THE DEITY OF CHRIST (http://www.jimfeeney.org/deityofjesuschrist.html)

....."Historical Jesus: The True Record

The “Historical Jesus” movement holds that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. However, this theory is not supported by the evidence. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts, giving detailed geographic, political and cultural details to bolster the record. All of the manuscript evidence presented above is dramatic, because it establishes that basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record, especially when so many witnesses were still alive to contradict the alleged errors or myths.

Is Jesus God? The Historical Dispute

Is Jesus God? The answer to this question is the only real dispute surrounding the historical Jesus. No legitimate scholar today denies that Jesus is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2,000 years ago, that he did remarkable wonders and acts of charity, and that He died a horrible death on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. The emotionally-charged dispute focuses specifically on whether Jesus was God incarnate who rose from the dead three days after His Crucifixion.

Is Jesus God? The Only Alternatives

Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this "spiritual" dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn't mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The only real argument that remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that Jesus' claims are legend. There just wasn't enough time for any legendary development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, to 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion. This includes Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians. Finally, if Jesus' claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for blasphemy.

Is Jesus God? The Only Answer

Is Jesus God? Once you have asked all your questions, weighed all the evidence, and tested all the arguments, you will ultimately be confronted with this question. In Mathew 16:15, Jesus put it this way, 'But who do you say that I am?' One of His disciples, Simon Peter, replied: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' What is your reply?"





http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-jesus.htm

John:

[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
[12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.
[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
[18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
[19] Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
[20] At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
[21] He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
[22] Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
[24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
[25] These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
[26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
[27] Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
[28] Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Hmmmmmmm, Ok. I have a few questions, and please do not take offense. I look for understanding and to comprehend. As this subject, I realize is an very touchy subject. I mean no disrespect.

I realize you got your information from an source on line. I also realize that interpetation and lauguage are two reasons why the subject gets confusing.

With that being said, I shall continue:

1- When Jesus was in the wilderness. He prayed to his father. If he is indeed the father, Whom was he praying too ??

2- Mark 10:18 says ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good, except God alone." If he was God , would he make such a statement ??


I realize that , Jesus, Emanuel, Emmanuel, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yashua, Immanuel and Imanuel. These were all "Godly" names given "Jesus" in the Bible. None of them is unique. Only "Yahweh" was GOD Almighty's Unique Name.

Even after translation that never changed. And Yahweh really means eternal.

If Jesus is the son of God, as the bible calls him, "Gods only begotten son." How can he in turn be God ??

I'm thinking, That Jesus preached to the common folks and used pharses and stroylines so that the common man can comprehend. Then To get the proper interpetation, would the entire bible be in harmony from begining to end ?? ( Excluding Revelations )

Again, My sister. I don't believe in organized religions lead by man but I do beleive in the bible. I look to gain spiritually and gain more insight. Its common knowledge that Constintine and the secret society has purposely used the bible to gain power and control and that why most practice what they do.

I'm hoping that you can explain these things and if not perhaps its just something for you/us to ponder. Deepest respect

Peace



[/COLOR]"]

No problem, Sister.

Right now, it's late and I'm sleepy. So now is not the time to tackle this discussion; but I will get back with you tomorrow.

....."Historical Jesus: The True Record

The “Historical Jesus” movement holds that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. However, this theory is not supported by the evidence. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts, giving detailed geographic, political and cultural details to bolster the record. All of the manuscript evidence presented above is dramatic, because it establishes that basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record, especially when so many witnesses were still alive to contradict the alleged errors or myths.

Is Jesus God? The Historical Dispute

Is Jesus God? The answer to this question is the only real dispute surrounding the historical Jesus. No legitimate scholar today denies that Jesus is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2,000 years ago, that he did remarkable wonders and acts of charity, and that He died a horrible death on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. The emotionally-charged dispute focuses specifically on whether Jesus was God incarnate who rose from the dead three days after His Crucifixion.

Is Jesus God? The Only Alternatives

Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this "spiritual" dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn't mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The only real argument that remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that Jesus' claims are legend. There just wasn't enough time for any legendary development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, to 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion. This includes Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians. Finally, if Jesus' claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for blasphemy.

Is Jesus God? The Only Answer

Is Jesus God? Once you have asked all your questions, weighed all the evidence, and tested all the arguments, you will ultimately be confronted with this question. In Mathew 16:15, Jesus put it this way, 'But who do you say that I am?' One of His disciples, Simon Peter, replied: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' What is your reply?"





http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-jesus.htm

Awesome!

Like Peter said [paraphrasing] . . . Jesus, you're it! Without your platform what else is there!?

. . . white supremacy . . . world domination . . . even over Africa!? . . .

Both...In order to operate in this natural earth, God (a spiritual being) needed to be cloaked in flesh. But in order to be the pure sacrifice, without sin, needed to be Divine.....

Hmmmmmmm, Ok. I have a few questions, and please do not take offense. I look for understanding and to comprehend. As this subject, I realize is an very touchy subject. I mean no disrespect.

I realize you got your information from an source on line. I also realize that interpetation and lauguage are two reasons why the subject gets confusing.

With that being said, I shall continue:

1- When Jesus was in the wilderness. He prayed to his father. If he is indeed the father, Whom was he praying too ??

2- Mark 10:18 says ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good, except God alone." If he was God , would he make such a statement ??


I realize that , Jesus, Emanuel, Emmanuel, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yashua, Immanuel and Imanuel. These were all "Godly" names given "Jesus" in the Bible. None of them is unique. Only "Yahweh" was GOD Almighty's Unique Name.

Even after translation that never changed. And Yahweh really means eternal.

If Jesus is the son of God, as the bible calls him, "Gods only begotten son." How can he in turn be God ??

I'm thinking, That Jesus preached to the common folks and used pharses and stroylines so that the common man can comprehend. Then To get the proper interpetation, would the entire bible be in harmony from begining to end ?? ( Excluding Revelations )

Again, My sister. I don't believe in organized religions lead by man but I do beleive in the bible. I look to gain spiritually and gain more insight. Its common knowledge that Constintine and the secret society has purposely used the bible to gain power and control and that why most practice what they do.

I'm hoping that you can explain these things and if not perhaps its just something for you/us to ponder. Deepest respect

Peace
"

Hello, Sister Blkbutterfy41!....I'm sorry I'm just getting back to you on this...

However, you are right "interpretation and language" have a great impact on readers/believers of the Bible; and with the New Testament coming from Greek, it is important that proper translation also be applied.

Now, my "interpretation," i.e. understanding of these verses you've mentioned is as follows:

1. Jesus praying in the Garden Of Gethsemane: Jesus, the Son, was praying to His Father, God....Now, Christianity is based in the Trinity: God, the Father, God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yes, Jesus is a part of the "God-Head;" but at this time, he had not yet fulfilled the prophecy of his divinity, i.e. crucifixion and resurrection so that, in turn, the Holy Spirit could come.


See also: John 43:
[43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
[44] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
[45] Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
[46] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

And>>>>>> John 14:
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
[12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

2. Mark 10:18 - Now, this verse is taken from Jesus and the Rich Man; and this one verse you've referenced doesn't give the whole message....That, too, is another confusion when the Bible is not read/received in the full context of its lesson or message.

The rich man called Jesus "Good Master/Teacher" and asked him what could he DO to "inherit eternal life?"

However, Jesus asks him "Why callest me good?" ----Because, since only GOD is "good," then the man is referencing Jesus as God....So, Jesus is, essentially, "calling" this man on his word choice and what it implies. (As if to say, "Oh, you're calling me "God?!"....Now, I'm "God," huh?! (lol) And you want me to tell you how to get eternal life, huh?...Okay, well, here's whatcha need to do..."

This man asked JESUS what he could do to have eternal life?

So, the "Rich Man's" words not only imply that Jesus is "good," i.e. "GOD" but also that Jesus has the power to tell him how to have eternal life.

My understanding of Mark 10:18 is that Jesus was telling this man that if his words were SINCERE by calling him "good," thereby referencing him as "God," AND asking him something that only God could answer then he (the rich man) would TRULY have to BELIEVE what he had just said and believe in JESUS.

It was like Jesus was saying, "So, you calling me "GOOD?!"...Do you know what you just said?!...You do realize what you just called me, right?! (lol)


Well, I'm sorry to be so long-winded.

But, THAT'S my understanding of it.

As a Bible believer, yourself, what's YOUR "interpretation" of these verses?

My sister , make no apologies. As I welcome the thorough answer. Then a rushed one. **smile**

My objective it to comprehend, Not Necesarily agree.
As far as my interpetations of the scriptures. Let me explain. I study history , which actually coincides with the bible. In doing that, I also know that Constantine used the bible to manipulate and control man. With that a lot of confusion and choas with the many branches of religion and different sects that derived from that.

But Gods plan and purpose they can not change. So yes, I agree wholehearted That you must have an relationship with God, to come an accurate understanding and to comprehend the book, The bible is harmonous from begining to end. And if we think about it sister. With so many authors, different time periods, What other book could be so informatiive over such a period of time. And what was written remains into effect today.

With that being said, based on my historical knowledge, Biblical knowledge, and spiritual accordance. I do not beleive in trinity. ** smile**
That's clearly Constantines junk, IMHO. He had a motive and an agenda with that ideology.

You have to remember how Gods work. Throughout time, it's a balance system. Sceince and God has always been as one. Man changed that. There had to be a second Adam to replace the first one. That is the purpose that Jesus served. It had to be another perfect man to be sacrificed so we can have the chance of repentance for our sins. Thus Jesus is our savior. He is lord. But he is not God.

When he was in the wilderness, He was talking to his father. When he prayed he prayed to his father. He was described to be , Gods only begotten son, That describes the relationship they had.

ie- You have 10 kids. For years before you had the 9. It was just you and your son. He helped you in every way. He assisted you to create and build. It's fair to say that you grew real close. Now, You established this relationship over time. Way before you had 9 more kids.

How close would you be to that first son ?? So if you sent him to do a job. Would you feel safe and secure to know that he would follow thorough with such an important deed ??

I have to get ready to go to work, My sister. But I am going to drop some information, that you can browse at your leisure. The goal is not for you to think like me, but draw your own conclusions. But to truly understand what was done and why we are at the current state of confusion with our faith and religion. You have to understand the culture practices at the time. Once you gain THAT Knowledge. You will recognize what man TRIED to do, As it sticks out like a sore thumb.

God is divine in his wisdom. Man verses him, is no contest. lol

I shall drop and you go over it, at your leisure. It's our responbility, IMHO, to challenge what we have been taught and told by man. Peace

Just an drop, Always go to the origins of. That is what my life coach taught me. The goal is for us to THINK, not for us to THINK ALIKE. Much respect.

__________________________________________________ ______________

As we look back into the history of the Holy Bible, or "HOLY SCRIPTURE AS WRITTEN BY GOD INSPIRED SCRIBES," we seem to forget that all of the BIBLES we use were the works of various writers, both men and women; but mostly men. And that all of the WORKS or BOOKS were compiled into what is today our various VERSIONS of "HOLY BIBLES" or "HOLY SCROLLS." We have also failed to realize that the BIBLES we use today are the result of a period of hundreds of REVISIONS and TRANSLATIONS that cover approximately two thousand four-hundred and ninety-five [2,495] years—from ca. 700 B.C. [BCE] to 1973 A.D. [CE]. Yet all in this period was preceded by much more earlier fundamentals created and developed by indigenous African People. These later on became the basic teachings of Judaism, and then Christianity. For even Moses, the father of the OLD TESTAMENT, was an African who used much of the ancient teachings of his fellow Africans of the Nile River [BLUE and WHITE] and Great Lakes regions Mysteries System of Northeast and Central-East Africa he allegedly passed down to other African Jews that converted them into what later became the PENTATEUCH or OLD TESTAMENT [Five Books Of Moses or Holy Torah].

The very first "BIBLE" or "SCROLL" on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a "CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND," was that of the African People of the Nile Valley and Great Lakes regions of Central, East and Northeast Africa. They were no different than the Africans we see today in the Harlems and Timbuctoos of the entire world we erroneously call: "NEGROES, COLORED FOLKS" and "BLACK PEOPLE" today. It was called by its African creators and developers...


"THE BOOK OF THE COMING FORTH BY DAY AND BY
NIGHT." It was translated from its original Hieroglyphic Text into the English language by many Europeans since the latter part of the 19th Century A.D. The easiest one to read is called...

"THE [Egyptian] "BOOK OF THE DEAD.",

Check it out, challenge the information, PLEASE !! Never beleive me nor just my words. ( Nor anyones ) Together is where we gain most !! **smile** Just another drop :
Master manipulators. Why ?? To control the minds of people. Its not enough to say I live by the bible, but lets see how they manipulated the book itself. And that why , to armor yourself, You should know your history and more importantly the role The Egypt played. The bible is harmonious in every way from front to back, with the exception of revelations. If anything is taken out of place , You would recognize it. ( God is good and man still can't out wit him ) The book by design is repetitious, symbolic with paraphrase so even with lost translation to get the most accurate account , You must be aware of the tricks.


Question: "Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?"

Answer: It is very important to clarify exactly what role the Emperor Constantine played in the Council of Nicea, what the purpose for the council was, what happened at Nicea, and briefly how the canon—the Bible as we know it—was formed. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who lived from 274 to 337 A.D. He is most famous for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after deceiving and defeating Licinius, his brother-in-law) and supposedly converting to Christianity. It is debated whether or not Constantine was actually a believer (according to his confessions and understanding of the faith) or just someone trying to use the church and the faith to his own advantage. Constantine called the Council of Nicea—the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.—primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, "There was when He was not." This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God…from the Father…not made." It was determined by the council that Christ was homoousia, meaning, one substance with the Father.

Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party's document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council. Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.


http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html

Faith and spirituallity has it place. But it should be able to standup to riducule. It has t make sense to the common man. It has to be logical.

God in his greatness gave us the tools needed to hold up to anything man puts in his path. Lets use bibilcal references this time. Just another drop :

Sometimes the origin of words does help us with the proper interpetation and weeds out mans manipulation.

God can variously be defined as:

the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.
The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."

Most modern day faiths and religions stem from the same base. Christianity didn't originate with pagans. It originated with Christ. Pagan traditions were attached later to obscure Jesus' message and institutionalize/deaden its value. ( means of control as well ) Islam is suffering from the same thing. Almost all tranformed over the years. Thats why we have so many different sects of faith and religions.

Tell me the history of Christianity and I can tell you your theology." This is especially true with a controversial figure like Constantine. Where Roman Catholics present him as laying the foundation for the Papacy, Protestants see him as the one responsible for leading the early Church away from the simplicity of the pure gospel and turning it into an institutional Church. However, blaming Constantine for the fall of the Church is a double-edged sword that cuts in both directions. If Protestants accuse Constantine of tampering with the Church, how do they know that Constantine did not tamper with the Bible ? ( My POV : I have to assume he did based on my research )

The problem with the "fall of the Church" argument is that it opens the possibility of a radical discontinuity between present-day Christianity and the early Church.

This danger can be seen in one of today's most popular bestsellers, The DaVinci Code. In the middle of the book (Chapter 55) Sir Leigh Teabing gives Sophie Neveu a brief synopsis of the "history" of Christianity. ( Taken from the book ) In it he makes the following points about Constantine:

Constantine was a lifelong pagan who was baptized against his will on his deathbed. ( I'm not sure of it was against his will but he was baptised on his death bed )
Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion solely for political gain.
Christianity is a hybrid religion, the result of Constantine's fusing the pagan cult of Sol Invictus with Christianity.

This blending can be seen in Constantine's changing the Christian day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Constantine ordered the making of the Bible that would reinforce the Council's decision to make Jesus the divine Son of God, and at the same time ordered the destruction of opposing documents.

The problem comes when people confuse fiction and nonfiction.

It is imperative that Christians, especially Orthodox Christians, have a firm grasp of their faith and of church history. Faith and history go together. We cannot separate church history from what we believe. The Orthodox understanding of truth is grounded in the Incarnation, the Son of God taking on human nature. Because the Son of God entered into human history, truth consists of more than a set of logically consistent concepts.

Our faith is grounded in the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who asserted: I am the Truth. When Orthodoxy claims that the Christian Faith is the true faith, it is asserting that it is a real faith, based on historical events that actually happened. Because Christianity is grounded in reality, our salvation in Christ is a real salvation that has an impact on both the spiritual and physical realities.

The historical truth fits all faiths that beleive Jesus is the Massiah . ( And the purpose of the bible ) Man can not undo the work of God.

The post is not to discredit any faith. But to introduce why so many faiths came into play after Constantine. Including the many sects of Christendom.




Peace

I am quickly running out of time. But I shall post some bibilcal references a lil later. Much respect sister. Thanks for the through inofrmation, as I do understand how you came to that conclusion. I hope to give back as you gave me.

I am quickly running out of time. But I shall post some bibilcal references a lil later. Much respect sister. Thanks for the through inofrmation, as I do understand how you came to that conclusion. I hope to give back as you gave me.




Well blkbutterfly41, the cat is finally out the bag:),

Firstly, I look forward to drilling down on these issues with you. Secondly, let’s take our time, as you espouse, with these meaty accounts and hopefully we can touch our people with understanding. It’s ironic, but the deity of the Messiah continues to elude even the so-called scholars today; perhaps we will bring light to profound terms, such as consubstantial and homoousious. Below, please find an excerpt and link to earlier dialogue:

The Council rightly declared Montanism and Arianism heretical on the basis that prophetic gifts are not granted by the Church, and that Christ Jesus is “Homoousious,” which is a Greek word meaning “of one substance” and not found in scripture. Eusebius of Caesarea pointed out that ancient bishops had made use of “consubstantial”(same meaning) in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son.

http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473783&postcount=657

Well blkbutterfly41, the cat is finally out the bag:),

Firstly, I look forward to drilling down on these issues with you. Secondly, let’s take our time, as you espouse, with these meaty accounts and hopefully we can touch our people with understanding. It’s ironic, but the deity of the Messiah continues to elude even the so-called scholars today; perhaps we will bring light to profound terms, such as consubstantial and homoousious. Below, please find an excerpt and link to earlier dialogue:

The Council rightly declared Montanism and Arianism heretical on the basis that prophetic gifts are not granted by the Church, and that Christ Jesus is “Homoousious,” which is a Greek word meaning “of one substance” and not found in scripture. Eusebius of Caesarea pointed out that ancient bishops had made use of “consubstantial”(same meaning) in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son.


http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473783&postcount=657




I concur, my brother. I sincerely look forward to sharing knowledge with you. If I lived to be 200 I can't learn enough by myself. This is exactly what I seek. **smile** Truly thought provoking discussions. Give me a day or so, So I can review the link and catch up. Enjoy the rest of your week-end.