Why canbt we all just get along

[uncledrunkie (uncledrunkie)]

The Roman Emperor Constantine called all of the religious leaders together in 325 AD to assemble all of the religious beliefs of the scattered Christians into one religion. To begin with not every minister called came. The Council of Nicene was admittedly human in that, just as in this web site, no one could agree on who's books were the "Truth". After months of deliberation Constantine stormed in to the room and declared that what ever they had would be the bible. Though his original intent was noble, he could not take the bickering. 60 books were left out of those that came. Who would know what those books contained? A converted Pagan Emperor with a short temper and a time table agenda does not a book of "Absolute Truth" make. The books left out later became the Apocrypha, Gnostic bible, Dead sea scrolls, and even the precursor to the Book of Mormon (gasp). So why if the books of the Old and New Testament are the absolute truth, are the other 60 books that were sitting equally on the table the word of Satan?

[daikon (daikon)]

Wouldn't getting along be great or at least people actually reading and comprehending another point of view...

Anyway, you make an interesting point.

The Bible wasn't called the Bible while it was being written; the word Peter and James and John and Paul et al were saying to keep wasn't yet gathered into a book of chapters and verses. And by all historical accounts, it is a book that doesn't include every line and paragraph that could be called scripture. Words scripted by those with personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.


I do believe absolute truth can be found in the texts that "made the cut". However, it remains imperative to first have the spirit promised in order to glean the truth. The work of the Holy Spirit is deep and wrenching.
It's just not as easy as reading and quoting literal text. There is the cry of man to God and hearing God's answer. That's the rub and of course, the prize. Word wise.

God bless you uncledrunkie...

...hmmmm, did you purposefully title yourself for controversy? It could be way out snarky comedy or sublime honesty...

peace

(Message edited by daikon on September 01, 2005)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.

If we were one with Christ, we would automatically be one with each other.

I guess we aren't one with Christ.

[dondi (dondi)]

One thing you have to remember about some of those 60 books left out of the Bible. 1: they were written years and years later after Christ had died and ascended into Heaven. 2: Some were such utter hogwash they would do nothing but distort the Truth. 3: Some were wrote by those having recieved 2nd,3rd, and 4th hand information.
For example take " the book of Mary" that was left out. It states in it that men are the only true vessals and women, after they die, become men to enter Heaven.

[jbatt (jbatt)]

<font size="-1">"The Roman Emperor Constantine called all of the religious leaders together in 325 AD to assemble all of the religious beliefs of the scattered Christians into one religion. To begin with not every minister called came. The Council of Nicene was admittedly human in that, just as in this web site, no one could agree on who's books were the "Truth". After months of deliberation Constantine stormed in to the room and declared that what ever they had would be the bible. Though his original intent was noble, he could not take the bickering. 60 books were left out of those that came. Who would know what those books contained? A converted Pagan Emperor with a short temper and a time table agenda does not a book of "Absolute Truth" make. The books left out later became the Apocrypha, Gnostic bible, Dead sea scrolls, and even the precursor to the Book of Mormon (gasp). So why if the books of the Old and New Testament are the absolute truth, are the other 60 books that were sitting equally on the table the word of Satan?"

</font>{Just Curious, as I haven't heard this before. Where did you get this information?}

[12221112221112 (12221112221112)]

We will all get along if we believe, just not on this planet. I fear for the ones who says, "Lord, Lord,...Depart from me I never knew you."

[easeltine (easeltine)]

Uncledrunkie,

Jbatt has asked where you received your interesting comments regarding Constantine. It was certainly not from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Tell me, I would like to know your historical sources also. Was it something you were reading when you were drunkie? Ok...ok, just tell me what made you think of a name like Uncledrunkie?

Erich

[love22698 (love22698)]

1222122122 or what ever. so you dont agree with CHRIST for HE is the ONE WHO said that.. depart from ME for I never knew thee.

[easeltine (easeltine)]

Hi,

The original intent of Constantine was to settle the arguement regarding the heresy Arius was teaching. This heresy stated that Jesus was a separate and created being from the Father, hence the Nicene Creed in 326 AD. From 326-1517, your choices in Christianity was basically either Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox. Dr. Martin Luther nailed the 95 Thesis on the door of the Wittenberg Chapel in 1517. Dr. Martin Luther wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope decided to excommunicate Dr. Martin Luther in 1520. In 1521 Dr. Martin Luther was called to the Diet of Worms, the State was trying to get Luther to renounce his teachings. The Catholic Church theologians made it very clear to Luther that if he broke from the Catholic Church all sorts of denominations and heresy would come into being. The Catholic theologians were clearly correct.

Dr. Martin Luther could not renounce his teaching, the abuses of the Catholic Church were extraordinary compared to the Catholic Church of today.

We can disagree on a great many subject, though when the teaching, (such as the selling of indulgences, or praying to relics in 1517), puts our faith on something other than Christ for salvation we need to need to disagree. We cannot go along with the false doctrine that teaches us to put our faith on something other than Jesus Christ.

Does anyone have any any ideas regarding what I am saying? Does this contradict the law of Christ that tells us to love one another? I don't think so, but I would like to know your thoughts.

Erich

[jbatt (jbatt)]

Hi Erich--go easy on the topers! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif
I agree with some of what you're saying, but what took place in the reformation was more involved and much more complex than what you have stated. There were plenty of other issues with Luther, although getting his formation from Ockhamist monks coupled with a personality that in these modern times would be diagnosed as "OCD" didn't help him to maintain a balance sometimes. The church in his part of Europe was off the deep end in abuses that went way beyond just selling indulgences, for sure. But the problems Luther, himself, was trying to protest, was not a hallmark of the Eastern Churches or the African Churches, and you'll notice that the revolt was pretty much contained to Europe (of course the whole Eastern Schism thing is a whole 'nother story, but in a sense authority-related).
Also means of communications were a whole lot different, and much slower than what we take for granted today, so when it came to trying to resolve some of Luther's original core issues, basically it was a too little, too late situation. As the 'reformation' progressed, it didn't take too long for the revolters to start revolting against each other, i.e. the Colloquy of Marburg. Ironically the Church was correct, as very quickly there was the rise of many denominations and today you can see many of the heresies embedded into what, to some, are 'mainstream' theologies;Doctrines that never existed in patristic times.

Jeff

(Message edited by JBatt on September 08, 2005)

[easeltine (easeltine)]

Jeff,

Good post!

Erich

[jbatt (jbatt)]

Thanks, Erich. I enjoy what I've read from you, so far. (I'm new to this forum, unable to get on much these days, so I have much to catch up on.)

There are many books on the reformation, but it's good to find one's that don't have a polemic point of view, and sources that aren't in dispute by either 'side'. One such book, and I'm not sure where to get it would be "Roots of the Reformation" by Karl Adams. I've heard praises from both Protestant as well as Catholic sides. I'd stay far and clear from purported sources and "documentaries" such as that movie called "Luther", which came out sometime within the last few years, I think.

Just in quick browsing, I see a lot of knee jerk assumptions made from sincere folks who seem to be simply parroting these same assumptions passed on from others- and much of them published, so people think "if it's printed, it must be true", etc. Canon of Scripture being one of them. I've learned the hard way to not be so dogmatic, fundamentalist, and have found that it takes a lot of digging to get at what was understood in early times, what was the reasoning behind whatever such author/theolgian was asserting when making a claim, etc. That's why it's not good enough to just thumb through a copy of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a Verdict", or Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" or whatever, read a statement, and just assume it as fact.
Anyways this factnet forum looks to be an interesting place to hang out.

Jeff

(Message edited by Jbatt on September 09, 2005)

[easeltine (easeltine)]

Jeff,

As far as Martin Luther movies there is actually three that I own, the old one made in the 50's, the one made in the 70's with Stacy Keach, and the newer one made a couple of years ago, the last movie of Peter Ustinov.
A classic good book on Luther that I have read is Here I Stand. There several good book I have on Christian History, a newer one is Turning Points by Mark A. Noll.

Erich

[sally (sally)]

Dondi,

What you said there from the book of Mary made me laugh a lot. Now if the other books said things like that I can tell why they were left out!!!!

Sally

[osirus (osirus)]

We should all get along <font color="ff0000">whether or not we share the same religions, cultures, lifestyles, belief systems. Its called tolerance.</font>

[jbatt (jbatt)]

(Dondi)One thing you have to remember about some of those 60 books left out of the Bible. 1: they were written years and years later after Christ had died and ascended into Heaven. 2: Some were such utter hogwash they would do nothing but distort the Truth. 3: Some were wrote by those having recieved 2nd,3rd, and 4th hand information.
For example take " the book of Mary" that was left out. It states in it that men are the only true vessals and women, after they die, become men to enter Heaven.

(Sally)Dondi,

What you said there from the book of Mary made me laugh a lot. Now if the other books said things like that I can tell why they were left out!!!!
Sally
_____________________________________________
This is, as usual partially, actually mostly true. Some books were left out, not because they weren't inspired. They were considered as Scripture, and not used in their Mass Readings, but they certainly were considered apt for teaching, because they were "witnesses" to the faith, such as Clement's letters, for example. Many Fathers had a book or two in their 'cannon' that others didn't have. A good example would be Athanasius, who considered the "Deuteuro-Cannon" of the OT scriptural, but because he presided over a lot of older believers who were from the west, and knew the Western (Palestinian/Hebrew) books, he used them for teaching and inspiration, but didn't have them in his liturgical readings, which is what was connotated by the use of the word- "Cannon".
But he used, for instance, the Epistle of Barnabas as part of his cannon. By the end of the fourth century the church councils had determined what the cannon was to be, even though, especially in the East, there was a little variance among the Sees, but through the centuries, the defined cannon of 73 books held up
until the Reformation. Some books were clearly spurious, but unless you really dive into all this stuff, it would be too easy to make generalities about some of the writings, for instance, because a book might not be historically accurate, it wouldn't be inspired, or if there were apparent contradictions with another book. This kind of logic is some of the fodder used by the Jesus Seminar against the Gospels.

Yes, Osirius, we should be tolerant of all, because it's un-Christlike to be otherwise.
But you have to be careful of confusing tolerance with syncretism, or licentiousness, for that matter. You can completely disagree with someone, or be discerning about a lifestyle, but remain charitable.

Jeff

(Message edited by jbatt on October 08, 2005)

(Message edited by jbatt on October 08, 2005)

[jbatt (jbatt)]

Let me amend that last statement a bit.
It should read
"Yes Osirus, we should be "Charitable" of all....
tolerance means to abide, and not just anything
should necessarily be abided.

Jeff

[turtle (turtle)]

Major problem with all getting along do I want to get along with a murder, rapist or child molestor. There got to be some type of code without it there is chaos. society has to define what they will tolerate. And tolerance is getting to a point there is no rules.

[turtle (turtle)]

I realize i used extreme but i hope it makes a point where do we draw a line to what we tolerate.

[sally (sally)]

Many people do not agree. I really don't see that we will agree. Iron sharpens iron and the Kingdom is taken by violence. Everyone is convinced that they are the ones that are right. The people that feel they are really right just need to be really really really patient and it will all work out in the end, it is going to come out in the wash and we will know the truth.

Sally

[69thstreet (69thstreet)]

Because were all to ignorant and afraid of the unknown to get along.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Human nature carries with it the desire to be the center of the stage.Or top dog if you will.

That keeps us from "getting along."
Charity or Love and tolerance are not the same thing.

Tolerance is more like an open garbage pit that rejects nothing.
Charity or love is that which seeks the betterment of others.Is considerate of others and carries no condemnation while holding to a disagreement.

Tolerance puts up with anything even if it might be harmful.
Charity allows for disagreement without compromising what is good and beneficial.

Another word for tolerance is political correctness.Anything goes exsept beneficial standards.

Dave
</font>}

[turtle (turtle)]

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
(Luke 12:51-52)

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I bet the two are men.Men are always outnumbered.LOL.Just kidding.

Dave
</font>}

[turtle (turtle)]

who knows could be?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif Hey dave you never answered me under funny papers joyce meyers. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Sorry,I have been all over the place. (not just on the PC)
A lot has taken place in the last few months.My mother passed away in Sept. and I'm trying to get things ready for winter.

I'll go back and try to find the comment.

dave
</font>}

[warr (warr)]

my condolences dave I lost my mother in the month of september too-but don't be offended by what I wrote in the funny papers-I was new to the board

[turtle (turtle)]

That is okay Dave, I am sorry to here about the loss of your mother. Mothers are a special part of our lives. I know our lives sometimes do get way to busy. I doubt if I respond to everything either. What part of the country are you in that you are winterizing. I am in va in the mountains.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Turtle,

Don't you know how to go to http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation and find out where folks are posting from? Except that Dave must have a remote server because his is blocked.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Thank you all for your kindness.
Warr,I don't get offended very easily but thank you.

Turtle,Don't be sorry,she's with the Lord and is having a better time than we are.
I am in Maine.

wyoming,I run a good security program.

I went back and found the funny papers therad so that I could respond to the comments.
I hope I did a good job.

If you want to,you can go to Greater Grace World outreach thread and under URGENT prayer read the step by step time I documented with my mother as she went home with Jesus.It may be of some encouragement to some.

Baruch Habbah Hashem Adonia,
Dave
</font>}

[turtle (turtle)]

Maine is cold this time of year you will have snow before I will. i will go look at what you said.

yep wyoming I know but sometimes i just rather ask.

[69thstreet (69thstreet)]

how can there ever be peace when there are children starving???

[turtle (turtle)]

If you notice the Bible never said there would be peace. There would be war.

[godchild (godchild)]

Jesus said He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. A sword can represent reason- as in 'cutting through' a series of elements in a problem in order to leave only those with proven relevance. Jesus certainly did that. He brought something so contrary to what was accepted, it must have been a terrible shock to those who thought the law was the only way. People are always more comfortable with what they are familiar with, and fight change even when that change is an improvement. The love thing was there all along, and we people put loads and loads of stuff on top of it until it is lost at the bottom of the heap. If things in life aren't worthy of God's time, why do we make them worthy of ours. Let's get rid of the clutter.

[munchkin (munchkin)]

i think a big contributer to "not gettin galong" is misquoting. and taking ridiculous leaps, into offendedness, for no reason.

thsi goes with religous differences, political differences, personality differences.

if we coudl just learn, to activley listen to each other, instead of assuming a meaning and then not letting go of that assumed meaning even if the words actually used are quite different.

love and active listening, shoudl see us through. if we coudl do that http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

beccax

[franklin (franklin)]

Very good post Godchild.

Good points munchkin.

[godchild (godchild)]

becca, thanks for the stimulating conversation today!
Thanks Franklin.

[godchild (godchild)]

Would you all please remember my friend Tina in your prayers tonight. The cancer has now spread to her pancreas and spine. Thank you.

[munchkin (munchkin)]

oh, no. oh godchild, thats horrible. ohcourse i shall rember her in my thughts and meditations.

hugs to you.

beccax
ps, oh no think you for the conversation, i enjoyed it http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

franklin http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[franklin (franklin)]

munchkinhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[nikita (nikita)]

godchild,

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend Tina. I will pray for her.

It must be such a difficult time for you.
I will also pray for you.

Nikita

[am2 (am2)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.giftroll