Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I do believe that Jesus existed.  I don't it can be unequivocally
    proven.  I don't think we really know very much at all about Jesus'
    life.  I believe that the Gospels were all written many years after his
    death and much of what we read has been    embellished.  I believe that
    the primary value of the Gospels is not in their Historic accuracy but
    in the principles and ideas contained therein.  I believe that there is
    a legendary aspect of the Gospels.  I don't think that is bad,
    fraudelent or a misrepresentation of the truth.  
    
    Those are my assumptions that I state up front in answering my own
    question.  My Theological interests have lead me to Paul and now to
    Karl Barth, whom I respect even though I disagree with at least one of
    his major premises.  Both theologians separate the truly otherness of
    God from the Religious expression.  Paul concentrates on the Risen
    Christ which is very akin to Divine Wisdom, and Barth on the total
    otherness of God.  God is totally beyond time and History for Barth.
    
    I believe that the images contained in the Bible to be inspirational
    and valuable totally apart from the Historical Reality.  For me, if the
    Historic Jesus did not exist, it would not make one Iota of difference
    for me.  The essential thing about Christianity for me is that the
    Divine is available to humans.  That the divine is incarnate in each of
    us as Sons and Daughters of God.  That we are by both Creation and
    Adoption Sons and Daughters of God.  Jesus as potrayed is a wonderful
    parable of how this can impact our lifes in our striving to be like
    him, to allow the Spirit of God to influence our every decision the
    same way that the Spirit influenced his every decision.
    
    What do you think?  Please don't be intimidated by the question?
    
    Patricia

>    Christ which is very akin to Divine Wisdom, and Barth on the total
>    otherness of God.  God is totally beyond time and History for Barth.
 
     What in the wide wide world of sports does "total otherness" mean?



   
   >    and valuable totally apart from the Historical Reality.  For me, if the
   > Historic Jesus did not exist, it would not make one Iota of difference
   > for me.  The essential thing about Christianity for me is that the
    

    Well, for one thing, if Jesus didn't exist, we wouldn't have Christianity.






    Jim

Hi Patricia,

I'm of (at least) two minds about this.

I agree with you that personally, if it were found that the Jesus of
the Bible did not exist, there is still much in the Bible that would 
stand as invaluable, inspirational, and an excellent source of ethical
and moral guidance.  I'd like to think that such a finding would not
affect my conduct and such.

My quandary arises when I think about when, historically, this finding
might have been revealed.  I think Christianity, based on an historic 
figure, is very much inculcated into world culture as we know it.  
For example, if one of those early counsels that developed the canon 
and creeds were to have concluded that Jesus never literally existed, 
I think the world environment would be very different from that with 
which we are familiar. I don't know exactly *how* it might be different, 
but I'm sure it would be.  For one thing, I bet the Bible would be a lot
slimmer than it is.

I think the root in historical fact lends a strength to the faith, 
yet without that base the faith could still stand.

I'm not sure my reply makes a lot of sense, I find it very difficult to 
put the thoughts I'm having into words.  That your question provokes such 
thoughts and dilemmas I think speaks very higly of your question.  Let's 
explore!

Peace,

Jim

Re: .0 Patricia

I think Christianity would have value even if the historical Jesus didn't
exist, but then again I'm not a Christian.

If someone believed that Jesus did not exist, but also claimed to follow
the teachings of Jesus, would you consider that person to be a Christian?

				-- Bob

The Biblical claim is clear - if Jesus didn't exist,
we are dead in our sins.  What else is there to say?

Oh yes.  The prophets who foretold the Messiah were
all liars.  Therefore, they are not prophets at all
and God had nothing to do with them.  Therefore, the
Bible is collection of writings that the real God had
nothing to do with.

What fools we are studying the Bible to learn about God
from people who haven't a clue what God is all about.

Those are a few simple conclusions.  They can, of course,
be expanded.

Collis

    Re.5                           
    
    Collis,
    
    Since you've generalized about liberals so many times...
    
    Why is it that fundamentalists tend to take the 'all or nothing' 
    approach?
    
    I do not see where any 'liberal type' here has said that 'the 
    prophets were all liars' (unless I missed something), so why are 
    you projecting that onto them?  
    
    It's as if the 'liberals' make a statement, then the 'fundamentalists'
    automatically draw all these conclusions, continue on and jump on their 
    case by accusing them of all sorts of things that they never intended 
    to begin with.  Why is this so?
    
    Cindy

    RE: .6
    
    I think that part of your answer, is in the nature of fundamentalists.
    
    Marc H.

    re .6
    
    I don't hear a lot of Jewish People saying the prophets were liars
    either.
    
    Patricia

A *huge* part of the Bible is the integrity of 
the Bible.  To deny that it is true is a fundamental
attack on the Bible.

You can't take inerrancy out of the Bible and be left
with anything meaningful.  I've said this (and implied
this) time after time after time.  This is the clear
reason why assuming that significant parts of the Bible
are simply not true destroys the whole.

We're not talking one verse here.  We're talking about
assumptions and explicit statements that are throughout
all of Scripture.  The assumption/claims is *ALWAYS*
that Scripture is true, trustworthy, beneficial, worthy
of study, reliable, etc.  To claim otherwise negates
a great deal of Scripture; assumes that many prophets
were wrong and that therefore they are not prophets
(according to the Bible's definition) and so on.  The
logic is simple; the conclusion obvious.

Collis

Re: .7

  >I think that part of your answer, is in the nature of fundamentalists.
   
In my case, the answer has strictly to do with logic and the
knowledge of the claims of Scripture.

Collis

 I'd still like to know what "truly" and "total" otherness means.






Jim

    I think Collis answered the question logically and precisely.  Had
    Jesus not existed, it would negate the prophets of the Old Testament as
    True prophets.  
    
    The Bible in itself would hold little value at all.  The New Testament
    would probably been lost and forgotten because Jesus' opinions and
    authority would've been blasphemous to the Jewish culture.  The golden
    rule and the like, although holding high merit, are really contained in
    the writings of many religious cults and leaders of all time. 
    Therefore, Christianity in its purest form would be totally
    meaningless, (the redemption aspect).  The New Testament would be based
    on the ideology of a religious leader of that time who was either self
    deluded or a deceiver playing a cruel hoax...hmmm, a liar or a... aww
    nevermind!!!
    
    -Jack

I know the Holy Spirit is in me so Jesus must have come before. Bible inerrancy
for me is more a conclusion than an assumption because there are enough things
that have happened to me convinced me the Bible has to be right.  If Jesus did
not exist I am pretty sure that I will believe in some evil spirits/power
because I knew their existence and did not think they are bad before I became a
Christian.  I am so grateful to God that I do not have to think the unthinkable
that if Jesus did not come.

Wally

    	If Jesus had not existed, the New testament would lose practically
    	all of its authority.
    
    	The Old Testament would, however "escape" virtually unscathed,
    	since nowhere is ther a prophecy which specifically references
    	Jesus.
    
    	That some of the prophecies - those which, by Christians, are 
    	believed already to have been fulfilled - would have to be put
    	back on hold, in no way negates them. The Jews have still a
    	considerable body of prophecy "on hold".
    
    	Any "logic" which concludes differently is niether "simple" nor
    	"conclusive".
    
    	Collis has repeatedly argued that, to prove one part of the Bible
    	to be untrue makes the whole of the Bible false.
    
    	Apart from the fact that constant repetition contributes not one
    	cent to veracity, the logic is devastatingly faulty. But you have
    	all heard that often enough, too.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    > The New Testament would be based on the ideology of a religious leader
    > of that time who was either self deluded or a deceiver playing a cruel
    > hoax...!!!
    
    For a minute there I thought I was in the "Paul" note :^)
    
    	Eric

  >Collis has repeatedly argued that, to prove one part of the Bible
  >to be untrue makes the whole of the Bible false.
    
Since this is not quite what I said and since you are responding
as if this was what I said, I'll take the time to correct it.

The assertion:

Throughout the Bible, explicit and implicit statements are
made regarding the truth of God, the truth of prophets of
God and the truth of the writings of the prophets (known
as "Scripture").

To postulate that many parts of Scripture are not true
means that:

  - either you are wrong
or
  - the prophets are wrong
or
  - both are wrong

If the prophets are wrong (option 2 or 3), then they are
not prophets of God and are therefore not prophets at all

therefore what they write is NOT of God 

therefore we are fools to rely on them in the hopes of
understanding God better

Many seem to believe that the Bible does NOT assume its
truthfulness and correctness in thousands of places and
that is the problem they have with this logic.  I don't know
why they insist on believing this; it is there.  The prophecies
quoted that give God credit for an author's quote as well
as prophecy that give the author credit for God's quote;
the 3,000 plus times that sections of Old Testmament writings
are referred to as being from God; the assumption that everything
written in Scripture is true; the proclamation of Jesus Himself
that *nothing* in Scripture, not the least stroke of a pen,
will pass away; the authority given to all Scripture by all
the prophets as well as by Jesus (who relied on it when resisting
Satan); and I could (and have in the past) go on and on.

Why do people resist these numerous and obvious claims?  Why
do they choose to believe that they can negate a small part
and ignore the implications of what that does to the rest?

I came into a relationship with Jesus not believing Scripture.
As I studied Scripture, I realized that my position regarding
Scripture was untenable.  I could not claim it to be useful
and not true.  That was not an option that God left for me -
or for you.

Collis

    The "Radical Otherness of God" is a concept developed by Karl Barth, a
    German Neo-Orthodox Theologian.  His book the Epistle to the Romans" is
    a classical volume.  Barth took on the liberals in this book diclaiming
    any ability that humans(he says men) have to relate directly with God
    on this side of the life/death boundary.  God for him is Radically
    Other than any human possibility.  It is only in death and ressurection
    that we can know God.  I reject Barth's theology but there are some
    things about it that I accept and find interesting.  It raises some
    great questions for me.  
    
    In my theology, questions are more important than answers because I do
    not think humans can know the answers to many questions.  Perhaps that
    is where I agree with Barth.  Humans cannot truly know God but can only
    begin to perceive God through Human images and Human tools.  All human
    images and human tools are faulty.  The Bible is a human tool and
    therefore faulty.  That does not make it irrelevant, meaningless, fake,
    or anything else.  It makes it human.
    
    Faith is jumping into the void of unkwowability.  It is accepting that
    I cannot know God, I cannot know historical truth, I cannot know
    exactly why I was created, but I believe there is a God, and that God
    has a purpose for me and every other human being, and in his/her own
    way God will reveal that purpose to me.  Paul does say some truly
    wonderful things about faith.  Faith is accepting that which cannot be
    fully known.  If I knew the Bible to be 100% true, If I knew the Bible
    to be innerent and literal, to accept the bible would not be faith, it
    would be fact.  To know that the Bible does not reveal historical
    accuracy and yet to accept it reveals what God wants it to reveal, for
    me is faith.
    
    The image of Jesus, the archetype of Jesus, the archetype of the Christ
    for me are more important than historical reality.  To believe in that
    which is proven is not faith.  To believe in that which cannot be
    proven is faith.
    
    Patricia

re Note 825.16 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Throughout the Bible, explicit and implicit statements are
> made regarding the truth of God, the truth of prophets of
> God and the truth of the writings of the prophets (known
> as "Scripture").

        Unfortunately this statement has no feet because we have no
        definitive statement of what is and is not Scripture -- we
        are led to conclude that these two canons are identically the
        texts to which the "explicit and implicit statements" refer.

        Now I warn anyone reading this that I am about to make the
        same kind of human assumption about what God would and would
        not have done that traditionalists often make:  If God is
        writing texts, and if God is making statements about the
        character of this or other texts, then God is perfectly able
        to identify the texts.  God is perfectly capable of using a
        word like "write" to describe an act rather than "breathed"
        (unless, of course "write" would be incorrect).  God is
        perfectly capable of saying "these texts are my words", but
        that does not appear.

        The Bible does not literally equate "scripture" with "word of
        God" and, in fact, in most places "word of God" would appear
        to refer to something other than a text.

        There is no doubt or dispute that the Bible was physically
        written by people who were recording their intimate
        encounters with God.  The Bible is certainly "word of God" as
        is the sermon preached by our pastors on Sunday morning. 


> If the prophets are wrong (option 2 or 3), then they are
> not prophets of God and are therefore not prophets at all

        These encounters include prophets and prophecy.  But is
        every last text the prophetic writing of a prophet?  I do
        not see that.


> therefore what they write is NOT of God 
> 
> therefore we are fools to rely on them in the hopes of
> understanding God better

        On the contrary -- they may still be some of the best
        available literature on the subject.  They may still
        represent God's actions and prophetic utterances to the same
        degree of accuracy as the stories I've read or heard about
        the U.S. Revolution or Civil War (i.e., quite well and they
        sure beat ignorance!).  In no other field of human endeavor
        does anyone insist that a document is useless if it isn't
        100% inerrant.  This is a silly requirement needed to prop up
        a weak argument.


> Many seem to believe that the Bible does NOT assume its
> truthfulness and correctness in thousands of places and
> that is the problem they have with this logic.  I don't know
> why they insist on believing this; it is there.  

        Well, Collis, you seem to have trouble supplying one or two
        that are clear and convincing.


> Why do people resist these numerous and obvious claims?  

        Why did the young child not see the emperor's magnificent new
        clothes, for which so much was paid and into which so much
        work went?

        (I hesitated to use this comparison because, unlike the
        emperor's clothes, I don't believe the Bible to be nothing at
        all.  Rather, it is a very old but sturdy patchwork, with a
        few small holes and thin areas.  I find such a garment to be
        far more intriguing than a perfect coat.)


> I came into a relationship with Jesus not believing Scripture.
> As I studied Scripture, I realized that my position regarding
> Scripture was untenable.  

        I came into a relationship with Jesus believing Scripture as
        you do.  As I studied Scripture, I realized that traditional
        positions regarding Scripture were untenable.

        However, I still believe Jesus, if anything, more so.  I still
        have the highest regard for Scripture.  I still study it, I
        still quote it, I still recommend it to others.  

        I do not claim it is not true.  I do not claim that every
        last fact and inference is true.  I believe it is quite
        useful as it is, and to idolize it only serves to discredit
        it and Jesus.

        Bob

    
    Excellent reply, Bob.  I feel the same way.
    
    This string also shows most clearly the 'all or nothing' approach that 
    is taken by the more fundamentalist/conservative Christians.  Given 
    that their faith is so tied to the Bible being 100% inerrant, the 
    reactions are often very strong when someone even suggests otherwise.  
    
    The position that others have been known to take - that the Bible may 
    not be 100% inerrant, but it's still one of the most valuable, beautiful, 
    and significant books in human history - is a foreign concept to them. 
    
    Cindy

    No Cindy, not a foreign concept at all.  Realize however that if one
    iota of the Bible is erroneous, then the very core of what I believe as
    a Christian, (salvation via the cross which you choose not to believe),
    is potentailly flawed.  In that case Christ died in vain, i.e he was
    dimented and died for a lie....aww forget it!!
    
    Yes the sermons he gave hold great value, even if he was dimented!!
    Problem is, the Bible holds no more water than Aesops fables by your
    standards.  Aesop held sensible and moral messages without the doctrine
    stuff!!
    
    In fact Cindy, I have a good idea.  Why don't we start a new religion.
    We'll call it the Aesopian religion and get warm and fuzzy over the
    tortoise and the hare!!  OK, I'm being a smarty but seriously, if you
    were to do something like this, you would get the exact same benefits
    and you wouldn't have to put up with meddlesome fundamentalists!!!
    Great idea...Let's do it!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Rah Rah Rah...Rah Rah Rah...Aesop Aesop..Rah Rah Rah
    
    yeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHH  AESOPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    (cheering and fan fare in the background, fireworks optional!!)
    
    -Jack

>     If Jesus did not exist Historically, would Christianity be invalidated.
  
Well, the New Testament would be invalidated and this is the basis for the
announcment of the Good News, that Christ, the Messiah, prophecized by the 
Old Testament, has come and redeemed us. If Jesus did not exist historically
then all the testimony of the New Testament would be a lie.

The testimony of the New Testament includes firsthand accounts of Jesus'
life, death, and resurrected life among the disciples. It also relates
secondhand accounts such as of the Apostle Thomas who probed the nail marks
and the side of Jesus after his ressurrection.

The New Testament, and the witness of Christianity, makes claims to the
physical resurrection of a Jesus from the dead. It also claims such signs
and wonders pointing to His Divinity as occured at His Baptism in the 
Jordan and His Transfiguration. Stephen, the first martyr, had a vision
of Jesus with the Father. 

	"We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known
	to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
	we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor
	and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration
	came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved,
	with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come
	down from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain."
	[2 Peter 1:16-18]


These are just some of the radical claims of the New Testament concerning
Jesus. Jesus, and nearly 300 years of his first disciples, suffered 
persecutions and martyrdom rather than change this witness. 

The spread of Christianity occured under persecution and penalty of death;
it spread quickly and was preached with consistancy of doctrine over a 
vast area and through many cultures with differing political conditions.
'Theologies' which contemplate Jesus' 'non-reality' have yet to give an
adequate explaination for such a 'Big Bang' coming from a non-event or
an ordinary event of political rebellion.
 
 
>    Is there a psychic, mythic, archetypal value to the Christian Story
>    that transcends historical reality?

Well, scripture tells us that all things were made in, through, and for
Christ. Therefore, I imagine that the whole universe would resonate with
Him and His 'Story'. Therefore, it is no suprise that we find archtypes
and pre-Christian myths that have some resonance with the Christian
story. 

Unfortunatly, the perception that I obtain when I read of such efforts to
relate to such psychic, mythic, and archtypal values is that such seekers
prefer to have as little as possible to do with the Christ of the Gospels.
It seems to me from reading such discourses that Jesus and His messages
and His Church is just not palatable. His 'spirit' is sought without
having to accept Him as the Incarnate Son of God or having to accept any
authority of his Church.

Scripture warns Christians of such deceptions:

	"This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that
	acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and
	every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to
	God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, 
	is to come, but in fact is already in the world."
		[1 John 4:2-3]

	"We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while
	anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how
	we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." 
		[1 John 4:6]

It is very important to come to terms with the incarnational reality of
Jesus' life, death and resurrection and this must be the centrality of
all other study. Christ does resonate through all his creation and therefore 
it is no wonder that mankind, in trying to understand the spiritual
realities of their lives, formed crude 'theologies' which touched here and
there on a truth. These were weak and impure lights [or revelations] at best.
The Old Testament records the beginning of God's major Revelation of Himself
to His creation. Jesus Christ is the full, complete and perfect Revelation
of God to us.

To see Jesus and then prefer the crude theologies and archtypes of history
rather than His Self-Revelation is going in the wrong direction -- the one
toward error and untruth. Further, it bears witness that the seeker did not
find God in Jesus.

Peace of Jesus,

Mary

re Note 825.20 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     No Cindy, not a foreign concept at all.  Realize however that if one
>     iota of the Bible is erroneous, then the very core of what I believe as
>     a Christian, (salvation via the cross which you choose not to believe),
>     is potentailly flawed.  In that case Christ died in vain, i.e he was
>     dimented and died for a lie....aww forget it!!
  
        The logic above escapes me.  Christ would have died in vain
        if what YOU personally believe isn't 100% correct?

        Bob

    
    Re.20
    
    Jack,
    
    If you wish to have a productive discussion, then your approach in .20
    is not the way to go about it.
    
    Just passing that on before I hit 'next unseen', since there doesn't
    seem to be anything more to discuss as your mind seems totally made up
    on these issues.
    
    Cindy

    .22
    
    Absolutely correct, Bob.  Jack is right in stating that Christ would
    have died in vain.  Why?  Because the Bible declares that Christ died
    for the sins of mankind and through the sacrifice of his life and the
    shedding of his blood we are transformed from death unto life with him
    in the resurrection... if Christ was only a man, then there is no
    CHRISTianity.

 RE .21...




   Amen, Mary...





 Jim

    Cindy,
    
    I was making a point and attempting to inject humor into it.  
    
    Why do you consider the Bible to be a good book?  Why do you consider
    it to have value?   Here is what I perceive to be your answer and I
    know I could be wrong!!!
    
    You look at the Bible for its ecumenical value.  It is a guide to bring
    all people into harmony with one another.  It is an excellent resource
    and document on good values and abundant living.  
    
    These are honourable reasons and more power to you.  Question: What
    distinguishes the Bible in this context from Aesops Fables?  They too
    provide morals and analogies of right and wrong.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 825.24 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Absolutely correct, Bob.  Jack is right in stating that Christ would
>     have died in vain.  Why?  Because the Bible declares that Christ died
>     for the sins of mankind and through the sacrifice of his life and the
>     shedding of his blood we are transformed from death unto life with him
>     in the resurrection... if Christ was only a man, then there is no
>     CHRISTianity.
  
        More logic I can't seem to follow:  if the Bible isn't 100%
        correct then the only other possibility is that Christ is
        only a man?

        Bob

    
    Jack,
    
    C'MON!!!!  You keep making the same mistake in communication.  
    It's very frustrating.  
    
    Here is an explanation.
    
        
>    Why do you consider the Bible to be a good book?  Why do you consider
>    it to have value?   
    
    *GREAT*, and truly answerable questions.  I can handle these.
    
    But then you go on...
    
    
>   Here is what I perceive to be your answer and I know I could be wrong!!!
   
    Well, OK, you're getting better, admitting that your upcoming
    assumption could be wrong.
    
    
>   You look at the Bible for its ecumenical value.  It is a guide to bring
>   all people into harmony with one another.  It is an excellent resource
>   and document on good values and abundant living.  
    
    Providing an answer...well, I would have preferred to write my own
    without your assumptions present, and have you listen to it without
    your assumptions present as well.
    
    Now, HERE is where I have the real problem...
    
    
>   These are honourable reasons and more power to you.  
    
    WHAT?!?!?!  You just assumed that these are the answers I would have
    written, stated that they are hono(u)rable reasons, and (sort of) paid
    me a compliment (or whatever you would call it.)
    
    When I haven't even yet said anything.
     
    
>    Question: What
>    distinguishes the Bible in this context from Aesops Fables?  They too
>    provide morals and analogies of right and wrong.  
    
    Then another question, but based on your assumptions of my potential
    answer that you've already mosr-or-less decided I would say, told me
    that they're honorable....... oh, never mind.  (To use your frustration
    words.)
    
    Cindy                    

    .28
    
    Cindy,
    
    You are correct in that Jack's communication on this string could be
    less then palatable :-), however, is there history in your
    communications that allow Jack to come to these conclusions based on
    the already written words of Cindy?
    
    If not, then he's being unjustly presumptuous.  If so, cut him some
    slack, he could be wrong in his presumptions, but he has a basis for
    them.
    
    IMHO,
    Nancy

    
    Re.29
    
    Nancy,
    
    Until yesterday, Jack didn't even know I wasn't Christian.  Based on
    that alone, no, I don't feel he knows *me* well enough to make such
    conclusions on what I supposedly believe.
    
    Cindy

    .30  Indeed, a lot as of late is based on presumption and prejudice,
    rather than a desire to communicate truth in any way other than what's
    familiar and comfortable for the speaker.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    The more I think about this question the more I like it.  And I do not
    have a clue what the real answer is.  
    
    What has become apparent to me though is that "The Christ" is not the
    same a Jesus and that is the root of the fully human/fully Divine
    argument.  
    
    What it seems to me from the literature including the Bible is that the
    Historic Jesus is fully human and not Divine.  The Christ is fully
    Divine.  The parodox is in the incarnation.  The breaking in of the
    fully divine God into a human historic person.  The Christ is defined
    in Paul and in John as preexisting the historic Jesus and existing
    after the historic Jesus.  The fully human Historic Jesus did in fact
    die. In his ressurection, he is transformed into somethin different. 
    Al new Creation using Paul's words.  A transformation from a earthly
    body to a spiritual body also using Paul's words.
    
    By being in Christ and allowing Christ to be in us, each of us can by
    adoption be sons and daughters of God.
    
    It is the next step in this logic that gets difficult for me.  In an
    archetypal fashion each of us participate in the life, death, and
    transformation of Jesus.  We participate in the Archetype of Adam the
    old man who was in God, who became separate from God.  Humanity is
    separate from God until we also participate in the Archetype of Christ
    who transforms us back into life with God somehow through the death on
    the cross and the resurrection.  Now the reality is both a historic
    reality and a non historic reality in that Moses and David are also
    identified in the bible as participating in Christ prior to the time of
    the historic Jesus.  All women and men those who predate and those who
    post date the historic Jesus, participate in his life death and
    ressurrection.  That is the paradox of the historic and the non
    historic.
    
    I am struggling to understand this in terms that can make sense to me. 
    All the replies here are helping.
    
    Patricia

re: 32

>    What it seems to me from the literature including the Bible is that the
>    Historic Jesus is fully human and not Divine.  The Christ is fully
>    Divine.  The parodox is in the incarnation.  The breaking in of the
>    fully divine God into a human historic person.  The Christ is defined
>    in Paul and in John as preexisting the historic Jesus and existing
>    after the historic Jesus.  The fully human Historic Jesus did in fact
>    die. In his ressurection, he is transformed into somethin different. 

No. The Historic Jesus was incarnated fully Human and fully Divine. He
had both natures from the beginning. He did not 'become' the Christ at
his resurrection or transform into his Divine part. He did not live as a
'perfect human' and thereby make a perfect sacrifice for our redemption;
he had [and has] both natures fully; therefore, as God he is Divine and
without sin and thereby acceptable to God the Father as the perfect
sacrifice. In his humanity he was also without sin, thereby redeeming
our fallen human nature in his sacrifice.

To teach that Jesus did not have both the Divine and Human natures is
a heresy. The Divinity of Christ is manifest in Jesus' life by the testimony
of the Holy Spirit and of God the Father. At Jesus's baptism, God the Father
called Jesus His Son. This has meaning in scripture as being the Messiah
fortold in the Old Testament. At the Incarnation, the Angel tells Mary
that she will bear a son by the Holy Spirit [by God and from Him]. Therefore,
Jesus had a fully Divine and Human nature at his conception.

All Jesus' works testify to his Divine nature, particularly when he forgave
the paraplegic. This outraged the Pharasees who where there because they
knew that only God can forgive sins. Jesus did not come out and declare
himself God or having the Divine nature in words. He bore witness to it
in the things he did and by the testimony of he Spirit and the Father at
various points. He gives us this witness and then he asks US "Who do YOU
say that I am?" Our response to Jesus' question is our statement of faith.
If we do or do not see that Jesus is the Son of God, Divine and Human, then 
that is our testimony before the Father.

The later writings of the Apostles do state Jesus as the Christ in his life,
not just after his ressurrection. 

It is true that Christ has been from all times and that he was transfigured
both at the Transfiguration and after his resurrrection. However the fullness
of Jesus Christ was from all times although this is a mystery as to how it
is so. What I mean here is that Christ did not take over an human body at
the time of the Incarnation. Christ before the Incarnation had the fullness
of his Humanity and his Divinity through all times. 

In the Psalms, the psalmist has God tell us that he knew us from before we
were in our mother's womb. He knows each of us before we are 'incarnate'
and this is in our fullness. We are not just spirits attached to a body
and neither was Jesus. 

I know I am not explaining this very well, but I had to enter some 
comment.

Peace,

Mary

    Look at the gospel accounts of Jesus' Passion. After the centurion
    pierced Jesus on the cross, the blinders were taken from his eyes and
    he declared, "Indeed, he truly is the Son of God."
    
    This is the human story of faith. Jesus, fully Divine, came in the
    flesh, fully Human. As the 'sign of contradiction' God gave us Jesus
    and only those who became as little children in their faith could
    recognize Jesus to be the Christ among them. Jesus was given the
    name "Immanuel" meaning "God is with us". Jesus means Savior or
    Messiah.
    
    The apostles bore witness to Jesus as the Messiah before his Passion
    and therefore if he only became the Christ upon his ressurrection then
    the Apostles would have given a false and blasphemous witness.
    
    It was Jesus' acts of forgiving sins, healing on the Sabbath, etc.,
    that made the Pharasies who could not see, to conclude that Jesus was
    blaspheming God by doing the acts of God. They even felt that he was
    doing these things of an evil spirit.
    
    Therefore, the testimony Jesus gave in his every act was one that 
    claimed his Divine Sonship.
    
    At Jesus' presentation in the temple, the prophet Simeon prophecized
    that Jesus would be a 'sign of contradiction'. That is, he came not
    as the proud expected he would come and not making the declaration
    himself through words, but rather through his own person, the Word
    of God Incarnate. He is the cause of the rise and fall of many. Why?
    Because some will see and believe and others will not. Therefore,
    for those who do not see, Jesus is a stumbling block and his 
    sacrifice is a scandal. For those who do see, he is, as the Centurian
    said, "He is clearly the Son of God!"
    

	Re: last few.

	In the Council of Nicaea, after much debate for one interpretation
	or the other, it was Constantine himself who intervened and
	compelled the bishops to accept the "Jesus is God" formula rather
	that "Jesus is God-like". The same Constantine who, both before and
	after the Council, continued his Saturn worshiping as is amply
	documented in text, monuments and coinage.

	If denial of Jesus as God is heresy, then only in terms of dogmatic
	rejection.

	It is perhaps interesting to note that, whereas modern people have
	no difficulty in seeing Jesus as human but require a leap of faith
	to accept the divine aspect, in the Greco/Roman era this process
	was reversed: Of course Jesus was divine. The difficulty came in
	thinking of him as - also - human.

	Greetings, Derek.

    .35
    
    Where did you receive the information on Constantine?  While I doubt
    not that this is the case, how does that impact the Catholic Church's
    doctrine?
    
    But quite frankly, you've missed a very important piece of history in
    the life of Jesus.  The debate of God or God-like was part of Jesus'
    life since birth.  Henceforth, His crucifixion.
    
    I could give a rats meow about Constantine!
    
    :-)
    Nancy

    re: .35
    
    Your comment about Constantine intervening at the Council of Nicaea
    is just not true, and I wonder about both the source of such a
    claim and the hidden agenda that offers it.
    
    Mary

re Note 825.37 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

>     Your comment about Constantine intervening at the Council of Nicaea
>     is just not true, and I wonder about both the source of such a
>     claim and the hidden agenda that offers it.

        Please, folks (and I'm not directing this specifically to
        you, Mary), do we have to see "hidden agendas" and
        conspiracies behind each piece of information offered with
        which we disagree?

        Bob

	Re: .36 Nancy.

	I really cannot remember in detail all my the sources of this
	information. I recall that I first heard it during our religious
	schooling in my early RAF days (around 1954) and that I checked it
	in the base library.  Then, a couple of years later, I read a book
	called 'The Nicaea Protocol' in which the debate was very dramatically
	described (some bishops were sent into exile and only rehabilitated.
	after several years and a "recantation"). More recently, there was
	reference to it in 'Pagans and Christians' by Lane Fox - who also
	cited other works. And less than a month ago, I mentioned it to a
	friend who, just a few days ago, loaned me a book "Rabbi Jesus"
	telling me that the occasion is described in it. I have not yet read
	the book. It has come up numerous times in conversations in which I
	have participated over the years. I have never had cause to doubt
	its veracity.

	I cannot begin to answer your second question on its impact on
	the Catholic Church's doctrine except to say that, since Nicaea,
	it has been a central part of it. Had Constantine directed the
	other way, I *assume* that "God-like" would be the doctrine. But I
	do not *know*. I doubt if there would have been any earth-shaking
	impact on the faith of the Church fathers.

	re: .37 Mary.

	Mary, I resent very strongly your implication that I have some
	'hidden agend' in presenting information which - clearly - is
	contrary to your own belief. It would be just as reasonable to
	argue that your motives are devious in denying (that which I see
	as) historical fact.
	But I will not argue in this fashion.

	re: .38 Bob.

	Thanks. I would wish that others could remain as objective.

	Greetings, Derek.

    I read the section on the Council of Nicea in my History of
    Christianity book yesterday.  The interplay between the political and
    the religious was of tremendous importance throughout Western
    Civilizaton.  The power structure between the King and the Pope or the
    Emperor and the Bishops was a major dynamic in the History of of Rome,
    Europe, and ultimately the Western world.
    
    Constantine did convert to Christianity.  Some of his motives were
    purely Political.  He was a pluralist support both Christian and Pagan
    worship.  He considered himself a Christian but did not abandon his
    Paganism either.
    
    Constantine did not understand the theological issues being argued but
    did want the debate settled.  He needed a unified Christiandom.  I
    consider Arius to be the first major Unitarian Source.   The issues he
    raised are similiar to those raised again by Erasmus, and raised by
    Channing and others in the nineteenth century.  Constantine used his
    political influence to settle the debate.  There were two major schools
    of thought at the time.  The debate was not settled.  The Council of
    Nicea declared a winner and a loser in the debate.  There was another
    council several decades later that reversed the decision and a final
    council that reversed it again.  What was clear with three councils
    arguing about the humanity or divinity, the Unity and Plurality of God
    is that the answer to those questions are not answered in the Bible. 
    By faith, either direct or under the influence of our respective
    traditions , we may accept one or the other answers.  Then we read the
    bible from our faith assumptions and find the evidence we are looking
    for.  I read the Bible and it looks like there are at least 10 statements
    showing the God and Jesus are separate for every 1 that has any
    inference to them being the same.  A Trinitarian may find the numbers
    reversed.  If three councils, all finding authority in the Bible could
    not clearly settle the issue based on biblical authority, then it is
    evident that the issue is not clearly spelled out in that source.
    
    Patricia

re .40

Although Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and opened
it with an address stating that he thought the dispute was trivial and could
be resolved without difficulty, it cannot be said that he intervened or
forced the decision.  It was only _after_ the council had formulated its
dogmatic statements that Constantine wrote to all the bishops urging support
of the council's conclusions and banishing Arius.

Constantine was baptized long after the council, a few days before his death
on May 22, 337.

/john

    Yes Constantine was baptised a few days before his death, which I
    understand was somewhat of a technique in those days.  Since baptism is
    suppose to wash away all one's sins, waiting until after most of the
    sins were already committed had its advantages.
    
    It reminds me of when I was growing up, my Catholic friends would
    schedule fights on Friday since they went to confession on Saturday. I
    did not quite get it then either.
    
    Patricia
    

RE:             <<< Note 825.42 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   >    suppose to wash away all one's sins, waiting until after most of the
   > sins were already committed had its advantages.
    
     Certainly does..except a) one doesn't know from one minute to the next
     that they will remain alive til the next..b) when one rises from the
     baptistry one is still a sinner..c) while God is certainly unlimited in
     His Grace, I wouldn't want to test him in such a manner.




 >   It reminds me of when I was growing up, my Catholic friends would
 >   schedule fights on Friday since they went to confession on Saturday. I
 >   did not quite get it then either.
    
  
     What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin so that grace may 
     abound? God forbid! Romans 6:1-2a

     Its unfortunate that many (as in the example cited above) have a 
     misunderstanding  of the concept of sin, grace, forgiveness and salvation.





    Jim


     

    The issue at point though is that Constantine lived in a mythical,
    magical time where the rituals themselves were thought to have magical
    powers.  Even Paul thought that taking communion lightly could have
    severe immediate physical consequences.  Our scientific worldview is
    and needs to be very different.  Constantine's reason for supporting
    one side of the controversy over the other had nothing to do with his
    personal theology but with his politics.  Of course one might argue
    that God was guiding his politics.  

    Agian the deity of Christ was the reason for his crucifixion. 
    Constantine is simply a byproduct of that very debate.  As are many of
    us in year 1994. :-)

    RE: .37
    
    Mary,
     Why did you have such a strong reaction?
    
    Marc H.

    re: .46
    
    My reply was strong, not towards the noter, but towards certain 
    writings which have as an underlying purpose an attack on 
    the Catholic, and at times all Christian faith. Such writings
    sometimes goes as far as to be totally untrue. The way the
    statement was made about Constantine's role struck me as such
    an untruth. It implies that there was no true spiritual basis 
    for the the decision, but only a political one. 
    
    As Nancy just said, and I pointed out earlier, the acts Jesus did
    in scripture clearly were acts which only God had authority to
    do, forgiveness of sins being the primary one. For this Jesus
    was crucified as a blasphemer who was claiming he was God. 
    
    The common method to avoid Christ's Divinity is to interpret 
    his crucifixion in political terms only. This is the 'faith' of
    athiests who wish to reduce the Church and her authority to no more
    than human levels. [I am not calling anyone an athiest, just pointing
    out that this is the athiest argument.]
    
    Such an interpretation tends to deny the resurrection and other claims
    of scripture also and the result is a faith constructed not by God's
    revelation to mankind, but by man's image of himself as capable of
    being our own gods.
    
    I think there is a society of 'theologians' called the Jesus Society;
    they vote on the probability of scripture being true, probable, said
    by Jesus, not true, etc.. Phrase by phrase they use their human
    reason and arrogance to tear apart scripture and deny the supernatural
    power of God and our faith. This is an example of an approach which
    is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. 
    
    Interpretations of Christianity which need to rewrite scripture, or
    discard who sections in order to eliminate contradictions should be
    suspect. 
    
    How do those who only accept Jesus as being human account for his
    crucifixion, resurrection and works of authority? How does it account
    for the spread of the early Church during hundred of years of
    persecution if not based on the power of Jesus Christ's Coming as
    the Son of God, true God and true Man?
    
    Jesus told his disciples in John, "If you have seen me, you have
    seen the Father."
    
    My apologies for the strong wording in .37; it was not meant to be
    an attack on the noter.
    
    Mary
    
     

re Note 825.47 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

>     I think there is a society of 'theologians' called the Jesus Society;
>     they vote on the probability of scripture being true, probable, said
>     by Jesus, not true, etc.. Phrase by phrase they use their human
>     reason and arrogance to tear apart scripture and deny the supernatural
>     power of God and our faith. 
  
        Aren't you simply using YOUR "human reason and arrogance" to
        tear apart this theological position??
          
>     Interpretations of Christianity which need to rewrite scripture, or
>     discard who sections in order to eliminate contradictions should be
>     suspect. 

        ... as most certainly should interpretations of Christianity
        which make blanket approval of Scripture or traditions.

        Bob

    RE: .47
    Thanks for the Info.
    
    
    Marc H.

    re: .48
    
    By their fruits each shall be known.
    
    A theology that moves towards the faith of athiesm [that is, no
    faith in a supernatural God] will be know by its fruits. It
    is seen all around us, the materialistic, humanistic and dead
    faith of the 20th Century.
    
    It is each person's choice.
    
    Jesus said, "If you see me, you see the Father." What testimony
    are we giving if we see Jesus and don't see the Father? 
    
    Mary
     

re Note 825.50 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

> -< why are they so right? >-
  
        I didn't say that they were right -- I was saying that your
        reasoning was flawed.

        Bob

>        Aren't you simply using YOUR "human reason and arrogance" to
>        tear apart this theological position??

Actually, although I cannot speak for Mary, I would say that the Holy 
Spirit reveals much in the way of Doctrine.  Therefore, while I, 
yourself or anyone else may walk in human reason with or without 
arrogance, there is a tie breaker. :-)
          


    

	In a previous note I referred to a book borrowed from a friend:
	'Rabbi Jesus' by Johanns Lehmann in which the Council of Nicaea
	is described. I read the relevant passage last night. The original
	is in German but here is my translation. (I will gladly send
	the German text to anyone interested).

	"The discussion revolved around a single letter: An 'i'. Eusebius
	of Caesaria had read to the Council [more than 300 bishops. ed]
	the baptismal creed of his community in which Christ was described
	as 'the firstborn' and 'only child' who was convieved 'before time'
	The creed recognized a "Lord Jesus Christ, Word of God, God from
	God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only Son and firstborn
	of all creation, concieved by the Father before the aeons..."
	The gathered bishops could more or less agree with this formula.
	But then, the Ceasar interceded and demanded - to the surprise of
	the Council - a completely new definition. He introduced a word
	which, until then, had not been used in the Council, and no one
	knows who suggested it to him. The word was "homousios" and means
	the Christ is "one person with God", is therefore himself a God.
	It was percisely this that was disputed by Arius. For him, the
	Rabbi Jesus was simply the mos noble of all creatures. For him,
	Rabbi J was  not one person with God ("homousios") butrather,
	as a creature of God only "God-like" ("homoiusios").
	On this "i" between "homousios" and "homoiusios" depended whether
	Chrsitendom - with all the changes thus far experienced - would
	cling to the words of Paul and the Gospelers on the humanity of
	Jesus or continue with the process of alienation and falsification
	of the origins and create a God out of a human who wanted nothing
	more than to lead people to God.
	From this "i" depended whether the church would make the final
	break from the God in whom Rabbi Jesus believed and from Judaism
	to which Jesus belonged and, in future, teach and believe some-
	thing quite different. The Council of Nicaea decided, as Constantine
	required, and made - 300 years after the death of Rabi Jesus -
	a wandering preacher from Galilea a God who was "homousios" with
	God.
	On 19 June 325 - just 4 weeks after the start of the Council -
	Constantine insisted that all bishops present sign the new creed
	which made Christ to God and damned Arius. Whoever refused to sign
	should be excommunicated and exiled.
	So: the document was signed; even from those who, tortured during
	the persecution of the Christians, had had their scars kissed by
	Constantine at the beginning of the Council. 17 bishops sided with
	Arius but only 5 refused to sign. Constantine gave them time to
	rethink and a further 3 signed. One fo these was Eusebius of
	Caesaria whose creed, decisively changed, was the basis of the
	Nicaeanium. He did not sign because he agreed with the new formula
	but "out of respect for Caesar" as he later confessed.
	The 2 who did not sign were:  bishop Sekundus of Ptolemy; and
	Theonas of Marmarika. The were excommunicated and exiled. Arius
	was excommunicated, exiled and cursed and his writings were burnt.
	Anyone keeping his writings was punished."

	There is much more, but this is the kernel. It agrees in essence
	with all that I have previously read and heard on the subject.

	Greetings, Derek.

	PS: Mary, after reading your later notes and re-reading .37, I
	realize that you did not intend to infer that *I* had a hidden
	agenda. I apologize for me reaction to .37.     Derek.

A book with a title "Rabbi Jesus" obviously has an agenda of misrepresenting
scripture and history to push the "Good Teacher" falsehood.  The book is out
and out wrong: the creed containing the word homoousios was a product of the
Council of Constantinople, held in 381, after Constantine's death.  The word
homoousios means "of the same substance".  Its prior absence does not mean
that Christians did not previously believe that Jesus was God; its addition
was an attempt to clarify exactly HOW He is God and to counter many different
heresies, not just those which claimed that he was only God-like (homoiousios
-- of like substance) but also those which claimed that he was not always God
the Word, begotten before all ages, but only inherited his divine nature at
some point in his ministry.  It took yet another council, that of Chalcedon
in 451, to finally express the union of human and divine natures in words
clear enough that scripture (especially the first chapter of John) could not
be misunderstood.

Claims that Jesus never wanted his followers to worship him as God are
consistent with this "damning with faint praise" which occurs, for example,
in the Koran.

Scripture is quite clear that Jesus declared that He was God.  Why else
was He charged with blasphemy and put to death for it?

Matt 5:17	I have authority to lay [my life] down and authority to
		take it up again.

Matt 12:8	I have told you everything ahead of time.

Matt 24:30	If a man keeps my word, he will never see death.

Matt 28:16-20	Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain
		to which Jesus had directed them.  When they saw him, they
		worshipped him; but some doubted.  And Jesus came and said
		to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been
		given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
		baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
		of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that
		I have commanded you.  And remember, I am with you always,
		to the end of the age.

Mark 2:10	The Son of Man [will come] on the clouds ... with power
		and great glory.

Mark 13:23	The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath

Luke 12:9	I am [the Messiah]

Luke 22:70	The Son gives life

John 4:25-26	He who disowns me before men will be disowned before the
		angles of God

John 5:21	I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in
		me will live

John 8:51	The Son of Man has authority ... to forgive sins

John 10:18	I have ... come to fulfill the Law

John 11:25	You are right in saying I am [the Son of God]

	The divinity of Jesus was formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325.
	The Council of Constantinople in 381 served only to confirm and
	elaborate the 325 formula, after the dispute with the dissenting
	bishops had been "resolved".
	It is no coincidence that the the words "God from God ... of one
	substance with the father" are to be found in the NICENE Creed.

	The Council of Chalcedon in 451 (as Collis confirms in .54) formulated
	the human aspects of Jesus' person (The Chalcedonian Definition). The
	formulas which emerged from these councils only thinly conceal the
	raging arguments on the questions (divine or human) of the period and
	which still rage, both within and without the Church.

	(Most of the above is admirably presented in the book: "Jesus: a
	Question of Identity" by J.L. Houlden �1992, a professor of 
	Theology at King's College London).
	
	The unavoidable conclusion *must* be that the scriptures leave the
	questions unanswered.  The reason for this lack of answers is, IMO, 
	that these questions were - at the time of their writing - simply
	not posed.

	I am, further, forced to conclude that anyone who includes in his
	arguments such statements as: "The scriptures leave no doubt..."
	are either extremely presumptious, have totally misread the history
	of the early church (or have chosen to ignore it) or they are 
	blinded - at least partially - by their need to have faith in what
	they have chosen to believe.

	To .54 Collis.

	>Its prior absence does not mean that Christians did not previously
	>believe that Jesus was God.

	This statement is correct. But incomplete! "that *some* Christians"
	would be more correct. Others believed that Jesus was *not* God.
	Yet others believed that he was a combination. Some could not have
	cared less. The early Christians fought on these questions (almost?/ 
	even more than?) as we do today. None - I am sure - denied his
	existance.

	Sometimes, I think that God changes more than people do!

	Greetings, Derek.

It is simply not true that the divinity of Jesus was a new doctrine of
the Council of Nicea.  It was taught by the Apostles and by the early
Church fathers.  It was a subject of discussion at the Council of Nicaea
because of the rise of Arianism, a new heresy which denied the teaching
of the early Church.

Clement of Alexandria, who died in 210, wrote:  "Our Educator is the holy
God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity.  God himself, who
loves us, is our Educator."

Clement and other fathers based their teaching on the clear witness of the
Apostles about the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels.  John, the
beloved disciple, who personally knew Jesus, wrote in the first chapter of
his Gospel that Jesus was the everlasting Word of God, that the Word was God,
and that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."

Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

Read the writings of Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian
of Carthage, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen.  This is the true witness
of the early church.  The books you keep reading and quoting from have an
agenda of denying the plain word of the Gospel itself and the authentic
teaching of the Church.

/john

    Hmmm /john  where can I get a copy of the writings of Theophilus, I am
    *most* interested in his... after all Paul studied under him. :-)
    
    Nancy

    Oh yeah you know where Theophilus got his name?
    
    
    
    When he was born is mother took one look at him and said that is
    Theophilus thing I've ever seen!
    
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    Apologies to any I may have offended with this yoke. 

The works of Theophilus of Antioch can be found in "Patrologia Graeco-Latina",
edited by J.P. Migne.  I have an excerpt from Theophilus' work addressed "To
Autocylus" in "Readings for the Daily Office from the Early Church", by Dr. J.
Robert Wright, published by The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York.

Theophilus was Bishop of Antioch from about 170-180, and is not to be confused
with the unknown Christian to whom Luke addresses his Gospel and the Book of
the Acts of the Apostles.

/john

    .59
    
    Then forget it... if its not the Theophilus of Acts, I don't wish to
    see anything.
    
    

re Note 825.56 by COVERT::COVERT:

> It is simply not true that the divinity of Jesus was a new doctrine of
> the Council of Nicea.  It was taught by the Apostles and by the early
> Church fathers.  It was a subject of discussion at the Council of Nicaea
> because of the rise of Arianism, a new heresy which denied the teaching
> of the early Church.

        Derek, and others, didn't say it was new at Nicea.

        Rather, he was pointing out something that should, I would
        think, have been obvious (since the Church leaders in power
        at the time invested so much effort on this issue): 
        Christians before Nicea were far from unanimity regarding the
        doctrines of the divinity of Jesus.

        What was "new" at Nicea, if anything, was the appearance of
        unanimity.

> Read the writings of Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian
> of Carthage, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen.  This is the true witness
> of the early church.  The books you keep reading and quoting from have an
> agenda of denying the plain word of the Gospel itself and the authentic
> teaching of the Church.
  
        John, I could as easily say that the writers you keep on
        quoting have an agenda of denying the plain word of the
        Gospel itself and one of the prevalent teachings of the early
        church.  (However, I won't argue along such lines since such
        argument doesn't settle this issue -- Derek's main point, and
        I basically agree with it, is that the "evidence" on this
        issue really is ambiguous, and thus sincere people, even
        guided by the Holy Spirit, will ALWAYS have differing
        opinions on this.)

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Well Put. 
    
    Patricia

    	Thanks Bob; you took the words right out of my fingertips.
    
    	One point, however: not even during/after Niacea was the doctrine
    	of Jesus' divinity unanimous.
    
    	You are right to point out that the humanity of Jesus was taught
    	by the early Christians *at least as* frequently as his divinity.
    
    	John: Amongst the books I *keep reading* are the Bible and most
    	of the writers you referred to. I think I am intelligent enough
    	to discriminate between *serious* works of history and/or theology
    	and those with an obvious agenda.
    
    	BTW: I see no problem with reading the latter; providing one is
    	careful what one does with the information. They do act as a
    	catalyst to healthy critical thinking. I guess this is a question
    	of how secure one feels.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
    

Bob,

I find it crazy to believe that the Holy Spirit guides some
into truth and some into error.

People may indeed be in error - but they weren't guided there
by the Holy Spirit.

Collis

re Note 825.64 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I find it crazy to believe that the Holy Spirit guides some
> into truth and some into error.

        I didn't say this, did I?

        I said people may have been guided by the Holy Spirit yet
        nevertheless reached different conclusions.

        They are still human beings and are still incapable of fully
        grasping and expressing supernatural truth.

        Most likely neither side is entirely correct -- Scripture
        could be ambiguous precisely because the full expression of
        a truth is beyond expression in human words.  Even when
        guided by the Holy Spirit people still have some of their
        human limitations.


> People may indeed be in error - but they weren't guided there
> by the Holy Spirit.

        Neither may be "in error" -- their understanding of where the
        Holy Spirit led them may simply differ.

        Bob

Re:  .65

I guess I see it more simplistically than you, Bob.

The Holy Spirit only leads into truth.  We agree on that.

You claim that people can be led by the Holy Spirit
and yet reach different conclusions.  Let me be more
specific about what I hear this claim being:

  - both people are led by the Holy Spirit on this
    issue
  - the issue is a significant issue (e.g. the nature
    of Jesus - was He God?)

I say that if the two people disagree, it is because of
human error, not because of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore
the Holy Spirit did NOT lead one (or both) of these
people on the significant points that they disagree.

Seems logical to me.

Collis

    Perhaps the enigmatic conclusion that the Holy Spirit can lead us too
    is that it is in fact insignificant.  Humankind has been arguing for
    200 years about whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine. Even
    Jesus emphasizes that it does not make a hoot of a difference.  
    
    What is required is that we love God with all our heart, soul, and
    mind, and love our neighbors as ourself.  
    
    The answer is so simple.  Why do people make God's requirements so
    complex.
    
    Patricia

    200 was suppose to be 2000

re Note 825.66 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> You claim that people can be led by the Holy Spirit
> and yet reach different conclusions.  Let me be more
> specific about what I hear this claim being:
> 
>   - both people are led by the Holy Spirit on this
>     issue
>   - the issue is a significant issue (e.g. the nature
>     of Jesus - was He God?)
> 
> I say that if the two people disagree, it is because of
> human error, not because of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore
> the Holy Spirit did NOT lead one (or both) of these
> people on the significant points that they disagree.
  
        Well, it also depends whether the difference is significant
        (a separate issue from the significance of the issue).

        I've heard trinitarians and unitarians� argue back and forth
        over nearly a decade in these electronic forums, and while
        they come to different expressions of "who Jesus is", the
        practical impact of the differences seem to be about nil.

        (... except for the fact that these groups' charity towards
        each other is tested, and usually found severely lacking)

        Bob

        �I'm thinking primarily of "unitarians" such as the Jehovah's
        Witnesses, as opposed to U-Universalists.