Early Church in Jordan: A Discussion – Part Deaux

102. JD June 12th, 2008 – 1:07 am

schex wrote, `was Paul blatantly currying the Emperor’s faovr’?

Athanasius, the chief proponent of orthodoxy, was exiled by two emperors, Julian the Apostate and Valens who favored Arianism, after Nicea. If the Council was a blatant attempt to curry political favor in the Empire, it was a complete failure. Arianism retained political hold decades afterward.

‘if this was such a well-established tradition, why the gap of 250 years till the next occurence?’

Because there WAS orthodoxy and unity in Christianity until it was challenged by Arius in the fourth century. Read William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I.

Nobody’s denying the use of the word, `Christian’ if you maintain faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. But YOUR blatant attack on the Church is a historical misrepresentation of something 99% of all Christians accept when it comes to belief in a Triune God. You fail to understand that there is a difference between apostacy and heresy!


104. Truth Seeker June 12th, 2008 – 9:18 am

Schex wrote:
“The bottom line is that you, as a Nicene Christian, have placed your trust, your faith, in the founders of that creed” ………..

The True Church was built when Jesus said to Peter: “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ……………………..”Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

So it’s really a question of “authority” not “opinions” or “feelings” …….. and that authority was given by Jesus to the Church…….. one Church. Humans may be divided but Jesus will always be undivided.

Can we have confidence in this?

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Schex wrote:
“I have placed my faith elsewhere, in doctrines and organizations more amenable to my own understanding of the scriptures.”…….

That’s nice.

Schex wrote:
“You share with your precious “fathers” that same spirit of exclusion, of pride, vanity, and sneering derision. You, as men, place your mind-bogglingly obtuse philosophical construct of Trinity as a pre-requisite to salvation, denying, in effect, God’s authority in the matter.”………

This sounds like angry projection. The truth is that the Catholic Church is the least exclusionary institution on earth ……. every single human being is welcomed via the Sacrament of Baptism at the moment of his / her birth …… no one is excluded.
Jesus Himself taught us the Trintitarian formula for Baptism, it didn’t “pop up” in Nicea …….so, that IS God’s authority in the matter.

…Mormon Anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy stated, “I have serious problems with the Book of Mormon’s representations of American Indians. Not only does it claim that Lamanites are the principle ancestors of American Indians, but throughout the text it repeatedly refers to them as Israelites, as descendants of Joseph; of descendants of the Biblical Patriarchs of Abraham. Those repeated references to an ancient Israelite connection have been clearly invalidated by scientific research and to the genes of American Indians.”….

Though the Trinity may still be a mystery to us, thanks to Science, the Book of Mormon no longer is. ALL are ALWAYS welcome to the One True Church …. the only Church that Jesus Himself built.

105. schex June 12th, 2008 – 2:30 pm

Truthseeker,

I detect the faintest whiff of herring, or perhaps it is the stinking ruin of an angry projection…

Regardless, I would have hoped that you would understand the fundamental gap that exists between science and religion, i.e. science cannot refute religion, nor should religion dictate the terms of science. Unfortunately, as in your case, the two can become uncomfortably intertwined. If you believe that you can validate your faith or, as an extension of that, negate mine, through the use of scientific theories, then you are, IMHO, barking up the wrong tree.

In reference to the Mormon “dilemmas” you have so eagerly brought to the forefront of this discussion, I do hope you’ll forgive me if I decline to take the bait. Instead, I’ll refer you to Jeff Lindsay’s website, where he discusses your specific grievances in greater detail than I could ever hope to manage:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/

If you must continue barking, then do so with Jeff. On the other hand, if you’d like to discuss the actual substance of the arguments presented here, I would be more than happy to respond in kind.

Oh, and, umm, bottom-lines are nice. I’m glad you appreciated it.

106. schex June 12th, 2008 – 3:08 pm

JD,
Thanks for not denying me the use of the term Christian. Unfortunately, many of those sharing your Nicene heritage are not quite so open-minded and this is main reason i felt the need to post here.

Regarding your other views, I would counter with the statement that the simple existence of a condition of a state of orthodoxy circa 300 AD does not necessarily equate to an unbroken line of authority from Athanasius (and consequently his patron Alexander) back to the Apostle Peter and Jesus Christ.

You cite Papal approved versions of church history as a means to support your thesis, yet you fail to take into account the bias inherent in such a viewpoint. If the “fathers” were not acting on the pure love of Christ, and instead were attempting, as I have claimed, to greedily gather more acclaim and public resources unto themselves, then they would obviously have no qualms in ruthlessly suppressing and destroying those who opposed them, and any supporting records of their perceived adversaries in the same fashion. If they had a bold new vision of utterly crushing paganism, proclaimed loudly from the mouth of a charismatic young Athanasius, they might have been even more aggressive in justifying any means to achieve their desired ends.

You may have noticed I said “new” vision. That is because many historical accounts (particularly the unbiased ones) paint a very different picture from what you have claimed. They point to Arianism as the “orthodoxy” and Athanasiusism (say that 3 times fast) as the “heresy”. You say 99% of christians today are of the con-substantial (i.e. Trinitarian) variety (where did you get this figure, btw?). Do you honestly believe this was the case in the pre-Nicean Roman empire?

I’ll be happy to delve further into the specifics if you so desire. I have become very interested in this subject over the past several years, and it seems there is always more to learn about the early church, even considering the vast amount of information that has undoubtedly been lost.

Advertisements

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: