Please Answer This Question

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

That is true, but they did absorb many of the older traditions of Christianity.. But they do, of course, have some things added to it. The trick is to figure out which beliefs and traditions were those of the early Christians and which ones came about later. So even there you do not get a pure version of the original religion...

To say that Catholics are non-Christian is fallacy of Protestantism. And naturally they do have a lot of their facts obscured when it comes to what Catholic even believe. Strangely enough, Protestantism is actually the form of Christianity that has departed from most of the ancient beliefs of the religion. With the birth of sola scriptura, many began to invent their own doctrines according to what they read in the Bible and how they understood it. This is why you can walk into a hundred Protestant churches and get a hundred different answers as to what they believe.

As one huge example as to how Protestantism has departed from the original practices of the Christian faith, let us look at the practice of the Lord's Supper or communion. The early Christians partook of this meal every Lord's day, or the day of the week that they met. It was actually believed to be the body and blood of Christ and was the central rite of the Christian gathering. It doesn't take a historian or master theologian to do a little digging and find that this fact is so... Yet Protestantism looks upon this practice as being purely symbolic and most Protestant churches partake of the Lord's Supper once or twice a year using squares of bread and cups of grape juice.

Once one studies the subject out from a more historical point of view, they will find that Protestantism is actually farther away from actual Christianity then their favorite whipping boy.... the Church of Rome.

The universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever “World Council of Churches” where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’” The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, “I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

If you would care to open your eyes, I’m sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some sort of idiot, in trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs who had no need of food, into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," matey, you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

From the book, “Jesus the Evidence” by Ian Wilson. P. 138 and 142.

Constantine, who had just won the eastern half of the Empire, thereby at last achieving his cherished goal of unity, suddenly found himself in the midst of this seething dispute between two rival groups of (Those who called themselves christians), with epithets such as “maniacs, eels, cuttlefish, atheists and wolves,” being hurled at each other. The extent to which Constantine, of no great education, even understood the theological issues is by no means clear, but he tried to pacify the protagonists by sending an identical letter to both Arius and Alexander, almost unctuously pleading for ‘equal forbearance’ and reconciliation.

“Constantine the victor, Supreme Augustus, to Alexander and Arius….how deep a wound has not only my ears, but my heart received from the report that divisions exist among yourselves….having enquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention. . . Restore my quite days and untroubled nights to me, so that joy of undimmed light, delight in a tranquil life, may once again be mine.”

Unfortunately, from a distance even Constantine was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred. No one “Pope” as such existed, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch each being recognised as having supreme authority within their geographical regions, but no supremacy over all (The so-called) Christendom.

Accordingly, to resolve this and other issues (Such as the date of Easter, another bitter source of contention), Constantine decided personally to summon all those who called themselves Christian leaders to the first ever ‘World Council’. The appointed date was early summer of 325 AD, the venue the pleasant lakeside town of Nicaea, today Iznik in north-western Turkey, where Constantine had a suitably commodious palace.

From the very circumstances of the time, it was bound to be an extraordinary gathering, with (that form of) christianity having spread so far as Britain in the West and India in the East, for some of the delegates the journey took several weeks, if not months. When they assembled, it was to set eyes on each other for the first time in many cases, though for several, such as Bishop Pamphnutius, sight was denied because they had been viciously blinded during earlier persecutions.

The hermit Jacob of Nisibis arrived in goatskins, accompanied by a persistent horde of gnats. Another delegate was the saintly Nicholas from the city of Myra in Asia Minor, who was the prototype of the Christmas Santa Claus. Also present of course was Arius. Although the Bishop of Rome excused himself as too old to travel, he sent two priests to represent him. Before this bizarre and unprecedented assembly Constantine, dazzlingly robed and dripping with gold and Jewels of a decadence earlier emperors would have abhorred, took his place on a low, wrought gold chair.

It was at this point in history, and before this assembly, that a decision was to be made that would have the most profound consequences for believers in Jesus Christ to this day. In the simplest of terms, the point at issue was whether Jesus was a mere human being (Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of your ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus.) and was now (Incontestably divine) who had been brought into existence to serve God’s purpose-to act as the ‘word’ of God (Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc.) at a particular time in the early first century AD, or whether he had been God for all eternity, ‘of one substance with the Father (As those in the West expressed it), If the latter, then he was effectively a supraterrestrial entity easily compared with Sol Invictus, but light years removed from the Jesus envisaged by Arius and the Antiochenes.

Although reports of the exact proceedings of the Council of Nicaea have not survived, from those contemporary accounts that do exist it would seem that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius Caesarea, representing the Antiochene party, forcefully espoused the Arian view, confidently expecting that they would win the day. To try to provide a formula on which the whole gathering would agree, Eusebius of Caesarea read out the statement of belief which he was accustomed to employ at baptisms within his own diocese.

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man.”

It is important to recognise that while the distinctions implied by capital letters today did not exist in Constantine’s time (As mentioned earlier, only uncials were employed then) as set out above they convey what Eusebius and the Antiochenes essentially intended. To most catholics the words will have a familiar ring because at every mass they recite almost the same formula. For many present day Christians the words more than adequately impart a divinity to Jesus, particularly in quite illogically accrediting him first born of all creation. But to the fourth century Alexandrians, as was made clear by the brilliantly eloquent Arch-deacon Athanasius (Acting as spokesmean for his aged bishop Alexandria), it simply did not go far enough, and was not sufficiently precise. It made Jesus appear less than God himself.

For the judgment of Solomon on the issue, the only appropriate recourse was to Constantine, almost theologically illiterate, but politically a superb man manager. Exactly what swayed Constantine in that crucial moment we shall probably never know. There can be little doubt that for him the deification of a man was nothing particular special. He had his father Constantius deified, and would be accorded the same honour after his own death, and would surely have expected Jesus to be a superior entity in the divine hierarchy. He might well also have taken into account Alexandria’s strategic and commercial advantages. What-ever his motives, Constantine ruled in favour of the Alexandrian. Eusebius’ formula was heavenly edited to accommodate the Alexandrian view, and while affirming that the standpoint of the Antiochenes was entirely reasonable, Constantine urged all council delegates to sign the revised formula as a statement of faith on which all Christians should in the future agree.

For all those who signed, there was the inducement of an invitation to stay on at Nicaea as Constantine’s guests for his twentieth anniversary celebrations. For all who refused there was immediate banishment. Among all concerned, it would appear to have gone entirely unnoticed that the formula they were about to impose on all future christians contained not one jot of the ethical teachings that the human Jesus had once preached. Perhaps not unexpectedly, all but two of the most die-hard Arian Loyalists signed. But from the none too truth face-saving letter Eusebius of Caesarea sent back to his home diocese, it is clear how uneasy he felt about the extent to which he had compromised the fundamental principles of what he had been taught about Jesus.

Other signatories, who were equally swayed into acquiescence by their awe of the forceful Constantine, felt exactly the same. Only on returning home did Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicaea formula: “We commited an impious act, O Prince,” wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, “by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.”

But it was too late. An overwhelming majority of christianity’s highest dignitaries had put pen to parchment, and even though the Arian controversy would rumble on for another two or three c3nturies, effectively there was no turning back. Although no gospel regarded Jesus as God, and not even Paul had done so, the Jewish teacher had been declared “very God” through all eternity and a whole theology would flow from this.

The middle ages for the Jew at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great, He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla 212, As Christianity grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.

But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his symphathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new, official “Christian line.”

Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcoinites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians.....with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning.... Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet...and that these should be handed over immediately to the catholic [ie. Universal] church.

Originally Posted by S-word

The universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever “World Council of Churches” where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

Well, in the long run, it makes no difference to me. Most of what the Bible and the Christian Churches claim as history is refuted and debunked by modern archeology anyway. Which brings us back to the original idea behind this thread; and that is that the Bible is a collection of stories based on other ancient myths. It is a work that must be looked upon as mystical rather than factual... If one takes it as literal, we see the problems that it can present.

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

Well, in the long run, it makes no difference to me. Most of what the Bible and the Christian Churches claim as history is refuted and debunked by modern archeology anyway. Which brings us back to the original idea behind this thread; and that is that the Bible is a collection of stories based on other ancient myths. It is a work that must be looked upon as mystical rather than factual... If one takes it as literal, we see the problems that it can present.

Then your opinion of scripture is entirely different to mine.

Originally Posted by S-word

Then your opinion of scripture is entirely different to mine.

And that's fine... I spent many, many years holding the literal view of scripture and arguing its authenticity. But then as time went on and I read the Bible through over and over again and studied it... I had questions and some things just didn't sit well with me. I was naturally afraid to question anything back then because that was the devil tempting me..

But one day out of the blue, I was reading a book that I thought was a Christian title and it posed some very interesting questions and presented some puzzling facts. It wasn't until years later when I followed up on the information and found out that most of what I have been taught as absolute truth was sadly not truth at all... or even a half truth. Trust me, I was stunned and riddled with anxiety over the whole prospect. But I got over it, and then found out that I was actually relieved that God wasn't such a wrathful, hell bent, angry complicated being that was little more than a glorified man that still had our worse traits as human beings.

I am truly happy for anyone who finds real peace and happiness in the literalist view of the Bible... to each their own. But for me, I will never go back. My peace is beyond that path.

[Lightspirit]

the thing about the truth any author puts forward referenced or not is it can only be their best guess. Your faith is then transferred from the bible to the author of the book.

NOT SAYING books are bad but thier content must be scrutinised with the content of many sources.


Its like my opinion., a wise man would research what I say. A wiser one would test what I say against many sources out of suspicion I am wrong.

The wisest arives at a considered educated answer.

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

And that's fine... I spent many, many years holding the literal view of scripture and arguing its authenticity. But then as time went on and I read the Bible through over and over again and studied it... I had questions and some things just didn't sit well with me. I was naturally afraid to question anything back then because that was the devil tempting me..

But one day out of the blue, I was reading a book that I thought was a Christian title and it posed some very interesting questions and presented some puzzling facts. It wasn't until years later when I followed up on the information and found out that most of what I have been taught as absolute truth was sadly not truth at all... or even a half truth. Trust me, I was stunned and riddled with anxiety over the whole prospect. But I got over it, and then found out that I was actually relieved that God wasn't such a wrathful, hell bent, angry complicated being that was little more than a glorified man that still had our worse traits as human beings.

I am truly happy for anyone who finds real peace and happiness in the literalist view of the Bible... to each their own. But for me, I will never go back. My peace is beyond that path.

Then you must believe as you choose to believe, you have a free will, even though you had no choice in the matter. Good night matey.

Originally Posted by lightworkerAu

the thing about the truth any author puts forward referenced or not is it can only be their best guess. Your faith is then transferred from the bible to the author of the book.

NOT SAYING books are bad but thier content must be scrutinised with the content of many sources.


Its like my opinion., a wise man would research what I say. A wiser one would test what I say against many sources out of suspicion I am wrong.

The wisest arives at a considered educated answer.

True, but when science, history and archeology agree with the guy who wrote the book and has no evidence to support the Bible... then which volume is more in the framework of guessing?

And which book would a wise and educated person then believe?

Originally Posted by S-word

Then you must believe as you choose to believe, you have a free will, even though you had no choice in the matter. Good night matey.

LOL... Yes, the evil, wicked world brainwashed me against the Bible with its satanic lies and trickery. I was a victim who made no choice of my own.

My goodness... how could I have been so manipulated by all that concrete scientific evidence that had a factual leg to stand on... I didn't know I had such a fragile constitution..

[Morpheus]

"You might want to pause there and go back and check your beliefs. The above view of predestination was never taught in Christianity until John Calvin concocted it in the 1500's I believe. Calvin and Luther are looked at as heroes and champions of the faith, but an honest historical look into their lives and teachings shows that they were quite off center in their personal lives. Martin Luther even said before he died that he never meant for his reformation to cause a break from the Church of Rome."

Mind, this is my deduction and conclusion is based on all evidence. I never studied Calvin and decided, "Yes, I am a Calvinist", though I've been called one.
(And, alot worse.).
Why would you think that I am limited to scripture alone, and given my profile name?

Physics... The Far Eastern teachings... and including what the Bible has to say about it.
Then of course, as you should know, are the many modern NDE accounts for consideration. www.nderf.org , Wherein there is much testimony about time and
space.
I don't come to my conclusions in shallow manner, and without decades of study.
They are not based on subjective issues, biased or disaffected mindset.

God's position is apart from the construct of "space/time"... which is what, "The Elect" and Predestination is about, in the Bible.

Regarding prophecy, it is being fulfilled before our eyes, and going according to plan. BTW, concerning Gog in Revelation... Gog has entered into it.
Russia sending attack helicopters to the middle east. Just the beginning.
Gog and Magog is about lineage, concerning Russia, and certain satellite nations.

"Clinton said Tuesday that the shipment "will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

But again, it is all a known apart from time.

...I'll repost again, concerning prophecy, which comes to us apart from time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"From The Book of Daniel" written, around, 587-530 B.C.

Daniel 7:13,14 -
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.
He approached the Ancient of Days.
14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"

Also, King David, in Psalms 110 -
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
(David lived between, 1040 - 970, B.C.)