Are you a Christian?

[cjd]

It must be true, it's in my book - your book is self-referencing DCE, give that a thought.

And why you're at it, do try to take into account that none of us are interested in what your book says; we don't regard it as evidence of fact. In fact, we regard it as evidence against - in that it's obviously absurd. cf floods etc

If you want to make a point try to make it logical and provide some actual evidence that stands alone outside your bloody book. (It was written by people you know?)

 

[Jeff Knows]

Oh please CJD, we all know that Old Book > Everything Else. I mean it's Old. Like really old. Older than my DAD... that makes it true. Where is your logic? Jeeez.




[/s] (just incase)

 

[Parthelan]

Can't wait 'til it's explained how you get a couple of blue whales plus food and a salt water tank into a wooden boat.

Oh please. Whales, water..... Doh!

They must have loved it to be fair.

Moby Dick: ''You'll never guess where I was today!''

Mrs. Moby Dick: ''This better be good''

Moby Dick: '' Top of Mount Everest. I swear. Look, I brought you back a keyring and a woolly hat''

Mrs. Moby Dick: ''So, the first time in living memory we can go anywhere we like with no one to bother us, we could go to Argos and get one of those fish-slice things I've always wanted, we could go to Tesco's and clear out the tuna fish isle...... and you bugger off all day to go messing about with your mates, and bring me back a stupid keyring and woolly hat!

Moby Dick: ''Anything for dinner sweety?''

Mrs Moby Dick: '' Your dinners in the dog''

Moby Dick: ''Fine. Where's the dog''?

Mrs. Moby Dick: ''Some fat bloke with a beard took him!!''

 

[Consistency]

Well for the ones who say - "no-one is interested in your book". You do not speak for me. I know many more who you do not speak for. I know many who you do speak for.

It may simply not be your time to know Jesus in your heart but that is a matter for yourselves. Should you get the calling, you will then know. Until then I fully understand your not knowing.

The knowing Jesus is stronger than a belief. It is a knowing. We cannot prove it to you. If you do not want to see, then you will not see unless you are shown at a time for you.

I used to be an aethist, I used to blame God for all the wrongs for not giving a hand where he should and yet at the same time I did not believe in him. It was a state of comfortable confusion. Now I understand a lot more but know that I would be wasting my time having a battle of wills with those that attempt to destroy faith and challenge what they do not know.

There were other times I was adamant that some monk had sat on his bottom and wrote a best seller. There were times I also thought that those that go to church on a Sunday were hypocrites as they all dressed up, exchanged pleasantries but there were those among them who would not aid a child if they saw him tumble and was alone. Now I know they are hypocrites, the Sabbath is not on a Sunday.

For those that do not know, or want to know, maybe one day you will know anyway as I did. God bless you all.

 

[Parthelan]

Now I know they are hypocrites, the Sabbath is not on a Sunday.

I'm not a hypocrite, thank you very much, and I don't keep the Sabbath either. I don't labour under the yolk of the jews in Exodus.

In the NT every time the risen Christ appeared, it was on the First day of the week. Matthew 28:1, 9, 10; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1, 13, 15; John 20:19, 26

The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross where Christ “canceled the written code, with its regulations” (Colossians 2:14).

Act 20:7 - On the First day of the week we came together to break bread

People who set aside time to worship on a Sunday are not Hyprocrits!!

 

[Cornish Steve]

Putting aside which day is celebrated as a special day (does it matter?), it's interesting that the 7-day week is the only unit of time based on religious faith. Whereas the day, month, year, etc. have astronomical significance, the week comes from the Bible. Whenever nations have attempted to change it, such as the French trying to make it decimal during their revolution and the Russians trying to make it 5 days during the Soviet era, they've found the new unit unworkable. Just an interesting little tidbit.

 

[Jeff Knows]

Well for the ones who say - "no-one is interested in your book". You do not speak for me. I know many more who you do not speak for. I know many who you do speak for.

It may simply not be your time to know Jesus in your heart but that is a matter for yourselves. Should you get the calling, you will then know. Until then I fully understand your not knowing.

The knowing Jesus is stronger than a belief. It is a knowing. We cannot prove it to you. If you do not want to see, then you will not see unless you are shown at a time for you.

I used to be an aethist, I used to blame God for all the wrongs for not giving a hand where he should and yet at the same time I did not believe in him. It was a state of comfortable confusion. Now I understand a lot more but know that I would be wasting my time having a battle of wills with those that attempt to destroy faith and challenge what they do not know.

There were other times I was adamant that some monk had sat on his bottom and wrote a best seller. There were times I also thought that those that go to church on a Sunday were hypocrites as they all dressed up, exchanged pleasantries but there were those among them who would not aid a child if they saw him tumble and was alone. Now I know they are hypocrites, the Sabbath is not on a Sunday.

For those that do not know, or want to know, maybe one day you will know anyway as I did. God bless you all.

Fine. I have no issue with that, so long as you stop interfering in everyone elses reality. Your book does not constitute evidence, your opinion on the existence of Jesus does not constitute fact. I don't care how heavily you accept the will of Christ, you can't prove to the rest of the world that it is anything more than a fantasy.

I do not need to respect your myth. You make no effort to understand the world through rational means and therefor your opinion on it's creation has no relevancy. The world does not have to live by your rules, watch your prayers, pay your tax or respect your leaders.

You must understand in our world, that has been greatly improved by the understanding of nature and it's workings and greatly harmed by your mysticism and it's ignorance there is no level playing field for science and faith. Faith does not deserve respect, Faith deserves ridicule for being willfully ignorant to the universe that it itself speaks many great things about.

Do you know what is really insulting? The way you patronise those of us who make an effort to understand by somehow setting the situation up like we have not been chosen. You also seem to think being chosen is a good thing. Read the bible, God is an evil, vicious and twisted being who demands worship at the threat of eternal punishment. He sets up his creations to fail then punishes them with genocide when the inevitable happens. Your God is a malicious dictator who you willfully follow and rally alongside against your fellow human being. It makes me sick that you choose such an evil *******, no matter how lightly, over people of your own species who he takes great delight in punishing.

Oh but ofcourse you don't, do you? I guarantee like most Christians you take the watered down PC version of Christianity to bed with you at night. Or do you happen to agree that it's perfectly ok to sell your daughter as a sex slave and beat her if she doesn't please her owner? (Exodus 21:7-11). Perhaps you think it's perfectly ok to rape a woman so long as you have the 50 pieces of silver to get yourself free? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Not only do you not have the courage to reject a clearly evil and invisible being you don't even have the courage to follow him correctly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Use the logic and rationality your great creator bestowed you with and realize he's a twisted evil git who owns you like a mindless slave.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Your book does not constitute evidence, your opinion on the existence of Jesus does not constitute fact. I don't care how heavily you accept the will of Christ, you can't prove to the rest of the world that it is anything more than a fantasy.

Popular culture has tried to paint things this way for some time, but your assertion is simply not true. As a little excursion, I worked on a little maths project the other day. Here's the problem I set out to solve:

1) In one very specific prophecy, written in documents dated hundreds of years prior to the event, Israel's Messiah was predicted to enter Jerusalem seventy weeks of years (i.e., 70x7x360 days) after a proclamation to rebuild the city, made by Artaxerxes (a known date in time).

2) The head of Scotland Yard in the early 20th century, John Anderson, wrote a famous book on this topic, published in 1918 (I believe). I have an original copy of his book. He did the calculation and came up with a date in April 32AD.

3) The man named Jesus is known to have entered the city (what we celebrate today as Palm Sunday) on that day.

4) He predicted that he would be dead and buried for three days and three nights and then be resurrected. If he came to life some time after sundown on Saturday (discovered on Sunday morning), this means he must have been crucified on Wednesday. (Forget the tradition of Good Friday; let's stick to the documented numbers: Wednesday night, Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day.)

5) His body was taken down from the cross before nightfall because the religious leaders didn't want to make their 'holy day' unclean. How come the following day (Thursday) was holy? This is because, on certain festival weeks, the Jews celebrate two holy days. In this case, the first was Passover and the second the weekly Shabat.

Now, it's already quite astounding that the seventy weeks of years works out. What are the chances of that? The odds become even greater if Passover must fall that year on Thursday. If not, the 'story' wouldn't hold water.

Hence the maths problem I undertook. On what day of the week was Passover in the year 32AD? It's actually a rather complex calculation, as you can see here. If you follow the details of the calculation, however, you'll come to the same result as I did: In the year 32AD, Passover fell on a .......... Would you like to do the calculation yourself?

The problem is that most people just can't be bothered to look into these things. It's too easy just to follow the standard line that it's all a fairy tale. There's a certain level of false comfort in believing what's currently in vogue. It's not so easy belonging to the group that's ridiculed for believing in that 'fairy tale'. So be it.

Now I shall sneak off again so as not to get drawn in.

 

[Parthelan]

Fine. I have no issue with that, so long as you stop interfering in everyone elses reality. Your book does not constitute evidence, your opinion on the existence of Jesus does not constitute fact. I don't care how heavily you accept the will of Christ, you can't prove to the rest of the world that it is anything more than a fantasy.

I do not need to respect your myth. You make no effort to understand the world through rational means and therefor your opinion on it's creation has no relevancy. The world does not have to live by your rules, watch your prayers, pay your tax or respect your leaders.

You must understand in our world, that has been greatly improved by the understanding of nature and it's workings and greatly harmed by your mysticism and it's ignorance there is no level playing field for science and faith. Faith does not deserve respect, Faith deserves ridicule for being willfully ignorant to the universe that it itself speaks many great things about.

Do you know what is really insulting? The way you patronise those of us who make an effort to understand by somehow setting the situation up like we have not been chosen. You also seem to think being chosen is a good thing. Read the bible, God is an evil, vicious and twisted being who demands worship at the threat of eternal punishment. He sets up his creations to fail then punishes them with genocide when the inevitable happens. Your God is a malicious dictator who you willfully follow and rally alongside against your fellow human being. It makes me sick that you choose such an evil *******, no matter how lightly, over people of your own species who he takes great delight in punishing.

Oh but ofcourse you don't, do you? I guarantee like most Christians you take the watered down PC version of Christianity to bed with you at night. Or do you happen to agree that it's perfectly ok to sell your daughter as a sex slave and beat her if she doesn't please her owner? (Exodus 21:7-11). Perhaps you think it's perfectly ok to rape a woman so long as you have the 50 pieces of silver to get yourself free? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Not only do you not have the courage to reject a clearly evil and invisible being you don't even have the courage to follow him correctly. You should be ashamed of yourself. Use the logic and rationality your great creator bestowed you with and realize he's a twisted evil git who owns you like a mindless slave.

Please dont stant anywhere near me in an electrical storm

I know this probably wont mean much to you, but there is a NT and a new covenant. Most Christians dont hold to the OT. That is not the same thing as picking and chosing, and the arguements about why modern christians dont so x, y, or z as written in the OT is a common strawman arguement inveriably brought up.

There are really 2 commandments in the NT - Love God, and love one another. Any one of those 2 cammandments are anything but easy, and need a lifetime of work.

There are many people of faith who are also leading scientists. Their faith doesnt stop them using their rational critical faculties.

Not all christians are fundamentalists, and see their critical faculties as God given and to be used in a critical way.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Use the logic and rationality your great creator bestowed you with and realize he's a twisted evil git who owns you like a mindless slave.

Just another interesting statistic I've quoted before. During the 300 years of the Inquisition, the so-called 'church' killed on average one person a month. That's disgraceful and is rightfully condemned by the current generation. What is conveniently forgotten, though, by those who berate so-called 'church' leaders from that time is that, during one 20-year period of the 20th century, 100,000 people a month were slaughtered by communist (i.e., atheist) governments. That's five orders of magnitude more people. So, what term means 100,000 times worse than 'twisted evil git'?

Yes, I know, all the atheists will wail and gnash their teeth and pretend that communists aren't atheists and that all atheists are loving people, but fact are facts. When you decouple yourself from the objective definition of morality, all hell breaks loose.

 

[Consistency]

I'm not a hypocrite, thank you very much, and I don't keep the Sabbath either. I don't labour under the yolk of the jews in Exodus.

In the NT every time the risen Christ appeared, it was on the First day of the week. Matthew 28:1, 9, 10; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1, 13, 15; John 20:19, 26

The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross where Christ “canceled the written code, with its regulations” (Colossians 2:14).

Act 20:7 - On the First day of the week we came together to break bread

People who set aside time to worship on a Sunday are not Hyprocrits!!

People can set aside any day of the week to praise God, any time at all. If they want to set aside Sunday that is a matter for them but why does everything close down on a Sunday so that people can worship on that day.

The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week when God rested. The first day of the week events do not relate to the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and was given for Jews and Gentiles by God to be kept forever, it is God's law. The fourth Commandment relates to the Sabbath. Jesus did not overturn God's laws.

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the law of moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their puspose.

Matthew 5:19 "So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

The hypocrisy comes in because most of the church goers have an idea that the Sabbath is really on a different day and they go about their workings for the rest of the time including on the Sabbath and then make up their time on a Sunday in church because it is easier. The television is quieter and all the shops are closed, public transport is at its minimal and so it is easier to set aside Sunday than obey God's laws.

 

[Parthelan]

People can set aside any day of the week to praise God, any time at all. If they want to set aside Sunday that is a matter for them but why does everything close down on a Sunday so that people can worship on that day.

The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week when God rested. The first day of the week events do not relate to the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and was given for Jews and Gentiles by God to be kept forever, it is God's law. The fourth Commandment relates to the Sabbath. Jesus did not overturn God's laws.

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the law of moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their puspose.

Matthew 5:19 "So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

The hypocrisy comes in because most of the church goers have an idea that the Sabbath is really on a different day and they go about their workings for the rest of the time including on the Sabbath and then make up their time on a Sunday in church because it is easier. The television is quieter and all the shops are closed, public transport is at its minimal and so it is easier to set aside Sunday than obey God's laws.

There are tens of thousands of ''churches'' in existence today, all of them claiming to be correct. IN other words, their interpretation of scripture is the right one. Yet their doctrines contradict one another. How can that be? Does the Holy Spirit contradict himself? Of course not. These churches rely on the Bible as the authorative word of God, and discount all else.
But the Bible tells us, not everything Jesus taught is in the Bible. So, we have to look to Scripture AND tradition.
And we know from tradition, from the time of Christ himself, Christians worshipped on a Sunday.
That's good enough for me.
I reject the instruction of self appointed pastors who teach with no authority to sacred tradition.

 

[Consistency]

Tradition is devised by man. The Bible itself is an instruction manual on how to be a Christian. A church can be as small as one person in his living room. It is wherever you make it.

 

[Parthelan]

Tradition is devised by man. The Bible itself is an instruction manual on how to be a Christian. A church can be as small as one person in his living room. It is wherever you make it.

I fundamentally and profoundly disagree with you. That is exactly why there are in existence tens of thousands of christian churches all contradicting each other in matters of doctrine and faith.

Sacred Tradition is Scriptural
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Timothy 2:2
1 Corinthians 11:2
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Acts 2:42

The disciples/ early christians are commanded to hold fast to the ''traditions'' they were handed down.

There is man made traditions and Sacred traditions - that's what Sola Scriptura christians fail to see. Why? Because they are all their own one man church. That is not what Christ wanted or commanded..

 

[Parthelan]

It is wherever you make it.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Parthelan]

Tradition is devised by man. The Bible itself is an instruction manual on how to be a Christian. A church can be as small as one person in his living room. It is wherever you make it.

If you dont believe in tradition, let me ask you this.

Your Bible has books in it.

Who decided what books should comprise the Bible?

Can you point to the verse in the scriptures that tells man what books to put into the Bible.

Do you know where and when the composition of the Bible was decided?

And who made that decision?

 

[dagr]

Just another interesting statistic I've quoted before. During the 300 years of the Inquisition, the so-called 'church' killed on average one person a month. That's disgraceful and is rightfully condemned by the current generation. What is conveniently forgotten, though, by those who berate so-called 'church' leaders from that time is that, during one 20-year period of the 20th century, 100,000 people a month were slaughtered by communist (i.e., atheist) governments. That's five orders of magnitude more people. So, what term means 100,000 times worse than 'twisted evil git'?

Yes, I know, all the atheists will wail and gnash their teeth and pretend that communists aren't atheists and that all atheists are loving people, but fact are facts. When you decouple yourself from the objective definition of morality, all hell breaks loose.

Nice try. It's one thing to actively kill in the name of something (Christ) and then justify it as such. Communists didn't kill in the name atheism. In fact, they killed people whether they were atheists, believers or anything in betweent. If you want to see how messed up a dictator can be, look at Stalin's background: several years spent being educated at a seminary.

He obviously learned a few useful things that would come in handy later in life.

 

[dagr]

Here's one for Christians. Why is the Roman emperor Constantine not only given so little credit, but actively hidden from Christian history? I'm amazed how so many Christians have never heard of him. Very strange, given that he ultimately defined the Bible.

 

[bdw]

What concerns me about this thread is that so many otherwise (apparently) clever people can even try to defend the nonsense that is written in the bible and other religious fantasy manuals.

It really is quite worrying that otherwise reasonable people can even begin to try to defend this. You really have to think outside of the box.

 

[Parthelan]

Here's one for Christians. Why is the Roman emperor Constantine not only given so little credit, but actively hidden from Christian history? I'm amazed how so many Christians have never heard of him. Very strange, given that he ultimately defined the Bible.

On the contrary - I'm looking at an icon of him right now

Bit I agree, the vast majority of fundamentalists and those that belong to the everyman and his dog can set up his own church school of theology have an incredible lack of knowledge of the origins of the church, or the teachings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Parthelan]

You really have to think outside of the box.

Exactly

 

[cjd]

Just another interesting statistic I've quoted before. During the 300 years of the Inquisition, the so-called 'church' killed on average one person a month. That's disgraceful and is rightfully condemned by the current generation. What is conveniently forgotten, though, by those who berate so-called 'church' leaders from that time is that, during one 20-year period of the 20th century, 100,000 people a month were slaughtered by communist (i.e., atheist) governments. That's five orders of magnitude more people. So, what term means 100,000 times worse than 'twisted evil git'?

Yes, I know, all the atheists will wail and gnash their teeth and pretend that communists aren't atheists and that all atheists are loving people, but fact are facts. When you decouple yourself from the objective definition of morality, all hell breaks loose.

I'm going to wail, but not for the reasons you quote.

I don't believe there is any real difference between the murderous acts of either the inquisition or the communists. Neither had anything to do with God, they were perpetrated by megalomaniacs and psychopaths for greed and power; as they always are.

The only minor difference was that the inquisition was done in the name of God (the excuse) whilst the mass murders in the USSR were done in the name of communism (note: not atheism.)

I do not believe for a moment that the Catholic 'holy men' who ordered the inquisition actually believed in any god (but their deluded followers obviously did and still do) - they were simply powerful and ruthless men doing what that kind always do.

I will gnash my teeth for a moment on your continued irrationality of regarding body count as relevant to any kind of argument about morality. (For many obvious and factual reasons - facts are indeed facts and altho' I have no interest in arguing it, the inclusion of Hitler's fake Christian crusade's body count turns your false argument against yourself). But also because the moment that a mad Mullah gets his hands on a nuclear device, this spurious argument will evaporate along with a good chunk of Christianity and atheists alike.

 

[DCE]

On the contrary - I'm looking at an icon of him right now

Bit I agree, the vast majority of fundamentalists and those that belong to the everyman and his dog can set up his own church school of theology have an incredible lack of knowledge of the origins of the church, or the teachings of the Church Fathers.

Hi Tom can you enlighten us about the teachings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Parthelan]

Hi Tom can you enlighten us about the teachings of the Church Fathers.

I have a body of works of some 36 volumns. Where would you like to start?

 

[DCE]

I have a body of works of some 36 volumns. Where would you like to start?

When did the teaching of the Trinity commence?

How was Peter deemed as the rock of the church?

 

[bdw]

1. At 23.15 on 24th August 321.

2. It happened when a slate fell of the roof of his fishing boat and hit him on the napper.

 

[Parthelan]

The early church fathers had a lot to say about the Trinity:

Athenagoras​

For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, - the Father, the Son, the Spirit because the Son is intelligence, reason, wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it (A Plea for the Christians, 2:18 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus​

For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time,] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject (Against Heresies 4:7:4 [A.D. 180-190]).

Theophilus of Antioch​

The three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom (To Autolycus 2:18 [A.D. 181]).

Clement of Alexandria​

And the address in the Timœus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: ‘Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works.’ So that when he says, ‘Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,’ I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father (The Stromata 5:14 [A.D. 202]).

Hippolytus​

A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 8 [A.D. 200-210]).

Tertullian​

…All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Against Praxeus 2 [A.D. 213]).

…all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…. (ibid. 11[A.D. 213]).

Origen​

…the divine benefits [are] bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness…. (On First Principles 1:4:2 [A.D. 220-230]).

And under this rule must be brought also the understanding of the sacred Scripture, in order that its statements may be judged not according to the worthlessness of the letter, but according to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration they were caused to be written (ibid. 4:27 [A.D. 220-230]).

Now this expression which we employ – ‘that there never was a time when He did not exist’ – is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words ‘when’ or ‘never’ have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages (ibid. 4:28 [A.D. 220-230]).

Gregory Thaumaturgus​

There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides forever (Declaration of Faith [circa A.D. 250]).

Gregory Nazianzen​

But [the faithful] worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one Godhead; God the Father, God the Son and (do not be angry) God the Holy Spirit, one nature in three personalities, intellectual, perfect, self-existent, numerically separate, but not separate in godhead (Orations 33 [A.D 374]).

Epiphanius​

[The Antiochenes] confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial, three hypostases, one essence, one divinity. That is the true faith which has been handed down by the fathers… (Against the Heresies of the Panarians 73 [A.D. 374-377]).

Ambrose of Milan​

The substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that which is distinct, an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance. We hold the distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality; and thus we believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits (To Gratian, On the Christian Faith 4:8 [A.D. 381]).

Augustine​

As regards this question, then, let us believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole creature; and that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, but a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity of an equal essence (On the Trinity 9:1 [A.D. 428]).

 

[Parthelan]

How was Peter deemed as the rock of the church?

Clement of Alexandria


"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).


Tertullian


"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


Origen


"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).


Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Ambrose of Milan


"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).


Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


Pope Innocent I


"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).


Augustine


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


Council of Ephesus


"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

 

[Beachcomber]

Well done DCE - you've gone and got another cut 'n paster for the lord on the thread.

 

[DCE]

[
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

Who really Is the Rock-Mass?

Did Jesus mean that Peter was the rock-mass upon which Jesus would build his congregation?

No. Consider three reasons why we may be certain on this point.

First, the other apostles were present, and they drew no such meaning from Jesus’ words. If Jesus gave Peter primacy in front of them all, then why did they later argue repeatedly over which one of them seemed to be greatest? (Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26)

Second, the apostle Paul later showed that the rock-mass was, not Peter, but Jesus Christ. (1*Corinthians 3:11; 10:4)

Third, decades later Peter himself showed that he did not think that he was the rock-mass. Rather, he wrote that Jesus was the long-foretold “foundation cornerstone” chosen by God himself.—1*Peter 2:4-8.

Some people still, insist that since Peter’s name means “Rock,” Jesus was identifying him as the rock-mass. In fact, though, Peter’s name is not a synonym for the word “rock-mass” used in the same verse.

Peter’s name means “A Piece of Rock,” and it is a masculine noun; the word rendered “rock-mass” is a feminine noun.

How, then, are Jesus’ words to be understood?

In effect, he was saying to Peter: “You, the one I called Peter, or Rock, have discerned the true identity of the ‘rock-mass,’ the Christ, who will serve as the foundation of the Christian congregation.

 

[cjd]

The pope, would of course, disagree.

What's really interesting though is that this nonsense is open to interpretation. How can the 'word of god' be open to challenge by mere humans?

Of course each variety, brand, cult of the Christian genus knows that it's own version is correct so doesn't worry about it at all, but us pedants regard it as highly revealing and evidence that it's man made, not god made.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Of course each variety, brand, cult of the Christian genus knows that it's own version is correct so doesn't worry about it at all, but us pedants regard it as highly revealing and evidence that it's man made, not god made.

The natural world is out there for us to investigate. We learn all about it, experiment, look for patterns, and try to find the underlying principles that govern observed behaviour. Over time, we learn subtleties that we missed before, or maybe we have access to tools and equipment that wasn't available to previous generations, or a great scientist provides keen insight that allows us to take a big leap forward. Over time, with a bit of luck, we get closer and closer to the truth and reality of the natural world.

Why should it be any different for believers when they study a text they believe to be inspired? Subtleties of the extant culture are lost over time or come to light with archeological discoveries. New documents or fragments are found. Word comparisons and careful research get us closer and closer to the intended meaning of the author. Sometimes, a great leader will provide insight that allows us to move forward in our thinking. Indeed, hermeneutics and the scientific method are very similar.

In science, whole communities can form around a particular interpretation. When I was studying astronomy, for example, the Steady State theory was still taught, and its proponents were in constant dispute with Big Bang theorists. There were at least three different theories for the cause of ferromagnetism, and arguments raged across many journals. People clung to their ideas and their theories. It's no different when studying a very ancient document that's comprised of work by many authors across different generations and written in a different language.

It's quite interesting to see your bias. You believe there's absolute truth in the natural world yet you accept fundamental differences between scientists. You won't accept absolute truth for (or even the existence of) the supernatural world, yet you won't countenance differences of opinion among such believers.

 

[cjd]

Why should it be any different for believers when they study a text they believe to be inspired?

Er, because it's supposed to be the word of God. If it 'inspires' people to believe radically different things which causes them to argue and kill each other over it for centuries I think I'm entitled to be a bit suspicious of its claims to be of supernatural origin.

You believe there's absolute truth in the natural world

No I don't, mostly because I have no idea what that means or could possibly mean.

You won't accept absolute truth

make your mind up...

(or even the existence of) the supernatural world

Of course I will - all I need is evidence, any evidence. Belief is for children and the feeble minded.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Er, because it's supposed to be the word of God. If it 'inspires' people to believe radically different things which causes them to argue and kill each other over it for centuries I think I'm entitled to be a bit suspicious of its claims to be of supernatural origin.

It doesn't inspire people; it's inspired. That's different. As for us, we must study in detail - honestly and without bias (which it not easy). There are plenty of examples where people disagree - often over a word that can have different meanings in different places. One such word, in Greek, can be interpreted as in or by. There's a huge difference between being baptized in the Holy Spirit (an interpretation that has led to charismatic movement) and being baptized by the Holy Spirit (an interpretation accepted by most reformed churches). This is no different from scientists who believed the steady state theory of the universe versus the big bang. There is one correct answer, but it needs research and careful study - and maybe over time we'll converge in our opinions.

all I need is evidence, any evidence. Belief is for children and the feeble minded.

There is evidence on the crucial points, but it's not something provable in a lab. Most courts of law would accept the evidence. These crucial points are the existence of clear prophetic statements known to have been written in advance of their claims (and mere humans don't have the ability to know the future) and circumstantial evidence for a resurrection (thousands of eye-witnesses were so convinced they allowed themselves to be tortured and killed rather than recant). As for proof of other points, the answer will always be in the eye of the beholder. The principle that "they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear" is, in my opinion, very important. It's another way of saying that there never will be data that can be analysed to prove the case.

Trust me: The many thousands of martyrs around the world are not children or feeble-minded. The number of Christians in China, for example, has been growing at a phenomenal pace despite many being persecuted, imprisoned, or even killed for their beliefs. The same is true in very strict Islamic countries. To believe there is to accept a death sentence. This is evidence of considerable strength, probably more than either you or I will ever have.

 

[cjd]

There are plenty of examples where people disagree - often over a word that can have different meanings in different places.

Look me in the eye and tell me honestly.

You are God the Father and you'd created the universe and all that's in it and created man so that He could love and worship you (why???) - but it all goes pear shaped and you therefore have to destroy everything on earth in a great flood and start all over again. But it all goes wrong yet again and for the same reason that it did the first time.

So you send you only son to earth to commit suicide by centurion and put it all right. If you did all that nonsense would you, seriously, allow everything you did and said be open to interpretation and nuance, translation and bias by the very creatures that let it go Tango Uniform the first time? I mean really?

Your God is a very slow learner.

Most courts of law would accept the evidence.

You're joking yes?

This is evidence of considerable strength, probably more than either you or I will ever have.

It's evidence of delusion, that's for sure. Islam makes the same claims and the same personal sacrifices but you KNOW they're wrong don't you?

 

[Parthelan]

Well done DCE - you've gone and got another cut 'n paster for the lord on the thread.

When he asked the question I was on the computer at work and looked up the relevant info pertaining to what he was asking about the Early Church Fathers and what they taught - and gave it to him.
You think I'm going to lock up, drive home, open the relevant volumes of books and type the exact same words :|

Thanks for the most useless contribution to the thread to date

 

[Parthelan]

To believe there is to accept a death sentence. This is evidence of considerable strength, probably more than either you or I will ever have.

I think Im right in saying every bishop of the early chruch for the first 300 years or more was martyred. Put to death in the most horrific manner for their beliefs. Very clever men, doctors of the Church, given the chance to recant, but refusing, because they knew the truth.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Look me in the eye and tell me honestly.

Yes, sir.

You are God the Father and you'd created the universe and all that's in it and created man so that He could love and worship you (why???) - but it all goes pear shaped and you therefore have to destroy everything on earth in a great flood and start all over again. But it all goes wrong yet again and for the same reason that it did the first time.

So you send you only son to earth to commit suicide by centurion and put it all right. If you did all that nonsense would you, seriously, allow everything you did and said be open to interpretation and nuance, translation and bias by the very creatures that let it go Tango Uniform the first time? I mean really?

Your God is a very slow learner.

Not the most objective of explanations, but that's OK. You're confusing 'slowness' with 'patience', 'suicide' with 'self-sacrifice', and much more. Each sentence is worthy of discussion, if I thought for a moment that you cared to.

You're joking yes?

I'm not joking. The odds of hundreds of specific prophetic statements coming about, some even in recent times, are frightfully long and bear consideration. The effect of the resurrection on the lives of individuals and nations is powerful circumstantial evidence. Criminals have been convicted on less convincing circumstantial evidence.

It's evidence of delusion, that's for sure. Islam makes the same claims and the same personal sacrifices but you KNOW they're wrong don't you?

When they produce an individual who claims to be God manifested temporarily in the body of a human being, whose life is predicted with great detail, sometimes to the very day, hundreds of years in advance, and who, unlike any other person who's lived on earth, was brought back to life after 72 hours in a tomb, I'll sit up and listen. I can't do those things. No other person who's every lived can do these things. They are powerful evidence of someone who lives an existence more expansive than ours.

The Christian faith is not blind faith. It's based on a number of crucially important historical events, and it's all about a relationship with a person. Once you know the person, it's very difficult to pretend or act as if you don't. As Jack (CS) Lewis wrote about himself, he was dragged from atheism kicking and screaming, "the world's most reluctant Christian", when he too came to know this person. He was an Oxford professor; I'm a business professional and former scientist; you're an intellectual and very successful business owner; others are looked at as the dregs of society; others are shaking with fear in an oppressive country. But none can turn away once they've encountered that person - who once was dead but became the first to return to life. What a feat!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think Im right in saying every bishop of the early chruch for the first 300 years or more was martyred. Put to death in the most horrific manner for their beliefs. Very clever men, doctors of the Church, given the chance to recant, but refusing, because they knew the truth.

And it's important to ask the question, 'Why?'. When the person you know and follow once died - put to death by professional soldiers in public view of thousands, just to remove any doubt - and then came back to life, suddenly the meaning of death is transformed. It's no longer a gloomy sentence that strips life of all meaning. Now it becomes a passage to something bigger and better, to an existence that our five senses cannot currently detect or enjoy. These early Christian leaders endured such pain and ignominy because these things paled in comparison to the hope they now had. And that hope remains as powerful today as it ever has. The Christian faith has survived all kinds of cruel regimes, and public ridicule is nothing new. Only the actors change on the stage.

 

[Jeff Knows]

When they produce an individual who claims to be God manifested temporarily in the body of a human being, whose life is predicted with great detail, sometimes to the very day, hundreds of years in advance, and who, unlike any other person who's lived on earth, was brought back to life after 72 hours in a tomb, I'll sit up and listen.

There is the flaw in your logic. You have no proof those things happened the way you believe them to.

I admit, the Daniel prophecy is pretty eery, how he managed to predict 490 years in advance and land it on the day. That's pretty perfect. A bit too perfect to sit well with any skeptic. From the little digging around I did, it seems the book of Daniel was written between (estimated) 100BC and 20AD. Would you not concede that it's more plausible the events happened and then someone invented a backstory that made Daniel look awesome?

When you hear clipclipcliclop is your first instict Zebra?

You admit yourself that no being before or since has resurrected themselves after death. You also claim no other religions prophecies have been fulfilled and the only evidence you have that your religion is the exception is it's own literature, written after the fact by people who weren't in attendance when these things happened.

If a friend of mine told me a story about how he accomplished the impossible and I wrote that story down best I could from my memory. Would you read it and believe it? Because from where I am sitting that's no different than the Bible.

It wouldn't bother me so much if it's followers weren't so quick to dismiss everyone else equally outrageous claims. Take Scientology, I bet you dismiss that out of hand. Crazy old sci-fi writer who lived on a boat tells a story about an alien who flew through space to earth and dropped souls into volcano's. But it has it's followers and they'll dismiss your book just as quick as you will dismiss theirs.

But they are nutters, right? Well that is what you look like to everyone else who doesn't follow your particular book.