Theory of Beginning of Life and "God"

[blazer2000x]

Jesus: "I and my Father are one" "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father" "He that rejects me, rejects Him that sent me"

 

"In the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the Same was in the beggining with God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among men..."

[questor]

Alexander, good line of thought. i,too, ascribe to this view. whatever is the ''bottom line'' force that causes evrything to work can be called God, because this force is everywhere, is all powerful and in complete control. this force is not an old man with a beard and angels

although it could be anything it wanted to be. as we find out more about the unexplainable

forces such as gravity and the smallest components of the cosmos, perhaps we will get closer to understanding ''the bottom line''. Questor

[alexander]

Although I can see that Alex lacks grasp of the doctrines

well, you'd have to agree that there are better ways of spending time then rereading the bible and the Trinity and whatnot...

I already presented several scriptural quotes that stated Jesus was God, and that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are ONE. There’s one line of support.

 

Now, how about some logic. If Jesus was not God at all, then he was JUST a man: Christians would be grossly wrong and would need to stop worshipping a mere mortal man instead of God. So Christianity must hold that Jesus was (at least part) God.

 

Well, …

 

Quote:

“Always remember that Jesus walked this earth as not only being 100% God, but also as 100% man..” (http://www.free-gifts.com/Holy_Trinity.htm)

 

 

Hmmm, Jesus walked the Earth as 100% God. Not 75%, or 16.25% … nope, 100%.

 

That’s more outside support, and more logic. Here’s a bit more.

 

Now, if Jesus was God, and God was also God, and the two were not the same, then God would not be ONE: God would be 2! A clear contradiction of Biblical scripture.

 

Even if Jesus were only part God (say 50% God and 50% human), and God was God, and the two were not the same, then God would not be ONE: God would be 1.5! Again, a contradiction of Biblical scripture.

 

Jesus was God. In fact, he was 100% God … and 100% human, at the same time! And yet people can “prove” using scripture and logic that while Jesus was God, He was not the same God as God Himself! Gotta love that Bible!

are you still proving that Jesus is God, thought that "Me and my Father are one" quote made it pretty clear...

Keep in mind that Jesus was 100% God

but he is according to the doctorine, what i am trying to prove is that god was not Jesus and then Jesus became God.

Yes. The Word and the Father are one. The Word is Jesus (surely you know that much) and the Father is the standard old God (surely you know that much too). And they are ONE.

are you purposely trying not to see my point? Jesus didnt exist before his birth 2005 years ago, there was no bible, no followers, notta, it is you who are missing a huge part of the scripture that deals with the birth of Jesus, that deals with his childhood and life and death and resurection and crucifiction. If you are saying that Jesus is the World, then he must have existed before his BIRTH at 00/00/0000, great then if he was there, but he wasn't apparently if he was born later on, how could he be there when he was not born? Are you saying that Jesus was there with Adam and Eve, and that it was in fact Jesus that created them both, you have proof from that section of the Bible, cuz I'm pretty sure that there is no mention of God being Jesus at that point in the Bible...

This entire discussion seems like I'm trying to prove that apples begin with flowers, and you contradicting and saying that oranges grow on trees too...

[infamous]

Alexander, good line of thought. i,too, ascribe to this view. whatever is the ''bottom line'' force that causes evrything to work can be called God, because this force is everywhere, is all powerful and in complete control. this force is not an old man with a beard and angels

although it could be anything it wanted to be. as we find out more about the unexplainable

forces such as gravity and the smallest components of the cosmos, perhaps we will get closer to understanding ''the bottom line''. Questor

 

Yes questor, we all would like to know what "the bottom line" means, and I like you believe that Alexander makes some excellent points also. There is however one point that I would like to add to the mix, maybe this question about the trinity is not as complicated as it first seems to be? Consider this for one moment: Man himself can be understood to consist of three constituent parts, body, mind, and spirit. Conseivably, we ourselves could be defined as a trinity of sorts. Now imagine for a moment that God defined as the mind or purpose behind the creation of this universe, consisting also of spirit "Holy Spirit" chose to dwell in the presence of human flesh, namely Christ. Could we then understand why God and Christ are one and the same. Not really all that complicated if you look at it in the manner which I've just described.

[alexander]

Consider this for one moment: Man himself can be understood to consist of three constituent parts, body, mind, and spirit. Conseivably, we ourselves could be defined as a trinity of sorts. Now imagine for a moment that God defined as the mind or purpose behind the creation of this universe, consisting also of spirit "Holy Spirit" chose to dwell in the presence of human flesh, namely Christ. Could we then understand why God and Christ are one and the same. Not really all that complicated if you look at it in the manner which I've just described.

this is an excellent point to add to the mix. i was actually just discussing this two minutes ago, here is where it all ended:

Jesus is God, God is Jesus, Jesus is 100% human, he is also 100% God, and here, TeleMad has proven all of the above, but what the main course for the last 5 pages has been is by that he is trying to prove that God is of human nature, and here is where i strongly disagree, and you make an interesting point. I'd like to add some more thoughts to the stew though; Jesus is the World and the holy spirit, because God is all that and Jesus is God. God has created everything, and can become anything because of the definition of God. God took on a human body in the name of Jesus Crist who was born on 0 ad and died for our sins a little while after being resurected and convincing people that he is God. But god is above human, by at least the definition: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, but human nature implies: Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility that is assocoated with humans, therefore, if god is of human nature he also would be subject to weakness, imperfection and fragility, but by his definition he is not because he is perfect and therefore it is not in the nature of science to beleive that a bug-eating flower is an animal because it eats bugs which happens to be the diet of some birds and only shows that birds and bug-eating plants have a similar diet...

[Biochemist]

well, you'd have to agree that there are better ways of spending time then rereading the bible and the Trinity and whatnot...

I can certainly imagine a lot of worse things one could do.

...Are you saying that Jesus was there with Adam and Eve, and that it was in fact Jesus that created them both, you have proof from that section of the Bible, cuz I'm pretty sure that there is no mention of God being Jesus at that point in the Bible...

Actually, there is. A couple of verses come to mind (all verses NASB):

 

1) Colossions 1:15-6- And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created by Him and for Him

2) Colossions 2:9-For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

3) Hebrews 1:3- And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representaiton of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

Fundamentally, the nature of Jesus and the natiure of God are inseparable. Jesus just had this human-thing going for a while.

 

Alexander, I was chuckling a bit about your attempts to assign some sort of clarity to the nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is essentially extra-Biblical. It was formalized at the council of Nicea to counteract a number of heresies that had popped up in the second and third centuries. Some of those heresies were much like the ones that you were trying to articulate.

 

I would like to posit that the nature of God is complicated, and should reasonably be expected to be so. It is unreasonable to think that the fundamental nature of the Creator should be less complex than His creation. Think of the complexities of quantum mechanics (and the unreconcilable incongruities) and then consider that God would obligatorily be at least that complicated.

 

We should expect that verses describing the fundamental nature of God should be incongruous. This is rational to expect, based on what we know of creation.

[Biochemist]

...But god is above human, by at least the definition: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, but human nature implies: Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility that is assocoated with humans, therefore, if god is of human nature he also would be subject to weakness, imperfection and fragility...

This is a pretty good insight, Alexander. In Hebrews 2 (specifically 2:9), it details how Jesus was briefly "lower than the angels," a status that was adjusted after his resurrection.

 

I do not suggest this is straightforward. But clearly Jesus now is different than Jesus then.

[Qfwfq]

well, you'd have to agree that there are better ways of spending time then rereading the bible and the Trinity and whatnot...

Even without believing, it is a fascinating culture. The first thing is not to have the wrong approach, expecting it to be straightforward.

[Biochemist]

...The first thing is not to have the wrong approach, expecting it to be straightforward.

Boy, is that a great insight.

[blazer2000x]

I am a christian, and I do not believe Jesus was God while he was here on earth. He was made flesh, "a little lower than the angels". He attained perfection in doing the will of the Father, then he died for our transgressions. He was buried, and on the third day he rose again, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. To Him has been given all authority, and dominion, and power. And he has the keys of hell and death. Jesus was not God while he was on earth. He had no power of his own while on earth but that which was given him by God.

Jesus did exist before he was born, (which was actually in 4 A.D.) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. And the Word was made flesh..." then it continues to say how "the Word" (Jesus) was rejected by his own, "and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own recieved Him not". You have to be pretty dense not to get that if you believe the Bible.

We are also called to perfection. "Be thou perfect even as I am perfect." "...that the sons of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." If Jesus was God while He was on earth, what hope do we have of reaching perfection? He was sent not to show the way, but to be the way, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." Because Jesus lived sinlessly, he was the perfect sacrifice, the spotless lamb. By His blood, sin no longer has a hold on us, and we can overcome it through Him alone.

No matter how hard you try to live without sinning, you can't without Him. Only when you surrender yourself fully, and reject your own strength, "My strength is made perfect in thy weakness.", can you hope to enter the kingdom of God.

[blazer2000x]

Sorry if that sounded a little strange, but that is what I believe. I am entitled to my own opinion, and I actually posted it before having read all the posts. (sorry) If you disagree with anything in it, or don't know what I meant by it, don't hesitate to say so.

[alexander]

I can certainly imagine a lot of worse things one could do.

so true, i could be having an operating system discussion with a bunch of Windows geeks (which is an oxymoron but adds irony to my point)...

Actually, there is. A couple of verses come to mind (all verses NASB):

 

1) Colossions 1:15-6- And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created by Him and for Him

2) Colossions 2:9-For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

3) Hebrews 1:3- And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representaiton of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Fisrt of all i dont once see the name Jesus in all the quotes... but i have a better idea of how to explain you answered.

Ok, there most certainly are links to Jesus in the Old Testament, never once was he referred to as Jesus, but a large part of the prophecies focused on God's bodily form. None of that however goes to show that God was of human nature. Also, here is a fresh thought: while the name Jesus gets associated with God, God is the only God, without going too much into this, basically, Jesus was a Prophet (and they are just a little under angels), but for all the good that he caused, he was killed by the very people he so much cared for, (from this point i'll hit the Christian targets more then anything else) God decided that Jesus was a Portrayal of himself on earth and decided to take is walk on earth as Jesus, hence resurrection, and thats how he got Jesus confused with himself and thats what he really was, he Proclaimed to be god because he was really god in his human form (since god can take a form of anything). Let me relate this to this: Devil, Satan and Lucifer are all the same guy, and while Lucifer was at some point an angel, the nature of all evil is not angel-like...

This is a pretty good insight

I'll take that as a complement :eek:

Even without believing, it is a fascinating culture. The first thing is not to have the wrong approach, expecting it to be straightforward.

I never once said that I have never read both testaments, trinity, judice, sirach, tobit, tanakh, psalms (most, but those are not that much fun), quran, shahadatan, samuyutta nikkaya, I havent read them in a while, yes, but I have read them.

No matter how hard you try to live without sinning, you can't without Him. Only when you surrender yourself fully, and reject your own strength

Please dont cross the line between discussion and preaching.

Yes, yes I do have many problems with that quote, but i wont discuss unless you want to , blazer...

[blazer2000x]

Yes please discuss it, I didn't phrase that exactly how I meant to, and it has been very difficult not to sound like I am preaching (I'm not). Sorry. :eek:

[alexander]

well, you were the one who wanted to hear this...

 

No matter how hard you try to live without sinning, you can't without Him. Only when you surrender yourself fully, and reject your own strength

 

I find that Bible-based religions really dont stress this point all that much, living without sin is only really pusued by Muslims and Buddhists, and more in the second case then in first. Ok, christianity and catholicism try to encourage people not to sin, the problem is that God forgives anyone who has surrendered themselves to him, and it does not matter how much you sin, well it does, but you'll see what i mean later on, your sins will be forgiven. Bible-based religions really dont teach people how to live their life, they tell you to pray, and so forth, but it is less of a how to, then what is going to happen to you in the afterlife. This reminds me of the Pharaohs, same exact concept, different names and age, it says live your life to the fullest untill you die.

The wrongs here are settles in Buddhism where there is no beleif in the supernatural powers, there is Nirvana which can be related to Heaven. That religion teaches people how to controll themselves, that every bad comes back as a worse, encouraging people to be good, do good deeds, not to sin per say. It is wrong not to ackgnolegde such things.

Since you are not the die hard christian, i dont have to defend the point that it doesnt matter whether you beleive in Jesus or God, even though Jesus says that he is the only way to God, beleif in God will still get you to God, no matter who you think was a better prophet, if only God is God, Jesus, being God will still have to accept you, if you die and find out that God is Jesus, that just means that you have been beleiving in him all these years, and it is wrong to say that only by beleiving in Jesus you can get to Heaven.

 

Ok, now for the rest of that sentence:

Surrender yourelf to him fully and reject your strength, if you do that, you die. Your strength is in life, you strength is at making the the decision, beleiving that something has controll over them sounds foolish, and although luck and fate can be closely tied to God, fate is just a destination , not the path, luck is the flip of a coin, you, and only you can make a decision, whether you think that something pointed at it (a sign) it is still you who makes it, and as the circle of life repeats itself, bad decisions come to hunt you back. (read Oedipus the King for more, its all about that). Also God is an interesting beleif object, we have thought of a being that is all powerful and is all controlling in order to make sense of things that we dont understand. Someone gets struck by lightning, oh God must have been unhappy with him... no matter what the case is, blindly beleiving in God makes your life worthless. Similar to slavery in many ways if you think about it, you care for him yet he never shows himself to you, anyone see the hirearchy problem here? if you are commited to him, it is your choice to make, i respect that, if you blindly reject God, that is your decision to make, i respect that too, but i think that the best comes out of the two in a mix. If you beleive in God, fine, but make all your earthly decisions for yourself, dont blindlessly let lady luck decide or else you'll get something like what happens in Silas Marner when he gets booted out of town because he drew a short straw, you'd think that god has got enough to worry about in the universe, no? If you dont beleive in him, chances are that you beleive in science, well, even there there still are possibilities of god's existance.

[blazer2000x]

I find that Bible-based religions really dont stress this point all that much, living without sin is only really pusued by Muslims and Buddhists,

 

I guess you don't know much about Bible-based religions then, I have never found a Christian who thought it was okay to sin. All my life, my parents, the elders in all of the churches I've been to, the all can't stress enough how important living without sin is.

 

Ok, christianity and catholicism try to encourage people not to sin, the problem is that God forgives anyone who has surrendered themselves to him, and it does not matter how much you sin, well it does, but you'll see what i mean later on, your sins will be forgiven.

 

We are living in an age of grace (this message has been shared many times at church) This age of grace is coming to an end. The story of Noah and the ark was a symbol of what is happening now. If you know the story, you'll know that at any point any of those people could have stopped mocking him and decided they wanted to go on the ark too. But none of them did, the door was shut, and that was the end for all of them.

 

Bible-based religions really dont teach people how to live their life, they tell you to pray, and so forth, but it is less of a how to, then what is going to happen to you in the afterlife.

I'm afraid I haven't the slightest idea what your talking about. We are called to be sons of God and live in perfect union with Him until the time of His coming. Not guess when He's going to come and try to get ready then. The Bible is comepletly centered around our walk with God, aside from a few scattered verses and the last book which teel of the last days.

 

This reminds me of the Pharaohs, same exact concept, different names and age, it says live your life to the fullest untill you die.

Nope, we have the opposite concept. Let Him live through You, and deny yourself.

 

The wrongs here are settles in Buddhism where there is no beleif in the supernatural powers, there is Nirvana which can be related to Heaven. That religion teaches people how to controll themselves, that every bad comes back as a worse, encouraging people to be good, do good deeds, not to sin per say. It is wrong not to ackgnolegde such things.

The Bible does not teach you how to control yourself or how to tie a string around your finger so you'll remember not to sin. It's to reject your own nature and accept His perfect nature that does not want to sin.

 

 

Since you are not the die hard christian, i dont have to defend the point that it doesnt matter whether you beleive in Jesus or God, even though Jesus says that he is the only way to God, beleif in God will still get you to God, no matter who you think was a better prophet, if only God is God, Jesus, being God will still have to accept you, if you die and find out that God is Jesus, that just means that you have been beleiving in him all these years, and it is wrong to say that only by beleiving in Jesus you can get to Heaven.

What religion exactly are you talking about? Without Jesus we have no hope of entering into God's presence, when He died the temple veil was split in two, signifying that the perfect sacrifice had been given, and now we could be cleansed from our sins. In the old testament the blood of animals was used to cover sins. That's all it could do. The people were still under the curse of that sin. The blood of Jesus cleanses us from our sins. And ONLY through his blood do we have any hope of coming before God. That is stressed throughout the entire Bible. Not sure how you missed it.

 

 

Ok, now for the rest of that sentence:

Surrender yourelf to him fully and reject your strength, if you do that, you die.

Thankyou. You may not know it, but you hit it right on, that is exactly the point. Paul said, "I die daily, that Christ in me may be all in all." We are supposed to die to our flesh nature that loves sinning. We're supposed to be so filled with Him, that if someone saw you, they would only be able to see the Christ in you.

 

Your strength is in life, you strength is at making the the decision, beleiving that something has controll over them sounds foolish,

The key here is "YOUR strength". We can't depend on our own strength, anybody christian or not knows they can't keep it too long. We are called to move in HIS strength, and His strength alone.

 

and although luck and fate can be closely tied to God, fate is just a destination , not the path, luck is the flip of a coin, you, and only you can make a decision,

I'm afraid your very logic here is seriously flawed. Think of it this way, when your a baby, you don't choose where you go, your mom chooses what you eat, where you sleep, what you listen to, who you see. You don't really make any decisions at all. Walking with God is like that in a way, with the difference that you can leave that state and start choosing things on your own again any time you want and you might not even notice it if your not listening to Him.

 

Also God is an interesting beleif object, we have thought of a being that is all powerful and is all controlling in order to make sense of things that we dont understand. Someone gets struck by lightning, oh God must have been unhappy with him... no matter what the case is, blindly beleiving in God makes your life worthless.

Now I'm pretty sure you know nothing of or about God or His people. Believeing in God is completely the opposite of what you described. what you said is the common view point of the blind unbeliever.

remember the hymn amazing grace? "Amazing grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see."

The fact is, it is impossible to describe how amazing it is to live in Christ, to know that you are free from the burden of sin. To feel so alive every day. To know that you will be completely happy no matter what the circumstance.

 

Similar to slavery in many ways if you think about it, you care for him yet he never shows himself to you, anyone see the hirearchy problem here?

Where exactly did you come up with the idea that God never shows Himself to you? He has revealed Himself to me in amazing ways many times. In simple thoughts when you need them the most, in small things you never had noticed that suddenly make you understand. In his reaching out to you when you reach out to Him. Walking with God is not a one-sided thing. You give yourself to Him, and He stays with you in such a way you can't help but notice the change in your life. Living in sin is slavery. It's slavery that blinds you so you can't see it until your out of it.

 

if you are commited to him, it is your choice to make, i respect that, if you blindly reject God, that is your decision to make, i respect that too, but i think that the best comes out of the two in a mix.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Revelations 3:15-16"

A mix is the very worst thing you can have, your decieving yourself into thinking you are right with God, so you don't feel the need to change, while you are really in sin, and separated from God. But when He tries to tell you, you think your just too far towards the sin side, and need to be closer to the middle.

 

 

If you beleive in God, fine, but make all your earthly decisions for yourself, dont blindlessly let lady luck decide or else you'll get something like what happens in Silas Marner when he gets booted out of town because he drew a short straw, you'd think that god has got enough to worry about in the universe, no? If you dont beleive in him, chances are that you beleive in science, well, even there there still are possibilities of god's existance.

You can't see at all what it is to truly walk with God. God is never too busy for you.

"Trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all of thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths."

"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."

"Rejoice for the steps of the righteouss man they are ordered of God."

You see, walking with God is not just believing in Him, it's believing ON Him. The demons believe in Him. Do you think they'll go to heaven for it? You make it seem like it's foolish to let Him decide for you. Does this mean you consider yourself to be wiser than Him? Do you think your life is safer in your own hands than in the hands of the one who made you? If you do, your in for a lot of hard times, I hope you realize exactly how mistaken you are in every one of these things before it's too late to go back.

[alexander]

I guess you don't know much about Bible-based religions then

Not a thing, whats the Bible again?

The Bible does not teach you how to control yourself or how to tie a string around your finger so you'll remember not to sin.

The problem with the Bible is that it doesnt even teach you what you think it teaches you.

 

I think that this would be a good time to remind you as well as all of us as to the history of the book, I think you guys are taking it a bit too much for granted, but as Leonardo Da Vinci once wrote, "Blinding ignorance does mislead us"...

 

There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, and although there is some debate on the date of his birth, between 8 and 4 BC, well if you use the current system, therre is no doubt that he was perhaps the worlds most influencial figure in history, and no doubt about it, why wouldnt he be at the time. A propesied messiah, with Solomone family lineage and a direct decendant of King David, Jesus could have easily claimed the throne of Jews and would have became their King, thus all the hostiles towards him from the Pontius Pilate, the ruler of Jerusalem at the time, I mean that kind of stuff went on back then, throughout the middle ages and still goes on today (meaning eliminating more powerful figures). Jesus had a following in the millions by the time of his crucifiction in 27-36 AD. And that number only inclined exponentially for the next few hundred years. Such a well-known figure's life was documented by thousands, in some homes, it was passed as a part of their oral tradition for centuries before it was written, but thousnads of others who could write, documented Jesus' life on paper (well papyrus or parchment). And if it stayed that way, current religion would trouble me much less then it does, Christians would have been following the teachings of Jesus, however there is no doubt that a lot of those have been lost. However, it is good to notice that Bible did not fall from heaven onto a print press, Bible was translated and revisioned many time before coming in at the form that we see it now, infact it is still revisioned and rewritten. But unlike back then, Vatican now does not hold nearly the power it had back then. The time of Roman empire has passed, but back when Rome was the main power, it would only make perfect sense to modify the bible and make people do whatever it is that you wanted them.

Despite growing Christian population, Rome remained pagan for 300 more years after Jesus' crucifiction. It was not until Christian population became so large that the empire was about to break into 2 that Roman emperor and head pagan priest Constantine the I, had to act. But with a threat of a religious war facing the empire he had to do something to keep the "crowd" under control and declare the official religion, which he chose to be Christianity, but at a price of transmogrification of the two religions. Constantine was a business man, and he came up with a plan to join the riligions, to make it easier to convert pagan population to Christianity. You cant even imagine how many pagan symbols are in the Christian religion, here's a few:

the main 2 gods worshiped at the time by pagans were Mithras and Isis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29)

check out the resemblance of a statuete of Isis holding her son Horus and Mary holding baby Jesus:

 

 

Also check out the astounding resemblance between the dates, names and tradition here, lets talk Mithras (this is coming from http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html):

the festival of Christmas, which the church seems to have borrowed directly from its heathen rival. In the Julian Calendar, the 25th of December was reckoned as the winter solstice, and was regarded as the nativity of the Sun, because the day begins to lengthen and the power of the Sun increases from that turning point of the year. ... Mithras was regularly identified by his worshippers with the Sun... The [Christian] Gospels say nothing of the day of Christ's birth, and accordingly the early church did not celebrate it.

...

Mithras was born of a virgin, remained celibate, his worship involving baptism, the partaking of bread marked with a cross and wine as sacrificial blood, held Sundays sacred and Mithras was born on 25th of December. Mithraist called themselves 'brother' and were led by a priest called 'father'.

 

And last but not least (http://www.lope.ca/halo/):

"Though the halo is traditionally associated with Christianity, its beginning can be found long before Christ was born. Use of halos seems to have existed hand-in-hand with Egyptian sun and animal worship."

 

Constantine worked pretty hard to incorporate those things into Christianity huh? Not enough? Early Christianity used to honor Jewish Sabath, for obvious reasons that Jesus was raised in a Jewish family, community, and many of his followers were Jewish. Yet Constantine changed that to the sun day morning to pay a weekly tribute to the pagan sun God.

Constantine realized that this new religion will not be easy to defend against paganism, so he came up with a plan to make it so no pagan could doubt the power of Jesus and that jesus was the only way to God. So he held an event called the Council of Nicaea, the first council was held about 325 AD, ofcourse it was pretty well documented, but it was there that major, and fundemental new Christianity things were discussed and voted on, like the structure of the church hirearchy, the power of Vatican, power of the priests and Pope. Among other things, the divinity of Jesus. Constantine needed to strengthen the Christian tradition, so he proposed a plan to change the bible and take out the mention of the human aspects of Jesus and instead make him God-like, by that he establish Jesus as something that existed beyond the scope of human world, making Christianity unchallengeble by pagans, because the only way for people to redeem themselves was by taking Christianity in.

Since the decision came 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, Constantine needed to take action in destroying the volumes of texts that depicted Jesus as human, so he sponsored a new bible, and gathered and burned the gospels he didnt want to ever be seen. Only few scrolls survived that can support the evidence: the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi, which are beleived to be "hidden by monks from the nearby monastery of St Pachomius when the possession of such banned writings denounced as heresy was made an offense. The zeal of Athanasius in extirpating non-canonical writings and the Theodosian decrees of the 390s may have motivated the hiding of such dangerous literature."(wiki)

[Biochemist]

Great post, A-

...There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure...

You are probably aware that there are a couple of folks on this very site that contend there is absolutely no evidence that Christ ever existed at all. Just thought I would bring it up. I happen to agree with you that the evidence is overwhelming, but others are not overwhelmed.

...Constantine worked pretty hard to incorporate those things {pagan practices} into Christianity...

It is certainly true that lots of pagan practices were incorporated into Christian tradition. I, frankly, don't put a lot of import into this. I also celebrate Christmas with my family (pagan christmas tree and all) and even put up christmas lights (in spite of a stark absence of Biblical support for decorations). I even strongly support the ultimate heresy of advocating prime rib over turkey, again in the absence of any Biblical direction. Clearly, if God had intended for us to eat turkey, He would not have given us horseradish.

 

The issue of whether the Biblical canon was adulterated is a more serious discussion. It is true that the Nad Hamadi had many important documents, and that many of those were regarded as heretical. I have read some of those (notably, parts of the Gospel of Thomas) and I think they are weak documents as well.

 

It is very likely true that the Church fathers in Constantinople were trying to guard the existing orthodoxy. It is also true that the folks regarded as heretics (primarily the Gnostics) believed a couple of things that were pretty different, notably that Christ did not rise at all.

 

Paul was certainly at odds with that notion. Paul thought that if Christ did not rise, we are doing all of this for nothing. I happen to agree with him.

 

Funny, though. This is still the biggest single heresy even today. My experience is that most folks that attend US churches today do not believe that Christ rose, even though the text that we hold to declares that position as senseless. It does not seem like Constantine's efforts to eradicate heresy did much to mitigate it.