Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

[Darth_Shiveman]

1. Council of Nicea did not set the stage for canon. The church had been using the books of the New Testament long before this. It isn't as tho Nicea came along and said, okay, these as the books in the canon and these are not. That's why I keep referencing a conspiracy. Lot of folks think that's what happened, wrongly. By the end of the first century, the church was already circulating he four gospels and some of the Pauline corpus. Marcion the heretic had formulated his canon in the mid 2nd century which sped up the church's need to formulate he canon. There were many early versions of the canon, Muratorian canon in the mid 2nd century, Origen, Irenaeus, all of these had a list of NT books before Nicea. These list included most books that are currently in our Nt, some added Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Eusebius has a list at the end of the 3rd century with 3 categories of books: the universally agreed upon that included 22 books of the NT; books that were debatable but mostly accepted James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, then the doubtful books that were the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Athanasius at the end of the 4th century has a canon and this canon is our NT today, all 27 books. Two synods of the church would eventually confirm this canon in 393 and 397. s you can see, Nicea did not set the stage for Canon. The canon was in the works long before Nicea. And even then, these books were already being used by the church. They were circulating and being used in worship by the church from the end of the 1st century. These 27 books were included not because some authority decided it, but rather, because their inherent authority was recognized by the church. Four questions were asked: 1. Did he books have their own inherent authority? 2. Did the church use them in worship? 3. Was the book consistent with other books in the canon? 4. And most important, was the book associated with an apostle?

This is again getting into semantics, but mentioning that a canon was was agreed upon by the Church in the decades following the council of Nicea doesn't discredit that it set the stage for a establishing an official church canon. Different churches had their own canons before and during Nicea. After the second ecumenical, there was a widely accepted canon.

Second, I never denied that Arians were a part of the visible early church, but. biblically, they were not part of the church. And it isn't as tho Nicea decided these guys were heretics when they were just part of the church before. Arias was excommunicated at the council of Alexandria in 321. His teachings had become a problem however, so Nicea was called and the orthodox view and Athanasius won and the word homoousios was formed to describe the person of Christ. It is the orthodox view, because it is the biblical view. Arianism was and still is a heresy.

And no, if things had gone the other way, which, of course, they couldn't have, I wouldn't be arguing for Arius. There is no biblical support for the teachings of Arianism. Period. I understand that we live in a postmodern world, but there is such a thing as truth.

The Bible never mentions Arians, so you can't that "biblically they were never part of the church" anymore than I can say "biblically Baptists are not a part of God's church" lol

As for no biblical support, you realize the Arians used biblical (often Old Testament, but NT as well) writings to justify their beliefs, right? They believed that God created Jesus, who was of somewhat lesser status than God, because of verses that say things like "the Father is greater than I." They had different interpretations of the scripture, but it's not like they were making things up out of thin air.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

Yes, and when a priest goes through the holy ritual of communion, wine becomes that blood and drinking it forgives sins.


With his apostles after he came back to the dead and revealed himself to them.

There is nowhere in the scriptures saying the fruit of the vine literally turns to blood. It represents it.

The church Jesus died for began on the day of Pentecost, when approximately 3000 were baptized and added to the church. Nowhere in the scriptures is anything mentioned about Catholicism...where did it come from? Man. It's an addition to God's word which He forbids to happen, based on Rev 22:18-19.

 

[BigZiti09]

Wasting your time arguing with someone who has openly mocked Christianity on this board.

 

[drvenner]

Please remember

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

This is again getting into semantics, but mentioning that a canon was was agreed upon by the Church in the decades following the council of Nicea doesn't discredit that it set the stage for a establishing an official church canon. Different churches had their own canons before and during Nicea. After the second ecumenical, there was a widely accepted canon.




The Bible never mentions Arians, so you can't that "biblically they were never part of the church" anymore than I can say "biblically Baptists are not a part of God's church" lol

As for no biblical support, you realize the Arians used biblical (often Old Testament, but NT as well) writings to justify their beliefs, right? They believed that God created Jesus, who was of somewhat lesser status than God, because of verses that say things like "the Father is greater than I." They had different interpretations of the scripture, but it's not like they were making things up out of thin air.

I understand that many people use the Bible for many different things. I could say, the Bible says that we should do everything quickly (John 13:27)! That doesn't mean that I am right. We can see clearly that the Arians were in error when we judge them by the Bible. You can literally use the Bible to claim anything, that doesn't make it right. In order to believe what you say in paragraph 2 regarding Jesus, you would have to ignore the New Testament teaching concerning Christ and pick and choose passages to suit your purposes. Which is what Arius did. Just like every other heretic has always done.

 

[Glitch]

This is again getting into semantics, but mentioning that a canon was was agreed upon by the Church in the decades following the council of Nicea doesn't discredit that it set the stage for a establishing an official church canon. Different churches had their own canons before and during Nicea. After the second ecumenical, there was a widely accepted canon.




The Bible never mentions Arians, so you can't that "biblically they were never part of the church" anymore than I can say "biblically Baptists are not a part of God's church" lol

As for no biblical support, you realize the Arians used biblical (often Old Testament, but NT as well) writings to justify their beliefs, right? They believed that God created Jesus, who was of somewhat lesser status than God, because of verses that say things like "the Father is greater than I." They had different interpretations of the scripture, but it's not like they were making things up out of thin air.

Here is the biblical evidence against the Arians argument that God created Jesus:

John 1:1-4
"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomehttp://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm#footnotes it."

Jesus was with God and was God. It doesn't get much clearer than that, so the Arians were not following the Gospel to make their argument.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Wasting your time arguing with someone who has openly mocked Christianity on this board.

It's not a waste of time if there is anyone else on this board that is actually curious of these things and needs to know the truth. I presented the gospel above, and I believe in the power of God through the gospel. When the gospel is presented, it's never a waste of time.

 

[WallyBalls]

The same can be said about many (not all) Muslim terrorists too though. Terrorism is, by definition, an act done for political aims. Those guys are still Islamic terrorists though. And McVeigh was still a christian terrorist.

Can't say I agree with that. Sure, the label technically fits, but I would say they aren't even close to the same thing. He wasn't coming from radicalized Christian beliefs, whereas the majority of Muslim terrorists are (even if its because they feel politically motivated, it still traces back to and is usually justified within their beliefs. The martyrdom, sacrifice, etc)

I see it more as he was a terrorist that happened be raised with some Christian beliefs, but I can agree to disagree there.

 

[BigZiti09]

It's not a waste of time if there is anyone else on this board that is actually curious of these things and needs to know the truth. I presented the gospel above, and I believe in the power of God through the gospel. When the gospel is presented, it's never a waste of time.

That is a fair point. At some point, Matthew 7:6 comes into play though.

His motive in having this discussion with you is to belittle Christianity. Not the first time I've seen this convo.

 

[Glitch]

Wasting your time arguing with someone who has openly mocked Christianity on this board.

The same was said about Saul too. He not only mocked Christians but openly persecuted and killed them. He then became one of the greatest examples of God's power to change a person's heart that the world has ever witnessed.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

That is a fair point. At some point, Matthew 7:6 comes into play though.

His motive in having this discussion with you is to belittle Christianity. Not the first time I've seen this convo.

That's a fair point

 

[BigZiti09]

The same was said about Saul too. He not only mocked Christians but openly persecuted and killed them. He then became one of the greatest examples of God's power to change a person's heart that the world has ever witnessed.

I am not saying you can't share the Gospel or to have a discussion with Darth. I'm saying that you eventually reach a point where you are "throwing pearls before swine."

 

[Glitch]

I am not saying you can't share the Gospel or to have a discussion with Darth. I'm saying that you eventually reach a point where you are "throwing pearls before swine."

It is on each person to see the truth for themselves. Not all will come to know the truth but God sent Jesus so that none would perish. You are right though that there is a point where you have to let God work. Darth has closed his heart and God is the only one that can open it. Our words only show the path but each person must choose to walk down that path or not. :good!:

 

[BigZiti09]

On the different denominations topic.... someone once explained it best to me like this...

He said something like... "In the end, what matters is what you believe about Jesus. Jesus is like the edge of a knife. You can't straddle it. You have to pick a side. Either you believe He is who He says He is (and what He has done for us) or you believe He was not."

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

On the different denominations topic.... someone once explained it best to me like this...

He said something like... "In the end, what matters is what you believe about Jesus. Jesus is like the edge of a knife. You can't straddle it. You have to pick a side. Either you believe He is who He says He is (and what He has done for us) or you believe He was not."

Fact

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Wow. You really can't admit that you are wrong can you. Where did it say that Jesus turned the bread to flesh or the wine to blood. They are very clearly symbols.

Pot meet kettle.

Anyway, he says that it IS his blood and IS his flesh. Not sure how difficult that is to understand.

The Catholic church added so many ideas and methods of maintaining their absolute control over the people. Is it really much of a coincidence that less than a century after the printing press was invented and books could be mass produced that Martin Luther wrote his 95 Theses? When people began to be able to read for themselves and see what the Bible truly said, they realized that the Catholic Church had corrupted many practices and was not properly representing Christians.

A revolution in the ability to transmit information leading to renewed outlooks on organized religion...man where have I heard that one before?

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I am not saying you can't share the Gospel or to have a discussion with Darth. I'm saying that you eventually reach a point where you are "throwing pearls before swine."

Ironically, a verse that was at one point in time interpreted as a reason not to let those who haven't been baptized receive the Eucharist.

 

[Skullbone]

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Here is the biblical evidence against the Arians argument that God created Jesus:

John 1:1-4
"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomehttp://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm#footnotes it."

Jesus was with God and was God. It doesn't get much clearer than that, so the Arians were not following the Gospel to make their argument.

The problem with this is that John is very different from the Synoptic gospels and at times downright contradictory to them.

 

[Glitch]

The problem with this is that John is very different from the Synoptic gospels and at times downright contradictory to them.

You may believe what you want and I will place my faith and trust in Jesus. Have a great and blessed day my friend.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

2. Your comment about Protestants just shows a lack of understanding of the Protestant Reformation. The idea that Luther just wanted to modify Catholicism more to his liking is silly. Not to mention when you consider all the other men, Tyndale, Hus, Wycliffe, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Knox, the Puritans, and many more, some of whom died terrible deaths. The reformation was a rescuing of the gospel. Not an offshoot of Catholics. If you really want to understand what has happened, I encourage you to study it. There are so many great resources available. James white even has all of his history lectures on Sermon audio. I encourage you to take advantage of those.

I have studied the Protestant reformation. Arguing that Protestants aren't an offshoot of Catholicism is a weird argument that you have to use alternative definitions to make. There were some Catholics. They disagreed with some practices/beliefs of the Catholic Church (but basically agreed with the core message/story) they called for reform and then ultimately created their own churches. Others followed suit. Eventually, some of the people from those churches had different ideas about some practices and beliefs of the new church they'd been a part of.

Offshoots, all of them.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

Here is the biblical evidence against the Arians argument that God created Jesus:

John 1:1-4
"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomehttp://biblehub.com/niv/john/1.htm#footnotes it."

Jesus was with God and was God. It doesn't get much clearer than that, so the Arians were not following the Gospel to make their argument.

In addition, God said in Genesis 1:26 "Let Us make man in Our image, and in Our likeness...". This shows the existness of God the Father and God the Son since beginning of time.

 

[bignewt]

So how does the Jewish faith reconcile that with Jesus as they don't really believe in him?

 

[Glitch]

So how does the Jewish faith reconcile that with Jesus as they don't really believe in him?

Sarge is the only resident Jew that I know of. I am only Jewish in the vulgar sense that I am.... thrifty with money.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

I have studied the Protestant reformation. Arguing that Protestants aren't an offshoot of Catholicism is a weird argument that you have to use alternative definitions to make. There were some Catholics. They disagreed with some practices/beliefs of the Catholic Church (but basically agreed with the core message/story) they called for reform and then ultimately created their own churches. Others followed suit. Eventually, some of the people from those churches had different ideas about some practices and beliefs of the new church they'd been a part of.

Offshoots, all of them.

Jesus' church is never referred to as the Catholic Church in scriptures. There are scriptures that give possible names of His church, but Catholic Church isn't one of them. If you want some of those scriptures, let me know. I'll be happy to supply them.