pray in a manner copied from the Jews ... Islam's times of prayer, facing a certain direction, ritual ablutions, were all common practice ... that's the way these things evolve.

 

[Thomas]

That's Ok, if you ever want to know what they said...

S'OK. I never realised they'd claimed divinity, that's all, I thought they claimed prophecy.

 

[Tone Bristow-Stagg]

S'OK. I never realised they'd claimed divinity, that's all, I thought they claimed prophecy.

The same way Jesus, as Christ, claimed Divinity, so did the Bab and Baha'u'llah. A Baha'i sees them all as One and of the Same Spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well all four Gospels and the Epistles believe that Jesus is God ...

No, of course not
What makes you say that?

If that were true, then how on earth can Unitarians and other non-trinitarians,
such as Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, be at all sane in their beliefs?

It is mainly the Gospel of John that brainwashes people into believing that Jesus just HAS to be God.
It is the way it is written. It is very well known that the Gospel is included for its "Christology".

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're entitled to believe what you like about Arius, I just think it's a shame you won't allow him to speak for himself..

..he'd have to come back from the dead, along with all the other "Arians"

Interesting to note that Islam prays in a manner copied from the Christians ... who pray in a manner copied from the Jews ... Islam's times of prayer, facing a certain direction, ritual ablutions, were all common practice ... that's the way these things evolve.

You assume that Islam "copies" Christians, because you consider "Arians" and Muslims as heretics

The truth is, that God's people over the ages have always bowed and prostrated to the One God..
..albeit, with varying detail, such as number of prescribed prayers per day etc.

Muslims also make prostration when certain verses of Qur'an are recited, in
a similar way to Jews on the mention of YHWH.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. I tend to rely on history and evidence, not assumptions.

Yes .. you're very selective on what you consider as "evidence" though, aren't you?

Of course, "simple wikipedia" is not good enough for you .. it has to be wrong .. a conspiracy.
The Arians believed that Jesus is God, and any articles that claim otherwise are heretical

You can ramble on as much as you like about Roman History, it does not change a thing.
It is contradictory and much of it wiped out.

 

[Thomas]

You assume that Islam "copies" Christians, because you consider "Arians" and Muslims as heretics

No. Just what the evidence says ...

The truth is, that God's people over the ages have always bowed and prostrated to the One God..

Exactly.

 

[Thomas]

No, of course not What makes you say that?

Er ... the texts?

It is mainly the Gospel of John that brainwashes people into believing that Jesus just HAS to be God.

Well, that's an opinion ...

 

[Thomas]

Yes .. you're very selective on what you consider as "evidence" though, aren't you?

Actually, no. As I said, I like to let the sources speak.

Of course, "simple wikipedia" is not good enough for you .. it has to be wrong .. a conspiracy.

No. Simply that wiki is a blunt instrument, it tends to generalise ... I look at what wiki says, look to the sources of what wiki says, look to their sources, and so on ... I take nothing at face value, even when it refutes what I believe ...

You can ramble on as much as you like about Roman History, it does not change a thing.

Actually you'd be surprised. The understanding of history grows with more refined methods, archeological finds, scholarship, etc. My ramblings have changed significantly over the years in light of discovery and scholarship.