Son of Placid

Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Son of Placid

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Alberta Canada
  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,390 profile views
  1. Matthew 28:19 King James Version (KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Although the statement says and of, and of, pointing out the three separate beings I can see how this could become a discussion.
  2. Now you are saying the apostles did write their own Gospels. There is a really good chance they got together and went over some events. Some wrote better than others and there is no Plagiarism if written in the third party. Would there be a problem if they got together just to make sure they still had their stories straight? Peter was the impetuous one. The first one to answer, the first to jump, the most outspoken, the only one to pull a sword, and the first to deny association with Jesus at crunch time. Jesus reminded him of this in John 21 when he asked Peter three times if he loved Him. Jesus also told him how he would die, (Crucifixion) but Peter asked to be hung upside down because he felt he was not deserving to die in the same fashion as his savior. All this goes to prove that records were made by the disciples and compiled by people we don't know, (or maybe do), but where is the malicious intent, the contradictions, the leading astray of the masses? If you can't find that, then maybe the people we don't know were just as faithful, and determined to compile Gospels as they were originally written. My writing style changes with mood or subject, sometimes worded to accommodate the listener/reader. I'm sure most writes would agree. No use using ten dollar words if your focus is on the average person. The only problem is, if I hand wrote it, nobody could read it, sometimes not even me.
  3. That's why they are the Gospels according to...We also don't know if they had multiple sources to choose from, possibly they went through their own council. The Gospel according to John was compiled somewhere between 90 and 110 CE. John died in 100CE. Here again, we also don't know if John oversaw his book being written. It seems that each of these guys books were written during their last days, maybe just after they died. This is historically not unusual.
  4. We know the disciples were eye witnesses. We know Mark was martyred around 68 CE. The Gospel according to Mark was compiled somewhere around 66 - 70 CE. We don't know if Mark was involved, but there's a good chance he was alive at the onset, possibly knew the, soon to be author. None of the disciples delivered a hard cover "book" to anyone. There's a much better chance the notes and records were in fragments, gathered and compiled into a book. Mark very well knew how to write. He traveled with Peter and was often the interpreter. Some say that some of what Mark recorded was from Peter's sermons. I don't believe for a minute some guy wrote a story and put Marks name on it. In the same way, Muhammad never wrote a book. His notes were fragments compiled and put into a comprehensive format later. Not everyone who brought fragments to be compiled were mentioned, some remain anonymous to this day, but does not mean they were unknown at the time, nor that they were sources not to be trusted.
  5. Corruption is always in the transmission. The transmitter has to eat. What gets transmitted has to please the one who feeds him. The nature of Jesus is a study, not a quick answer, sorry. The Mosaic/Davidic dietary laws never changed...for Jews. The "change" came when the Jewish converts insisted the Gentiles become Jews before they become Christians. Paul went to James, who was head of the church in Jerusalem at the time and asked him to make a ruling. James declared the Gentiles didn't have to be Jews to be Christians. The council was a train wreck. There were some 5000 texts to be revised, and either compiled into a book, or burned. Constantine figured, if they compile a book together, they should all agree on it's contents and context by the time they're done. It took them years to come up with a Bible. I wouldn't be surprised if they argued everything. In that time period Christianity ran rampant with books and beliefs. I'm sure there were more than two opinions in the room.
  6. Actually, that would be as science increases. Many pages back, we've gone over this. There are charts with ages of the scripts on them as to what was written when and by whom. Scholars have no problem believing that the records written by these disciples were preserved until such time as they could be compiled, thus, "The Gospel according to...". You wouldn't want to give the impression some guy sat down and thought it would be fun to write a bunch of stuff they think they heard about now would you?
  7. The message of Jesus wasn't corrupted. It's still as it was when Matthew wrote it. It was kept and compiled later along with the other Gospels, and letters, but that's the message, as it was. Can be found here It's a good read and hard to find something you can disagree with. I don't believe the actual scriptures were ever corrupted. If so, you would find something about Jesus saying He was God, or was equal to God. In fact it still states Jesus as saying God is greater than He. The Council of Nicaea established One Holy Bible as it was written in the books they chose to include. I guess there were some 5000 other versions and books to mull through. Once established, they could not be changed during the later councils either, only doctrines and traditions could be attached to establish a religion around the book. I wonder what Constantine would think if he saw how many religions and denominations there are now, all based on the same Bible he made possible...for the sake of unity.
  8. I believe the Injeel was the words of Jesus. Unfortunate not everything was recorded. All we really have of His message is in the NT, most of which is called "the sermon on the mount". It's a good read.
  9. Wikipedia says he was already a trinitarian leader, against Arianism, from the age of 27. "Against Arianism" seems to come up a few times, borderline crusader, finally went nuts and hated everyone. Gregory of Nazianzus was only born during the time of the council but had many years to learn from Athanasius, moving himself up the ranks of the church himself. After Athanasius died and the dust settled, Greg went on to toot him a pillar of the church. Hard to say what impact he had on the council, but he sure made an impact on Gregory of Nazianzus. The the main thing Constantine wanted worked out was the Arian controversy. I don't think he cared the outcome as much as he just wanted peace, plus he became Christian so he probably also wanted to know what that meant. He invited way too many people for a council. During my "project" years I've never had full agreement on a procedure in groups larger than 7, and even-numbered groups don't work well at all. 1000 people??? The numbers aren't up there to see, in my experience I would break this down to 1000 invited, 600 showed, 300 for the free food, (left when they saw there was work to be done), about the same 20-30 people argued day in day out while the rest worked on the actual project, listened, doodled, slept. It took years to compile the Bible. I wouldn't set foot in that council. It would seem "killing" Arianism became the agenda for some, Athanasius was certainly the man for the job. Greg went on to become the "Trinitarian Theologian", known for his works in Greek and Latin. Trinity was definitely alive and well at the council but more emphasis was put on getting rid of Arius. Not sure if we can find an exact date when someone said, "Lets call ourselves Trinitarians". Usually it's a label given by those around, like Christian, and Arian. Interesting study but can't go much farther today. I asked my wife what she wanted for her birthday. She said, "An extension to the greenhouse" A couple more strips of polycarb, and some sealing and I should be done today. Her birthday was 1 1/2 weeks ago.
  10. Athanasius Contra Mundum?
  11. Even at the first council of Constantinople it is not declared as such. It gathers the three personas into a tight configuration, but still uses words like, "begotten, not made" and "proceedeth from" . I can accept the words as they are but begotten still has a beginning. "Begat" is a word used in the New Testament. It's used in genealogy and both times used to show the human lineage of Jesus. The interesting thing about Matthew is, as a previous tax collector, he had more interest in the legal genealogical records of the time. As proper in those days, he followed the line of the father. After doing such a great job with the research, he ends it with...Who was the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus. Considering the virgin birth, (which John neither confirms nor denies in this topic) it means Jesus shared no DNA with all those people in the begat list. Not confusing at all. Theologians could never consider anything created as God, so no, they wouldn't go there. "Let there be..." is kind of vague. It gives no hints to the actual process nor the events, timeline, just a "Be and it is" We know the light was not the sun. We don't know what else this light was or capable of. This goes back to what iCambrian said, people will naturally diverge in thought on subjective matters. I still haven't learned any Greek. I have trouble with θεόν and θεὸς, especially when Strongs' interpretation of both are 1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities 2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 5) of magistrates and judges Looks a lot like the description of Elohim from the Hebrew. Somewhere in the middle of all this the JW's added an "a" to 1:1, as in λόγος was a God. I used to use that against them as in..."How is it you have two Gods?" First response is, what are you talking about? Once explained, the next response is, I'll get back to you. That was the end of the weekly visits. Not going to convince anyone, and not saying I'm any closer to the truth, just the more I study without the preconceived doctrines the less of a trinity I see. I still see a "Godhead" but I'm more convinced that every time you see an assumed reference to God in the Bible, it doesn't always mean God Almighty. In the same sense, the Jews would say the "word" is either written or spoken, but that doesn't explain how, "The word came to him..." statements all over Genesis where the "word" seemed to play a rather active role. The Jews also consider, "I am that I am" to mean "I am what I am", but such a statement made by Jesus could never end in a blasphemy case if context matters. Just some of the reasons I looked beyond trinity.
  12. Arius believed that "The son" was of the same "essence" as God, created by God, and subordinate to the Father, God. It is also believed he was influenced by the writings of Origen but not totally convinced the "Son" could be without beginning. This is the big wahoo about Father/Son. Arius understood the Son to be "Logos", aka "The Word" which took on and indwelled the person of Jesus as described in the Gospel according to John. The Bible says Jesus would be called the son of God, and He was, but only by those who saw past the person of Jesus. Those who heard about but did not see could only assume. This is why I can agree when the Qur'an says "Far be it for God to have a son". In reference to Jesus, it's impossible. Of course, when the Qur'an was compiled, Christianity was predominantly trinitarian, and running around preaching the person Jesus was God. Seeing Muhammad spent so much time getting rid of idolatry, and hearing people preach what sounds like more than one god, what else would he think? Simple points Arius may have studied to bring him to this understanding could have been found in John 1 where it also describes John the Baptist as not being the "light" but to bear witness of it. Two words used to describe what indwelled Jesus was the Word, and the Light. Notably God was before the beginning and created the beginning. The Spirit of God would seem to be as eternal as God Himself. The fact it says "spirit of God" and not just God tells me there is more than just the "essence" of God, because I can't see God as a simple spirit Creation of light came before the creation of the sun. Let it be and it was. If this is the light John was referring to, then we have the birth of Logos, aka the light recorded in the first three verses of the Bible. You have to admit, it makes more sense than a trinity.
  13. I agree with LCM. There's nothing says Constantine put any weight behind any decisions in the council. It's not even recorded that he sat in on the council. He only put it together in hopes of finding common ground in the religion. As emperor I'm sure he had other things to do. It didn't exactly happen that way. Arius was silenced, not by Constantine. Not to say Constantine did not promote the new unified belief system, that's all he wanted. Once in place I'm sure that's when the major funding started. Arius was not the founder of Unitarianism. Unitarianism happened with the Protestant reformation. They may have contemplated his initial concept but I doubt Arius would accept what they did with it. Arianism was never an established religion as per se. All of his notes were destroyed and everything known about him came from those who opposed him. What is known of his beliefs can be said in under a minute. Not much to start with. That's why Arianism became a mish mash of very few initial doctrines, mixed with whatever parts of Christianity seemed acceptable to the group, but this also kept them divided into small groups. Small groups, small funding, small voices.
  14. The 60's was about rebellion. Don't trust anyone over 30 as Bob Dylan put it. Malvina Reynolds was one of the early ones who opposed the establishment, many followed. Those that lived through it either accepted the establishment, spend theirs lives protesting, or went to grow their pot in the mountains.
  15. Do not put God to the test. It's scriptural. Trying to walk on croc infested water WILL bring you closer to your creator. This somehow reminds me of the two seals that were rescued from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Close to $90G spent on nursing them back to good health. Big ceremony, many people watching the release also witnessed them both eaten by the same killer whale minutes after. Circus being the key word. I have seen real healing. It's not done in a big church full of applause and a preacher saying Praise the Lord, while outstretching his arms towards the audience. It's done in a very solemn private ceremony where people first pray for their own cleansing. Also big difference between curing an actual ailment and releasing spiritual oppression, which can also take on symptoms of ailments, often respiratory. You really need someone who knows the difference, and how to handle it. Having a pseudo preacher agree with the oppression to give some temporary relief for the sake of the show is probably more common than not. If God decides to heal you, which can be done, (God willing), through proper faithful prayer, He doesn't do the "poof" thing. What I've seen is more gradual. I've heard people say they felt led to change their diet. That might be all the miracle required.