Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Faithfully999

Did Jesus Die On Cross (Bbc Four Documentary)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim  In The Name of Allaah (God), The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

As salaam alaykum  The Peace (of Allaah) Be Upon You, everyone.

 

 

 

 

Did Jesus Die On Cross (BBC Four Documentary)

 

 

 

 

Wassalaam.   Faithfully999

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's alright. It's own bias feels a little strong and it could have gone more into the different arguments surrounding the nature of the crucifixion in the early Christian tradition. Plus, it appears to put too much weight behind the traditions of Jesus going to Kashmir or Mary Magdalene going to France. Yes, certainly people believe this, but the documentary does not critically evaluate the sources of the claims enough, it just kinda says "Some people believe this and, well, it's not impossible," which can easily mislead weak minded people into thinking these claims are anything more than legend.

 

I'd give it a 7/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I found intriguing;

 

the cathars - who believed that everything created of this earth was of the devil

I have always questioned the words...
"He descended into hell" ? part of the Catholic creed (could it mean 'He descended to earth?)
and rose again... (we can leave this place - this hell when we put our faith in Jesus)
to die is to live, and to live is to die to this place...

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it. - the words of Yshwe

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me.

 

I went on to watch the next two video's as well... banned books of the Bible.  I found those very interesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the contradictions between the four gospels that are mentioned in the video. What bothers me is the madness with which the Church harassed and punished skeptics. And it dragged on for several hundred years.

 

As for contradictions, some modern scholars believe that none of the four was written by an eye-witness. And that the names - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John - are quite arbitrary. Some gospels reportedly had no name for the author attached to them to begin with.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those days, people were forced to follow the religion of the state. When Henry VIII created his own church, everyone in England was expected to be a Protestant and the Catholics were ostracized. When the King of France chose to be a Catholic, the whole of France was expected to be Catholic.

 

Thank God, we are born in a different age.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you believe any of it?

If so, what?

 

Greetings baqar,

The only notes I made were the ones I shared above.

I had heard some of the stories of Jesus in India before... while researching about the gospel of Thomas,

and yes, I find it believable... especially when I heard this time about the tradition of when a buddha dies the magi go seeking the newborn child who is believed to be the reincarnation of the Buddha.  But I have said before how I saw a great deal of similarity in what Jesus taught to what the Buddha taught... and the Buddha came long before.

The narrative I have always been familiar with was that after the child, Jesus, was born, the family had to run away and hide so that Herod would not find them.  I have previously felt it believable they may have ended up in India, where Jesus got some of his ideas from... that is if the divinity story is myth.  I still say Jesus speaks with an inexplicable wisdom that can only come from the divine, so.... I still find that I can not deny His divinity.  I say, even if he was not divine, there is still no better teaching in this world... so I still believe in, and follow, Him.

I watched 3 different videos, so I can't be sure what else was in the first one that I watched.

What I do recall is that I could see in many ways, where Muhammad and his teaching was related to what the  gnostic Christians taught and believed.

One big example for me was a mention of how one heretical group wrote of how Jesus 'shadow' remained on the cross, but He stood below laughing at them over this deception.  This made me understand where the muslims get that story from... about a 'substitute' having taken the place of Jesus on the cross.  I do not buy that story, but the others are in some ways believable...

about how, whether you call it resussitation or reincarnation, that He may have come back to life after being removed from the cross... how in those days it was entirely possible to have created the beliefs of the Apostles... how they were expecting Him to return.

There are still a few things that can not be explained though... like how come the disciples didn't recognize Him immediately?  He must have looked different?  And, it seems to me, that the Romans would have made darn sure he was dead... as in no pulse.  Then there is also the problem of how did He just disappear for the rest of His life?  Was it truly Him in India or was that just a crazy person claiming to be Jesus, thinking that he was Jesus?

There were many stories going around, so it depends on whether or not you believe that the Catholic church got things right when they decided what was canon and what was not.  It is not too far fetched for me to believe that the Catholic church has kept some things hidden.

I still find that I can't deny scripture though... especially given the things happening in the world right now.  So I really can not explain it all, except through belief, and continuing daily to pray, and waiting for all to be revealed.  I can't explain how it is that without memorizing(I am unable to memorize, never have been able), the scriptures speak to me... except that it is through the Holy Spirit given by God... God speaks through the Word.  It is a thing that has just happened the more that I have sought Him.

Anyway, that's a really long and complicated answer, as all things are with me. :)

asalaam and blessings to you,

CLynn

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I find it believable... especially when I heard this time about the tradition of when a Buddha dies the magi go seeking the newborn child who is believed to be the reincarnation of the Buddha. But I have said before how I saw a great deal of similarity in what Jesus taught to what the Buddha taught... and the Buddha came long before.

 

Hi Clynn

 

So you think that Jesus might be a reincarnation of the Buddha.  Buddha reborn? 

It is not too far fetched for me to believe that the Catholic church has kept some things hidden.

 

It could easily be something that might alter the entire landscape of Christian theology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most intriguing part was that the story of the resurrection was not there in the original copy of Mark and was added 200 years later. That begs the question - what else was added later on, by whom and why? 

 

be careful on making assumptions or judgements based on a Video.

The Synoptic Gospels were already in existence in the 1st Century to the middle of the 2nd Century (as they are now).

Nothing was added.

St Ireneaus was the one who initially compiled the Synoptic Gospels. Now St Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. So Im going to believe St Ireneaus and not the executives at BBC.

This is what I found intriguing;

 

the cathars - who believed that everything created of this earth was of the devil

I have always questioned the words...

"He descended into hell" ? part of the Catholic creed (could it mean 'He descended to earth?)

and rose again... (we can leave this place - this hell when we put our faith in Jesus)

to die is to live, and to live is to die to this place...

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it. - the words of Yshwe

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me.

 

I went on to watch the next two video's as well... banned books of the Bible.  I found those very interesting too.

 

It's not a Catholic Creed lol, it's a Christian Creed.

You're referring to the Apostle's Creed, which is used by us, the Lutherans,  Anglicans, Orthodox, heck even the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians. 

 

If you want to know more about this creed we gave to the world, you can check this link out:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful on making assumptions or judgements based on a Video.

The Synoptic Gospels were already in existence in the 1st Century to the middle of the 2nd Century (as they are now).

Nothing was added.

St Ireneaus was the one who initially compiled the Synoptic Gospels. Now St Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. So Im going to believe St Ireneaus and not the executives at BBC.

Are you saying that Mark did not end with the empty grave in the copy that Irenæus had, and that BBC is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn

 

So you think that Jesus might be a reincarnation of the Buddha.  Buddha reborn?

 

Greetings PeaceLoving,

 

Not necessarily that, but perhaps that they found the child and the family did return with them and was educated in the ways of buddha.  The piece that remains missing however, is that Yshwe was entirely knowledgeable in Judaism.

 

they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

 

 

15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

16 And he came to Nazareth, ... and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

 

15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

 

I have no problem entertaining the idea though, that Yshwe may have embodied the spirit of buddha... if buddha also embodied the spirit of God.  Doesn't buddhism teach that God is found within?

 

It could easily be something that might alter the entire landscape of Christian theology. 

 

I feel there is still no better message given to mankind. :)

 

Peace and blessings to you,

CLynn

be careful on making assumptions or judgements based on a Video.

The Synoptic Gospels were already in existence in the 1st Century to the middle of the 2nd Century (as they are now).

Nothing was added.

St Ireneaus was the one who initially compiled the Synoptic Gospels. Now St Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. So Im going to believe St Ireneaus and not the executives at BBC.

 

It's not a Catholic Creed lol, it's a Christian Creed.

You're referring to the Apostle's Creed, which is used by us, the Lutherans,  Anglicans, Orthodox, heck even the Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians. 

 

If you want to know more about this creed we gave to the world, you can check this link out:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

 

Greetings shreek,

 

All the others originate from the Catholic church and the Catholic (Apostles) creed.  The Catholic church is the original church from which the others take their teaching.  The others only decided to modify some of the teachings.

Peace and blessings,

CLynn

I thought I'd add another note.  I have not made my conclusions from watching this one video.  This video simply fits in well with other things I have studied.

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn,

Quote from Post 16:
All the others originate from the Catholic church and the Catholic (Apostles) creed. The Catholic church is the original church from which the others take their teaching. The others only decided to modify some of the teachings.

Response: --- The Apostles’ Creed is perhaps the earliest statement of Faith from the Apostles, and it would have no doubt come from the time of the first Church in Acts 2.

The Roman Catholic Church started after 300 AD and in 325 began to write and impose their own doctrines including the Nicene Creed.
--- The Apostles’ Creed preceded these, and is not the same as the Catholic doctrines and Creeds.

The NT Scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin and were preserved in the Latin Vulgate from about 400 to 1600, --- but the various teaching of certain Churches were modified from Catholic doctrines, as you said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apostle's Creed

I believe in God
the Father, Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ,
his only begotten Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary:

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell:

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.


The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered died and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

 

The Nicene Creed is merely an expanded version of the Apostle's Creed.

An easy way to view the comparison is at this link:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn,

Quote from Post 18:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,

This is what has been added in the Nicene Creed:

 

--- Eternally begotten of the Father, --- (Jesus was born on earth so not eternally begotten)

 

God from God, Light from Light, --- (The NT does not say Jesus was God, but He was CALLED the Son of God on earth.)

 

true God from true God, --- (Jesus never claimed to be God, but called Himself the Son of Man.)

 

begotten, not made, --- (But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, Hebrews 2:9)

 

one in Being with the Father. --- (There is One Being of God, --- there are many Servants , and Jesus was an earthly Servant, Acts 3:13, 26.)

 

Through him all things were made. --- (Through the Word, ‘Logos,’ all things were made, John 1:3.)

 

For us men and for our salvation, --- (The Word said, “A body You have ‘prepared’ for Me.”)

 

he came down from heaven: --- (The Word came down from heaven to indwell the ‘prepared’ body of Jesus. John 1:14, Surah 3:45)


--- The attempt was made to replace the Word, Logos, (the creative power of God in making all things) with Jesus who came into being at a certain time in history to initiate the New Covenant (when the calendar was restarted.). --- So the Word from heaven (who could not be seen by men) indwelt Jesus (who could be seen), --- this was the Manifestation of God on earth, and Jesus was the human Vessel that God used as His Representative on earth.
--- After Jesus died on earth (which was something that God couldn’t do), He was resurrected (to show believers that there is life after death) and ascended to the Right Hand of God, “Ever there to make intercession for us.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn,

Quote from Post 20:

I understand your view but I pretty much disagree with everything you have said. We are both already aware of that though.

For me it is all pretty much One and the same... God, Father, Son, Word, Spirit, Holy Ghost. I don't see that the Nicene Creed changes anything, only elaborates. To me it simply becomes more melodic... more poetic, and a more personal message.

Response: --- Thanks Clynn. --- I believe that most people share the view that the trinity, as it has been presented, is a ‘mystery that cannot be explained,’ so they accept it as Church tradition and simply believe in God, and in Jesus.

And I can agree with you in this since you didn’t put Jesus among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn,

Quote from Post 16:

All the others originate from the Catholic church and the Catholic (Apostles) creed. The Catholic church is the original church from which the others take their teaching. The others only decided to modify some of the teachings.

Response: --- The Apostles’ Creed is perhaps the earliest statement of Faith from the Apostles, and it would have no doubt come from the time of the first Church in Acts 2.

The Roman Catholic Church started after 300 AD and in 325 began to write and impose their own doctrines including the Nicene Creed.

--- The Apostles’ Creed preceded these, and is not the same as the Catholic doctrines and Creeds.

The NT Scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin and were preserved in the Latin Vulgate from about 400 to 1600, --- but the various teaching of certain Churches were modified from Catholic doctrines, as you said.

Prove it. Not simple Protestant assertions that the church started in 300AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Wikipedia:

Quote: In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalisation of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, under Emperor Theodosius I, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople.

--- The reason for the 'struggles of the Early Church' was because the Romans persecuted them. --- After the 300's when the heavy persecution ended (perhaps after 311), some compromising Christian leaders accepted the proposal of a New Church, in exchange for the lessening of persecution, and the Roman Catholic Church was organized. --- Catholic meant 'universal' so Rome was declaring the New Church as their Church for the world.

It wasn't long until with its new doctrines, it was again persecuting the Evangelical groups from the 'Early Church.'

Another quote from Wikipedia:

Quote: With Christianity the dominant faith in some urban centers, Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates. Roman Emperor Diocletian launched the bloodiest campaign against Christians that the empire had witnessed. The persecution ended in 311 with the death of Diocletian. The persecution ultimately had not turned the tide on the growth of the religion. In 301 the Kingdom of Armenia became the first nation to adopt Christianity. The Romans followed suit in 380.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful on making assumptions or judgements based on a Video.

The Synoptic Gospels were already in existence in the 1st Century to the middle of the 2nd Century (as they are now).

Nothing was added.

St Ireneaus was the one who initially compiled the Synoptic Gospels. Now St Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. So Im going to believe St Ireneaus and not the executives at BBC.

 

The last verses of Mark are not in some of the earliest Greek and Ethiopic manuscripts - this idea is quite established among academics, and not just by "a video". The original Mark probably ended with 16:8,  where Jesus' tomb was found empty, and the women run away in fear.

 

16:9-20 describes the resurrection of Jesus, his appearance to Mary Magdalene, his appearance to the eleven apostles, and his order to spread the gospel to the world. This is a very significant addendum, because Mark was probably the earliest of the four Gospels to be written, yet there was no original mention of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

 

As for the Church Fathers, they are only "apostolic" because of this alleged Irenaeus-Polycarp-John connection. Polycarp was a Greek born during the Temple destruction (c. 70 CE) in Asia Minor - I find it unlikely that he had any connection to John the Apostle, an Aramaic Jew, who would have been 80 years old by the time Polycarp hit puberty. It is more likely that he knew John the Evangelist, who was writing in the 90s-110s CE and was certainly not Jesus' apostle. Assuming Polycarp even knew the apostle John, all we have from Polycarp is his letter to the Philippians, which makes no mention of Jesus as God or of the trinity. He makes no mention of John in his letter, but he mentions Paul four times. As for Irenaeus, his connection to Polycarp is that he had heard him preach in his youth. Hearing a dude preach in your youth is hardly a "connection" worth putting faith in. The apostolic connection to the Church Fathers is dubious at best, and an outright fabrication at worst.

 

Polycarp played an important role in bringing a more "orthodox" Pauline message of Christianity to the Greeks and Romans, and batting away the heresies of Marcion. That's to be recognized and appreciated. But, it's unlikely that he was a student of John the Apostle, and Irenaeus was certainly not a student of Polycarp.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Qa’im,

Quote from Post 25:

Polycarp was a Greek born during the Temple destruction (c. 70 CE) in Asia Minor - I find it unlikely that he had any connection to John the Apostle, an Aramaic Jew, who would have been 80 years old by the time Polycarp hit puberty. It is more likely that he knew John the Evangelist, who was writing in the 90s-110s CE and was certainly not Jesus' apostle.

Response: --- Long before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, most of the Apostles and Christians had left Jerusalem. --- Antioch in Syria had become the main Church Center, and the place where they were first called Christians.

Paul and Barnabas went out from Antioch to establish Churches in Asia Minor in the AD 40’s and some years later John came from Jerusalem and became the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus , so it was in Asia Minor where Polycarp was born, in the area where the Apostle John was a Pastor, and Evangelist.

--- If John was born about AD 15 (as it says in Wikipedia) he would have been less than 20 when Jesus ascended to heaven, and he was with the Apostles in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost, in Acts 2.

Quote from Wikipedia:

John: Apostle and Evangelist

Born c. AD 15 Died c. AD 100 (unconfirmed)

Quote: The word "evangelist" here means "writer of a gospel", from the Greek word for gospel, ευαγγελιον (or in Latin, evangelium). --- End of quote.

So he would have been only 55 in AD 70, when the Temple was destroyed, and no doubt taught in the Churches in Asia Minor for many years thereafter. --- Polycarp would have attended the Churches where John pastored, or preached as John was the prominent Apostle in the Area.

Again Wikipedia says:

It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him (Polycarp) speak in his youth, and by Tertullian, that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle. Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna. --- (A disciple is one who has been ‘disciplined by,’ or ‘instructed by’ another, so that they continue in the work of the former teacher.’)

--- John would have had copies of the other Gospels in Greek before he wrote his General Gospel, they believe in Ephesus, perhaps in the AD 80’s, when he would be 65-74 --- He wrote his Epistles later, to the Church people and addressed them as “My little Children,”

--- The Gospel writers wrote in the third person to make Jesus Christ the focus of attention, but in his first letter he declares himself in saying in 1 John:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—

2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

--- Then this happened:

Quote from Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary: John’s effective testimony for Christ led the Roman authorities to exile him to the small, desolate island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea, --- a place where the Romans banished criminals and political offenders. --- At this time Roman hostility to Christians was erupting into overt persecution. --- They date the writing of the Revelation as being near the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), --- about AD 95. --- The date of his release from Patmos is unknown but he was probably allowed to return to Ephesus after the reign of Domitian. --- End of quote.

So he would be about 80 at this time, and he identifies himself again in Revelation 1:

4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia --- (These were the Churches he had pastored, and he is instructed to send letters to them.)

9 I, John, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

Notice: --- The first letter was to his own, main Church at Ephesus.

--- The second letter was to Smyrna, where Polycarp had been assigned as Bishop.

Yes, this was the same Apostle John, who wrote both the Gospel and the Revelation.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Wikipedia:

Quote: In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalisation of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, under Emperor Theodosius I, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople.

 

 

ummm, yeah, that's good, I already new that.

says nothing about your assertion that the Catholic Church started in 300AD or so.

--- The reason for the 'struggles of the Early Church' was because the Romans persecuted them. --- After the 300's when the heavy persecution ended (perhaps after 311), some compromising Christian leaders accepted the proposal of a New Church, in exchange for the lessening of persecution, and the Roman Catholic Church was organized. --- Catholic meant 'universal' so Rome was declaring the New Church as their Church for the world.

It wasn't long until with its new doctrines, it was again persecuting the Evangelical groups from the 'Early Church.'

 

yeah, assertions again, there was no new Church declared. Church already was in existence.

and there were no NEW Doctrines, there is no such thing as a 'new' Doctrine. Doctrines are not new they always existed.

When the Church declares something to be true dogmatically they are only stating what is/was already believed. Ok?

Another quote from Wikipedia:

Quote: With Christianity the dominant faith in some urban centers, Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates. Roman Emperor Diocletian launched the bloodiest campaign against Christians that the empire had witnessed. The persecution ended in 311 with the death of Diocletian. The persecution ultimately had not turned the tide on the growth of the religion. In 301 the Kingdom of Armenia became the first nation to adopt Christianity. The Romans followed suit in 380.

 

yes we know the Church was persecuted. more babble. 

still have not proved your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Church declares something to be true dogmatically they are only stating what is/was already believed. Ok?

I find this hard to believe. If trinity was a dogma from the very start, why was there so much discussion about it within the church? Can you be sure that the first christians believed in the Immaculata conceptio? Or that Virgin Mary entered heaven directly without having to go through purgatory? Are you really sure that the ex cathedra dogma has been valid for all Popes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this hard to believe. If trinity was a dogma from the very start, why was there so much discussion about it within the church? Can you be sure that the first christians believed in the Immaculata conceptio? Or that Virgin Mary entered heaven directly without having to go through purgatory? Are you really sure that the ex cathedra dogma has been valid for all Popes?

 

ex-cathedra = from the chair, Moses Spoke from the Chair. St Peter spoke from the Chair, it has been a Church belief from day one.

 

Trinity was based on the Bible, (Father,Son and Holy Spirit)

 

Just because something wasn't written (i.e. Doctrine) andres doesn't mean it wasn't believed, remember that,

 

They don't make up Doctrines, as the Protestants falsely accuse the Church of.

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ex-cathedra = from the chair, Moses Spoke from the Chair. St Peter spoke from the Chair, it has been a Church belief from day one.

Trinity was based on the Bible, (Father,Son and Holy Spirit)

Just because something wasn't written (i.e. Doctrine) andres doesn't mean it wasn't believed, remember that,

They don't make up Doctrines, as the Protestants falsely accuse the Church of.

So you believe theese dogmas, some of which were outspoken ex cathedrs relatively late in the history of the church, were nothing new. Trinity was derived from the Bible, and I guess so was the belief on Marys non-original sin, but it is an interpretation among other interpretations. I dont know and you dont know if first christians believed in trinity or not, so it is OK we christians differ in belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe theese dogmas, some of which were outspoken ex cathedrs relatively late in the history of the church, were nothing new. Trinity was derived from the Bible, and I guess so was the belief on Marys non-original sin, but it is an interpretation among other interpretations. I dont know and you dont know if first christians believed in trinity or not, so it is OK we christians differ in belief.

 

just to add also we don't believe in sola scriptura as you know, so if something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's not a belief (a-la Sacred Tradition).

Edited by shreek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to add also we don't believe in sola scriptura as you know, so if something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's not a belief (a-la Sacred Tradition).

It would also have been a very heavy Bible, impossible to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Post 28:

Quote: says nothing about your assertion that the Catholic Church started in 300AD or so.

Response: --- This is found in the Edict of Milan online:

Quote: The Edict of Milan refers to the February 313 agreement to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire.[1] Western Roman Emperor Constantine I, and Licinius, who controlled the Balkans, met in Milan and among other things, agreed to change policies towards Christians.[1]

The document known as the Edict of Milan (Edictum Mediolanense) is found in Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum and in Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church with marked divergences between the two.[2] Whether or not there was a formal 'Edict of Milan'  is debatable.[1]

The version found in Lactantius is not in the form of an edict.[2] It is a letter from Licinius to the governors of the provinces in the Eastern Empire he had just conquered by defeating Maximin[3] later in the same year and issued in Nicomedia.[1]

Ever since the fall of the Severan dynasty in 235, rivals for the imperial throne had bid for support by either favoring or persecuting Christians.[4] A previous edict of toleration had been recently issued by the emperor Galerius from Serdica and posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311. By its provisions, the Christians, who had "followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity", were granted an indulgence.[5]

"Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the commonwealth may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes."

Their confiscated property, however, was not restored until 313 when instructions were given for the Christians' meeting places and other properties were to be returned and compensation paid by the state to the current owners:[6]

"the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception"

It directed the provincial magistrates to execute this order at once with all energy, so that public order may be restored and the continuance of the Divine favor may "preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state."

The actual letters have never been retrieved inscribed upon stone. However, they are quoted at length in Lactantius' On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De mortibus persecutorum), which gives the Latin text of both Galerius's Edict of Toleration as posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311, and of Licinius's letter of toleration and restitution addressed to the governor of Bithynia and posted at Nicomedia on 13 June 313.

Eusebius of Caesarea translated both documents into Greek in his History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica). His version of the letter of Licinius must derive from a copy posted in the province of Palaestina Prima (probably at its capital, Caesarea) in the late summer or early autumn of 313, but the origin of his copy of Galerius's Edict of 311 is unknown, since that does not seem to have been promulgated in Caesarea. In his description of the events in Milan in his Life of Constantine, Eusebius eliminated the role of Licinius, whom he portrayed as the evil foil to his hero Constantine.

The Edict was in effect directed against Maximinus Daia, the Caesar in the East who was at that time styling himself as Augustus. Having received the emperor Galerius' instruction to repeal the persecution in 311, Maximinus had instructed his subordinates to desist, but had not released Christians from prisons or virtual death-sentences in the mines, as Constantine and Licinius had both done in the West.[7]

Following Galerius' death, Maximin was no longer constrained; he enthusiastically took up renewed persecutions in the eastern territories under his control, encouraging petitions against Christians, one of which, addressed to him and to Constantine and Licinius, is preserved in a stone inscription at Arycanda in Lycia, "to request that the Christians, who have long been disloyal and still persist in the same mischievous intent, should at last be put down and not be suffered by any absurd novelty to offend against the honour due to the gods."[8]

--- (The Romans revered their Emperors as gods, --- and the Christians didn’t honor the Roman ‘gods,’ so they were persecuted.)

The Edict is popularly thought to concern only Christianity, and even to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire (which recognition did not actually occur until 380 under Theodosius I). Indeed the Edict expressly grants religious liberty to Christians, who had been the object of special persecution, but it goes even further and grants liberty to all religions:

When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion.

—"Edict of Milan", Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De Mortibus Persecutorum), ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).[9]

Since Licinius composed the Edict with the intent of publishing it in the east[citation needed] upon his hoped-for victory over Maximinus, it was expressive of the religious policy accepted by Licinius, a pagan, rather than that of Constantine[citation needed], who was already a committed Christian. Constantine's own policy went beyond merely tolerating Christianity: he tolerated paganism and other religions, but he actively promoted Christianity. --- End of quote.

NOTICE THIS: --- (Eusebius of Caesarea, --- a Bishop in the newly organized Church, after the persecution stopped, but notice, --- in spite of religious freedom, Eusebius persecuted other sects.)

Quote: Eusebius (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; 260/265 – 339/340) (also called Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius Pamphili) was a Roman historian, exegete and Christian polemicist. He became the Bishop of Early centers of Caesarea about the year 314 A.D. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely well learned Christian of his time

Eusebius succeeded Agapius, as Bishop of Caesarea soon after 313 and played a prominent role at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Eusebius, a learned man and famous author, enjoyed the favour of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees."[32] However, the anti-Arian creed from Palestine prevailed becoming the basis for the Nicene Creed.[33]

The theological views of Arius, that taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, continued to be a problem. Eustathius of Antioch strongly opposed the growing influence of Origen's theology as the root of Arianism. Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch.

However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334, he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine. After the Emperor's death (c.337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine, an important historical work because of eye witness accounts and the use of primary sources. Eusebius died c.339. --- End of quote.

NOTICE ALSO: --- In all of this organization there was not one mention of them being ‘guided by God,’ --- or is there any mention of ‘the leading of the Holy Spirit.’

Does this not show that it was man’s organization, and the same as Paul said of the Jews, could apply to that Church, --- “Having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

--- Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are genuine believers in the Catholic Church of today, --- but the Roman Church was a strategic move to derail Christianity. --- Because it failed, eventually there was a Reformation by one of its Bishops, Martin Luther, to get Christianity back to the Scriptures.

(Sorry, a little long, but you were asking for more explanation, so read it all.)

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously placid. How on God's Green Earth does the Edict of Milan prove the church started in the 300s or so?

It's simply a document granting religious freedom in the Roman Empire to Christians and non-Christians alike.

It actually weakens your argument, since it proves the Church ALREADY existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Christians that the Romans were persecuting up until 311, were the Christians who followed the original pattern of the Church in Acts, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. They were meant to spread out and evangelize, which they did. --- They were never meant to have a central Church, but to have local Churches in each town and city, which is what they did.

When the Romans stopped the persecution it was with the plan to co-operate and start the New Church with the name of Rome on it, so they called it The Roman Catholic Church, --- Catholic means ‘universal,’ and because the Romans were the Rulers at that time, they declared their Church the official Church for the World, --- and run from a central location.

--- I thought you might catch on to that when Eusebius became prominent in the new Church in 314.

It was a new Church started with a hierarchy and a Pope, which was never the structure of the first Churches started in the Book of Acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Christians that the Romans were persecuting up until 311, were the Christians who followed the original pattern of the Church in Acts, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. They were meant to spread out and evangelize, which they did. --- They were never meant to have a central Church, but to have local Churches in each town and city, which is what they did.When the Romans stopped the persecution it was with the plan to co-operate and start the New Church with the name of Rome on it, so they called it The Roman Catholic Church, --- Catholic means ‘universal,’ and because the Romans were the Rulers at that time, they declared their Church the official Church for the World, --- and run from a central location.--- I thought you might catch on to that when Eusebius became prominent in the new Church in 314.It was a new Church started with a hierarchy and a Pope, which was never the structure of the first Churches started in the Book of Acts.

Completely wrong on so many levels.

We have the pedigree, the lineage, and the succession.

Try as you will to paint the Church in your own skewed image the facts speak for themselves.

Our first Pope was St Paul, then St Linus (who is mentioned in the Bible) until today a direct succession we have Pope Francis.

The Church has NEVER called itself the Roman Catholic Church. It is called officially the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, Catholic for short or simply the Church. Newspaper articles or news reports referring to it as Roman is not a source i would quote.

Show me official church doctrines/dogmas, canons, councils in which the church calls itself 'Roman Catholic'. stop misleading people.

You showed nothing in your posts to say the church began in the 300s.

The structure of the church is evident in the Bible, with Bishops and elders leading the church and officiating and pronouncing Doctrine, not the people telling what the church should do (as Protestants do)....I.e authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one else called it the Roman Catholic Church, maybe not in Lebanon...

 

So early in this video the guy starts listing off what he doesn't believe. Then he goes out to "discover the truth"  Some of his disbeliefs cross over Christianity and Islam beliefs, so the rest was just more theories. I thought we had enough already, but who knows...God knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...