D
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
D
Deconi
Guest
Not even close!He sure played the part though!
zerinus
As a Roman Emperor he could have easily “assumed” the Papacy and ‘relieved’ the Bishop of Rome of the title.
What he did was indicative of two things! Even as a reigning emperor, he realised he was just a Catholic laity in the eyes of his Maker! He also understood that the Pope is not a secular title and he recognised the difference between his empirical power and the Pope’s domain, for he was not threatened by it!
For a Roman Emperor to ‘submit’ to another authority is an example in humility lost on most men in authority, including Hinckley! Who or what you are in life matters not if your soul is in jeopardy!
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Firstly, he convened the council (where was the Pope then?).
So? It’s well-known that from Constantine forward emperors and kings meddled in administrative affairs of the Church. But the Council was about doctrine, and it’s well-established that Constantine left that to the bishops to finalize.
Secondly, he presided over the council (was not that the job of the Pope?).
Again, so? Convening and presiding are not the same as influencing. The council was a free debate with only two points of view about the nature of God presented. Then there was a vote.
Thirdly, he participated in the debates.
Again, so? Lots of people participated in the debate. Constantine’s was just one voice among hundreds. Unless you care to assert the hypothesis that the bishops were overawed by his majesty or perhaps feared for their lives since he was the emperor. But there’s no evidence for this. Instead, the evidence points to the fact that it was a free and open debate.
Fourthly, he exerted his imperial authority to influence the outcome. The homoousios, bit was added to the creed at the suggestion of Constantine. (Constantine was the first Pope!).
Again, so? Because the greek word homoousios can’t be found in a document prior to 325 does not mean that christians believed that God has a body, a long white beard (or perhaps grey), lives near Kolob, was once mortal, and that he had a father himself. The New Testament clearly speaks of God’s spirit nature and his invisible qualities made known through Christ’s incarnation. The Church Fathers also universally affirm this teaching in the places where they mention God’s nature. This is the core of the doctrine affirmed at Nicea. Just because homoousios cannot be found in a document prior to 325 does not mean the Nicene view of God was invented at the council. And just because Constantine offered a greek word to help explain and expound upon a centuries old doctrine, does not mean he invented the doctrine. You are making too much out of a very thin piece of evidence.
2. The bishops did “invent the doctrine at the council”. Jesus being homoousios with the Father was not historical Christian doctrine. It is unheard of in the Bible, or in the writings of the earliest Christian saints. It is an invention of the council.
Constantine and the bishops used homoousios to clarify and expand an existing doctrine. Just because the word cannot be found in the original greek does not mean the council invented the notion that God is a spirit and that Jesus is not God incarnate. No one believed God and Jesus were separate and that God was an embodied, resurrected man living on a planet orbiting Kolob. To the contrary. All of the evidence indicates that the earliest christians believed God was a spirit, celebrated a eucharistic sacrifice on an altar, and that Jesus was the incarnate God in the Flesh who loved us so much that he took on human form to die for us.
NewSeeker
So? It’s well-known that from Constantine forward emperors and kings meddled in administrative affairs of the Church. But the Council was about doctrine, and it’s well-established that Constantine left that to the bishops to finalize.
Secondly, he presided over the council (was not that the job of the Pope?).
Again, so? Convening and presiding are not the same as influencing. The council was a free debate with only two points of view about the nature of God presented. Then there was a vote.
Thirdly, he participated in the debates.
Again, so? Lots of people participated in the debate. Constantine’s was just one voice among hundreds. Unless you care to assert the hypothesis that the bishops were overawed by his majesty or perhaps feared for their lives since he was the emperor. But there’s no evidence for this. Instead, the evidence points to the fact that it was a free and open debate.
Fourthly, he exerted his imperial authority to influence the outcome. The homoousios, bit was added to the creed at the suggestion of Constantine. (Constantine was the first Pope!).
Again, so? Because the greek word homoousios can’t be found in a document prior to 325 does not mean that christians believed that God has a body, a long white beard (or perhaps grey), lives near Kolob, was once mortal, and that he had a father himself. The New Testament clearly speaks of God’s spirit nature and his invisible qualities made known through Christ’s incarnation. The Church Fathers also universally affirm this teaching in the places where they mention God’s nature. This is the core of the doctrine affirmed at Nicea. Just because homoousios cannot be found in a document prior to 325 does not mean the Nicene view of God was invented at the council. And just because Constantine offered a greek word to help explain and expound upon a centuries old doctrine, does not mean he invented the doctrine. You are making too much out of a very thin piece of evidence.
2. The bishops did “invent the doctrine at the council”. Jesus being homoousios with the Father was not historical Christian doctrine. It is unheard of in the Bible, or in the writings of the earliest Christian saints. It is an invention of the council.
Constantine and the bishops used homoousios to clarify and expand an existing doctrine. Just because the word cannot be found in the original greek does not mean the council invented the notion that God is a spirit and that Jesus is not God incarnate. No one believed God and Jesus were separate and that God was an embodied, resurrected man living on a planet orbiting Kolob. To the contrary. All of the evidence indicates that the earliest christians believed God was a spirit, celebrated a eucharistic sacrifice on an altar, and that Jesus was the incarnate God in the Flesh who loved us so much that he took on human form to die for us.
NewSeeker
Y
YACatholic
Guest
I figured I would post a reply that would refute these claims in as few words as possible (forgive the run-ons):
I think the more we understand this principle, the better the Catholic Church will be. Thanks for reading. Reply if you have some insight for me.
God Bless,
YACatholic
Which is more believable? That a group of people, who had understanding and knowledge handed down dating all the way back to Jesus and his apostles, came together and debated and through the gift of the Holy Spirit came to know the truth about Christianity. OR did God let humanity become confused about Jesus for 1800 years until he spoke to a guy in the U.S. and told him that every other church was offensive to God.
I think that it’s pretty easy to see which one is more likely. I wrote this so it could be spoken to a Mormon. I left out current and past teachings of the Mormon Church that seem odd, or ridiculous. You can convert people by telling them they’re wrong, not by calling them an idiot. If you call something that people believe in stupid (even if you think it is), they will believe that you are calling them stupid.I think the more we understand this principle, the better the Catholic Church will be. Thanks for reading. Reply if you have some insight for me.
God Bless,
YACatholic
Z
zerinus
Guest
So you agree with every statement I have made, followed by a So?
Therefore I might add, So?
zerinus
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Nice dodge. Your case is still not made. You could make it if you present evidence from the writings of the eyewitnesses in support of your view, namely that Constantine dominated the proceedings, it was not a free and open debate, and that the bishops did not believe that God was a spirit and one with Jesus prior to the council. I agree that homoousis was new, but only as as a new way to explain the long-held beliefs about God’s spiritual nature…
NewSeeker
NewSeeker
B
BartBurk
Guest
You need to remember that Zerinius is not used to a religion that is open about its history. And “So what” is an appropriate answer to almost everything he has said about this.
V
VeronicaAnne
Guest
As the RCIA sponsor for my best friend who left the LDS church YEARS ago… I did research on LDS teaching and practice. The first place I went was to the Catholic Answers page that has articles on non-Catholic groups. There are several articles there about LDS – their history, their practices, their dogma, their structure.
So, I thought I’d just add this link for your reference.
catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Myself, I am quite uncomfortable with any group that has a leader that can decide what is truth, what is dogma, what is doctrine, on their own. And even decide to make a 180 for political purposes, like the LDS President did (with the polygamy-is-OK doctrine) so that Idaho would be allowed to become one of these United States.
Even so, the lower-level Mormons have no clue what the higher dogmas of their “church” even are until they raise to that level, themselves. This I’ve learned from at least someone whom I’ve met who used to be 5th-level Mormon… and turned around to become Catholic. He advised me to not ever, ever knock the “legs” off the LDS stool the person is standing on currently without providing another stool for them to stand on. Even if that stool that you offer to them is not Catholic, but any other Christian faith. This is because without their standing on some stool or other once they’ve come down off the LDS stool… very often that individual becomes just plain atheist.
I’m just sayin…
So, I thought I’d just add this link for your reference.
catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Myself, I am quite uncomfortable with any group that has a leader that can decide what is truth, what is dogma, what is doctrine, on their own. And even decide to make a 180 for political purposes, like the LDS President did (with the polygamy-is-OK doctrine) so that Idaho would be allowed to become one of these United States.
Even so, the lower-level Mormons have no clue what the higher dogmas of their “church” even are until they raise to that level, themselves. This I’ve learned from at least someone whom I’ve met who used to be 5th-level Mormon… and turned around to become Catholic. He advised me to not ever, ever knock the “legs” off the LDS stool the person is standing on currently without providing another stool for them to stand on. Even if that stool that you offer to them is not Catholic, but any other Christian faith. This is because without their standing on some stool or other once they’ve come down off the LDS stool… very often that individual becomes just plain atheist.
I’m just sayin…
V
VeronicaAnne
Guest
Thanks, BartBurk, for your kind advice. I sincerely agree with your statement that someone who is Mormon is definitely not used to a religion that is open about its history.
OKAY… so a P.S. to my post (above)… in case Zerinius needs to comment in a way that is not applicable to the content of what I wrote…
this is me…
W
With_Love
Guest
Howdy, I know that the LDS Church rejects “All man made creeds,” but how do Mormons views the inerrancy of Sacred Scriptures? Some Mormon Missionaries said that the Book of Mormon is more trustworthy than the bible.
M
Montalban
Guest
He played *a *part. That’s not the same thing, even if we assume the Catholic model of church governance there’s no indication that Constantine acted as Pope - none that you’ve shown.
You’ve still not brought together the two refuting claims: he acted as Pope, he got a ‘compromise’ statement of faith.
Z
zerinus
Guest
We accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture and the word of God. But we think that the Book of Mormon has come down to us in a more direct way, hence less altered in the process; while the Bible has passed down to us through the hands of many copyists and translators, and unavoidably more changes has taken place in it. But both are of equal value as the word of God and inspired scripture.
zerinus
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Funny, because in all the LDS sacrament meetings I’ve been to in my life, I’ve never heard one Mormon bear his testimony and say, ***“I know the bible is true.” ***But practically 100% of them always bear their testimony that "I know the Book of Mormon is true." There is no doubt that Mormons put the BoM on a much higher pedestal than the bible. Thus you will find Joseph Smith “retranslating” parts of the bible to suit his own theology. Don’t kid yourself, for the typical Mormon the BoM is much more important, and the bible is full of errors.
And another thing, why for goodness sake do the Mormons use a Protestant bible, which is missing books from the Old Testament? The King James version has also been shown to be an inferior translation of ancient manuscripts compared to other bibles. You would think the Mormons would want to have the most complete and best translation available, but instead they settled for an inferior one that’s missing books.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Not true. Mormons testify to the truth of the Restoration—the restored gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith—and the Book of Mormon is part of that Restoration. That does not mean that we “put the Book of Mormon on a higher pedestal than the Bible”.
We believe that the KJV is the best translation of the Bible that is available in English.
zerinus
W
With_Love
Guest
Zerinus, would you say that unavoidable changes occured in the Jewish Scriptures prior to the time of Jesus and the Apostles? If this is the case, when did Jesus correct the Scriptures? I can’t seem to find any scripture to support the idea that God allowed his revealed Tradition (Written or oral) to become corrupt.
Z
zerinus
Guest
The changes occurred both in the old Jewish scriptures as well as in the New Testament scripture. The changes consisted mainly of important passages being omitted form it, rather than words changed to read differently. The Old Testament in particular makes references to many books that have been omitted from it, and is no longer found in the scriptural canon. There is plenty of evidence for that.
He didn’t need to. See above.
zerinus
M
Marc1152
Guest
Actually not. No Pope has ever attended an ecumenical council much less ruled over one…He sure played the part though!
zerinus
D
dosdog
Guest
Samaritan Pentateuch - On the return from the Exile, the Jews refused the Samaritans participation with them in the worship at Jerusalem, and the latter separated from all fellowship with them, and built a temple for themselves on Mount Gerizim. This temple was razed to the ground more than one hundred years B.C. Then a system of worship was instituted similar to that of the temple at Jerusalem. It was founded on the Law, copies of which had been multiplied in Israel as well as in Judah. Thus the Pentateuch was preserved among the Samaritans, although they never called it by this name, but always “the Law,” which they read as one book. The division into five books, as we now have it, however, was adopted by the Samaritans, as it was by the Jews, in all their priests’ copies of “the Law,” for the sake of convenience. This was the only portion of the Old Testament which was accepted by the Samaritans as of divine authority.
The form of the letters in the manuscript copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch is different from that of the Hebrew copies, and is probably the same as that which was in general use before the Captivity. There are other peculiarities in the writing which need not here be specified.
There are important differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the LXX. agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish. Thus Ex. 12:40 in the Samaritan reads, “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years” (comp. Gal. 3:17). It may be noted that the LXX. has the same reading of this text htmlbible.com/kjv30/easton/east3203.htm
Samaritans. While not frequently cited in New Testament texts, the Samaritans are a good example of division amongst the Jews of Jesus’ era. The parable of the “Good” Samaritan is often seen as highlighting the prejudice of the time which held that Samaritans were inherently “bad,” or at least inferior to the supposedly purer Jews of Judea.
The third group, the Essenes,This group is also referred to as the Qumran community; they are generally believed to be the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Essenes did not marry; they shared property in common; they ate all meals together; and they lived a strictly regulated life of study and prayer; and they held themselves to a higher standard of virtue than others outside their community. bear a significant resemblance to later monasteries.
academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/dfg/jesu/topic2.htm
The Septuagint Greek (LXX)Translation
The second recension was the Septuagint Greek (LXX) which was translated from the Vorlage Text about 250 BC by 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria (also known as the Alexandrian Septuagint, by way of distinction from other later translations also bearing the title of Septuagint, or LXX). This version became necessary because of the number of Greek-speaking Jews that were resident in Egypt under the favourable Ptolemaic Dynasty. It has been noted by most authorities that the LXX translation of the Vorlage Hexateuch (Genesis to Joshua) was particularly carefully done because of its revered position in the canon. The Eastern Christian Church still considers the LXX to be the authoritative OT text today.
ldolphin.org/barrychron.html
W
With_Love
Guest
If ancient Israel perpetually cycled through Apostasy and Dispensation, what was the conditions of their sacred text (The Old Testament) when Jesus came to earth during the Fullness of time?(Gal.4:4) Was the Old Testament in need of restoration? Where in the Old Testament does it gave an example of the scriptures or Law becoming corrupt and being restored as apposed to losing the Law of Moses and Finding it again(See 2 Chronicles 34:14) or proclaiming the same word after the Exile (See Nehemiah 8:1-8). There is no indication that the Law was corrupted, just that it was not used correctly by the people.
When did Jesus Correct the Old Testament Scriptures? Why did the New and Old Testament Scriptures become distorted after a few hundred years of Apostasy (Especially When Jesus promised the Protection of the Holy Spirit, John 14:26) when Ancient Israel was able to preserve the Sacred Text through war, apostasy, exile.
Jesus seems to cite scripture frequently, especially to build support for His teaching authority. See Matthew 19:3-12/Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 12:1-9/Deuteronomy 23:24,25; Matt 22:31,32/Exodus 3:6;
Matthew 22:41-46/Psalm 110:1
In Luke’s Gospel Chapter 16:27-31, we hear about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. He is addressing the Pharisees who were the Custodians/Bearers of the Law and Prophets to the People of Israel. In these scriptures Jesus claims that the Current condition of the Law and the Prophets was as great of a conversion witness as actually seeing the resurrection of the dead.
The Law was proclaimed to the whole Assembly of Israel every seven years.(See Deuteronomy 31:9-12)
Jesus Know the scriptures extensively (John 7:15), and he never criticizes or contradicts the sacred texts themselves. Rather he fulfills and corrects the interpretations of the people.
Jesus apparently felt that the contemporary conditions of the Sacred Texts was worth maintaining until heaven and earth pass away. Matt 5:17-48, Luke 16:16. No talk of corrections here.
Jesus felt that the current teaching authority of the Pharisee, and there interpretation of scripture was adequate. See Matthew 23:1-4 (Jesus differentiates the corrupted oral traditions of men, (Mark 7:1-23) and those teachings grounded in the scriptures which is approved of by Christ.
St. Paul seems very sure about the origin and teaching authority of ALL scripture. He quotes scripture extensively in his epistles and addresses a Jewish Audience (Who themselves were very familiar with Scripture) and never has to correct the scripture texts. (2 Timothy 3:16)
Just Throwing that out there.
When did Jesus Correct the Old Testament Scriptures? Why did the New and Old Testament Scriptures become distorted after a few hundred years of Apostasy (Especially When Jesus promised the Protection of the Holy Spirit, John 14:26) when Ancient Israel was able to preserve the Sacred Text through war, apostasy, exile.
Jesus seems to cite scripture frequently, especially to build support for His teaching authority. See Matthew 19:3-12/Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 12:1-9/Deuteronomy 23:24,25; Matt 22:31,32/Exodus 3:6;
Matthew 22:41-46/Psalm 110:1
In Luke’s Gospel Chapter 16:27-31, we hear about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. He is addressing the Pharisees who were the Custodians/Bearers of the Law and Prophets to the People of Israel. In these scriptures Jesus claims that the Current condition of the Law and the Prophets was as great of a conversion witness as actually seeing the resurrection of the dead.
The Law was proclaimed to the whole Assembly of Israel every seven years.(See Deuteronomy 31:9-12)
Jesus Know the scriptures extensively (John 7:15), and he never criticizes or contradicts the sacred texts themselves. Rather he fulfills and corrects the interpretations of the people.
Jesus apparently felt that the contemporary conditions of the Sacred Texts was worth maintaining until heaven and earth pass away. Matt 5:17-48, Luke 16:16. No talk of corrections here.
Jesus felt that the current teaching authority of the Pharisee, and there interpretation of scripture was adequate. See Matthew 23:1-4 (Jesus differentiates the corrupted oral traditions of men, (Mark 7:1-23) and those teachings grounded in the scriptures which is approved of by Christ.
St. Paul seems very sure about the origin and teaching authority of ALL scripture. He quotes scripture extensively in his epistles and addresses a Jewish Audience (Who themselves were very familiar with Scripture) and never has to correct the scripture texts. (2 Timothy 3:16)
Just Throwing that out there.
- Status