Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by WS6, Apr 21, 2012.
From another thread:
Are you sure?
Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time. My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.
Since the Roman culture was already accustomed to the notion of gods breeding with mortals, it was easy to slip that one in.
So that WS6 won't pretend in this thread that what I posted in the other doesn't exist. At the Council of Nicaea, Costantine declared Arius a heretic for teaching that christ was not the same as the father himself, but instead a subordinate deity of some sort. Not all-powerful and all-knowing like the father. Constantine exiled him for this and ordered all copies of his book, the Thalia, burned.
So, if people were being exiled and books burned at the Council of Nicaea, that pretty much settles the issue of whether or not the debate was still going on at the time.
Full post from other thread.
The most relevant link supporting the point:
First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath
Perhaps you can now buttress your claims with the source material I provided in this post, or perhaps not.
I love Divinity
.....by heretics, who will always be with us.
Hercules' father was a God too, and he did miraculous feats as well. maybe Hercules and Jesus were cousins? maybe play cousins?
The whole Christian faith is heretical.
The word heretic come from a word that means sectarian.
It means to believe something with specific rule of dogma.
Also known as "party spirit".
My party is the right party. My group has the right beliefs.
If Martin Luther did not stand up against the dogma of the Catholic church, as a heretic, you would be Catholic right now.
The disagreement between the roman counsel and the constatinoplan counsel was about the true nature of Jesus and not his relation with the father, the constantinoplans (orthodox catholics nowdays). Believe that Jesus was only of divine substance and not two entities in one body like the roman catholics would claim (Jesus as men with all the mens attributes, and at the same time divine with all the divine attributes in one flesh body.
The whole disagreement came about certain times during his passion where the roman catholic claim his divine entity left temporarily and Jesus as Men had to endure the unhuman suffering of his wounds. One of those moments being when Jesus cries out to God " Father why have you forsaken me?".
Therefore puzzling the theologians. Also critics questioning his divine authenticity. Since He was God to begin with, why make such statement? Which brings another controversial issue. What is the true nature of the trinity?
It is hard to believe you don't see the flaw in your google-researched response.
Your comment in bold does not reflect Catholic Church teaching, which is more appropriately stated:
From where do you get this claim?
This may interest you:
There are self-acclaimed Christians today, who do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the divinity of Christ. Does that consideration necessarily punch a hole in the Catholic Church's claim, which it has understood since New Testament times?
What's the flaw? Enlighten us please.
Also, you say "google-researched response" like maybe that's bad for some reason? He's a Catholic. Why wouldn't he use readily available citations from Catholic Answers to buttress his argument?
Not everyone can claim to be totally omniscient these days, as the neo-atheists seem to fancy themselves...
Yes it was, and continues to be debated today. The reason most positions on faith are defined from these councils is because heretical beliefs pop up from time to time and the Church is compelled to make a pronouncement. Currently the Mormons believe that after you die you inherit your own planetary system. If this belief is to take a serious enough hold among Catholics to cause a council or have the Church make a pronouncement on it does that act in any way validate such a claim?
-Answer is "no"
The contention between the Arians and the Athenasians was NOT about the Divinity of Christ; both sides believed He was divine. It was about whether Christ was of the same substance ("consubstantial" or homoousios) as the Father, or of similar substance (homoioúsios).
Very nearly all of the early Christian heterodox sects believed in Christ's divinity, although just how that was accomplished was in question. So, I'd have to say, in order to be intellectually honest, that Christ's Divinity was certainly an accepted major tenent in the pre-Nicene Christian community.
I endorse Roering's answer to this part.
Not surprised this post was ignored.
I wonder what percentage of Christians have ever heard of the CoN, much less know what it was or when it took place.
Let's see - I don't even remember his response, since I haven't looked at this thread in a few days, but since it's WS6, I'm guessing he responded by linking to a page that would prove a biblical truth by reference to the bible...am I close? Circular reasoning and google-and-paste are basically all he does.
Not close at all. But your perfunctory answer was pretty much the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
I was hoping you'd do better.
This is just terminology and I'm pretty sure you already knew that. If christ is not made of the same "stuff" as god and was created by god then he is not "god" incarnate. Yeah, ok, they still saw him as divine in the same manner that an angel might be considered divine, but my point was he was not viewed as "god".
Really, only believers spend so much time arguing nuance and terminology.