Religion Part I: Christianity

[Ironside]

(4) Asserts that a man named Jesus was born on earth 2000 years ago and was the human child of the single all-powerful God.

Define human: The Monophysitists (although I'm not sure how many of them that's left) asserts that Jesus was 100% divine.

Edit: To be more exact, it claims that when the human part and divine part of Jesus met, the human part became obliterated by the dvine, therefore making Jesus' human body essentially different from any other humans bodies.

But the nature of Christ has been one of the most dividing things in the Christianity throughout history.

[Pindar]

The Nicene Creed sums up the core for all Christians. Then their is a lot of seemingly little stuff that adds up.

Hello,

See the second paragraph of post 14. The Nicene Creed may be a good stance for determining an Orthodoxy, but that is separate from determining what Christianity entails.

[Pindar]

Nice to see a civil thread about Christianity for a change, there have been too few of these lately.
Good to see you about Pindar, you are just not pawnable on the topic of religion. It is always enjoyable to read your inputs.
I see that most of the posters in here are in fact men of faith and I shall therefore lay low and let the Christians work this out amongst themselves.

Hello Dragon Slayer,

How have you been? I don't think you need restrain yourself from the discussion. Believers in a thing certainly add to the scope of that thing, but in no way have exclusive privilege. Your comments/insights could only add to the discussion.

[Xiahou]

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia issue after Vatican II:

“For the time being only limbo as a solution to the problem seems to preserve intact the doctrine and practice of the Church concerning the absolute necessity of Baptism for eternal salvation” (Vol. 8, p. 765).

It may be that Limbo is on its way out of Modern Catholicism. If so, that raises some interesting questions.

I'm sure it's all explained somewhere, but the Church states that it's possible to get to Heaven without being Catholic if they sincerely seek God in their lives via their own means. (I'm paraphrasing) To me, that idea seems to fly directly in the face of the above quote. Can anyone shed some light on that?

[rory_20_uk]

The Catholic Church, like any major company needs to ensure both brand loyalty as well as not bieng portrayed by everone else as dogmatic and intolerant.

That a church tries to be two things to two sets of people to me is hardly surprising.

[Pindar]

Define human: The Monophysitists (although I'm not sure how many of them that's left) asserts that Jesus was 100% divine.

There are still a fair number of Monophysites (though they refer to themselves as Miaphysites). They are generally called Oriental Orthodox Christians and constitute a schismatic branch of a still young Imperial Christianity that rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon 453 C.E.) as an absurdity. This includes Copts (10% of the population of Egypt) the Armenian and Ethiopic Churches as a few examples.

Edit: To be more exact, it claims that when the human part and divine part of Jesus met, the human part became obliterated by the dvine, therefore making Jesus' human body essentially different from any other humans bodies.

This isn't the standard position. Rather, the view is the incarnate Christ's divine and human elements combine in one nature. They use the term hypostatic union and reject the idea the incarnate Christ did not include a human element as a eutychian heresy.

But the nature of Christ has been one of the most dividing things in the Christianity throughout history.

Quite so.

[Pindar]

I'm sure it's all explained somewhere, but the Church states that it's possible to get to Heaven without being Catholic if they sincerely seek God in their lives via their own means. (I'm paraphrasing) To me, that idea seems to fly directly in the face of the above quote. Can anyone shed some light on that?

The answer, as I understand things, is: baptism is essential for salvation. Baptism is then qualified. There is baptism of water, blood and desire. The reference to desire makes distinction between those who really belong to the Church (in re) and those who belong by desire (in voto). This applies to those of good will who would join the Church if they really knew it was the true Church of Christ.

Here is a CCC 847 reference:

"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation".

[Papewaio]

That covers 'good' people who do not come in contact with the bible. For instance living in a remote location or who live within a society that stops the word spreading.

[ajaxfetish]

I know that Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics might not fit within the Nicene Creed. What about Mormons? Anybody familiar with LDS theology who can take a stab at an answer?

Well, I'm a little late getting to this thread, but I can give you a response on this bit. We do believe in one God as the creator of all, though the nature of that God gets complicated and leads to conflict with other Christian sects. We do believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God, a divine being, and the only means whereby mankind can attain a reunification with God. We do believe in the Holy Spirit, serving as the day-to-day connection between man and the divine. We do believe in one authoritative Baptism, and in the resurrection of the dead, and in the world to come.

So basically, with the presentation of the Nicene creed you have given, I'd say my doctrine agrees with it on all points, though some of the concepts may be interpreted a little differently (didn't see mention of the nature of the trinity, which I thought was part of the Nicene creed. Basically Mormon doctrine views God, Christ, and Holy Spirit as three separate individuals united perfectly in purpose, and thus one).

There are of course differences, as between all Christian denominations, but essentially I'd say we fit Divinus basic summary pretty well, taking the second stance on his point #1 (2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." The idea is that all people will sin, and thus need the intercession of Christ, but that such sins are individual, and not a universal inherited sin from Eden).

The Bible says what it says and it says so very clearly.

This statement is impossible for me to agree with. To sum up our doctrine on Biblical authority, we believe that God communicates with mankind through prophets. Scripture is a collection of the teachings of prophets. The Bible is a collection of the writings of Hebrew prophets, and those chosen by Christ during his mortal life, but was not compiled until hundreds of years after his death, and was compiled by men who were not prophets. It has also been in the hands of other non-prophets in the many centuries from Nicaea to the present, and has undergone multiple translations. As such it has had ample opportunity for error and misinterpretation to creep in, and I find many instances of seeming internal contradiction, along with ideas that contradict reason or faith in my experience (personally this is also true of other Mormon-specific scripture as well, but that's a personal interpretation rather than a Mormon doctrine). The Bible in Mormonism is the word of God, but subject to the errors of men, and thus needs the clarification or corrective input of modern prophecy.

I know many who wouldn't consider Mormonism a sect of Christianity, and understand their reasons for this view, but considering the church's claim to be the reestablishment of the original Christian church of Christ's time, or for the majority of people on earth who do not believe this its growth from the Protestant evangelical movement of the 2nd Great Awakening in America, and my approval of DA's basic Christian tenets as Mormon theology, I would certainly include it.

Sorry for the long post; hope it was informative and relevant.
Ajax

[Kralizec]

The Bible is a collection of the writings of Hebrew prophets, and those chosen by Christ during his mortal life, but was not compiled until hundreds of years after his death, and was compiled by men who were not prophets. It has also been in the hands of other non-prophets in the many centuries from Nicaea to the present, and has undergone multiple translations. As such it has had ample opportunity for error and misinterpretation to creep in

That's the way I see it too. However in defense of those who think otherwise, it's mentioned somewhere (OT I believe) that God would act to preserve his word, and that he'd punish those who would alter/add anything to it, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with the thought that the apostles and to an extent the prophets were divinely inspired, but that they're only human and that scriptures should be read for their inherent lesson and that the text should not be taken to literally.


Also while I'm not technically christian, I've since a long time viewed the endorsement of Pauls writings to be an odd choice. As pointed out previously his writings are often contradictory to those of the other apostles, and his status as an apostle is arguably spurious because he never actually met Jesus- he claims he saw him in a vision. How do you Orgahs view him?

[Ironside]

This isn't the standard position. Rather, the view is the incarnate Christ's divine and human elements combine in one nature. They use the term hypostatic union and reject the idea the incarnate Christ did not include a human element as a eutychian heresy.

Reading up myself a bit on wiki, the followers of Eutychianism (notice that they don't techically follows Eutyches, but that they hold his view that Jesus was purely divine) is currently formed into the Jacobite Church. They are less common than the Miaphysites.

The terminology in this area seems to have some problems with definitions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's the way I see it too.

You realize that by saying this you have just guaranteed a visit from two bicycle-riding young gentlement in white shirts and dark ties...

Just having fun.

Ajax' thanks for the good summary on LDS

[ajaxfetish]

You realize that by saying this you have just guaranteed a visit from two bicycle-riding young gentlement in white shirts and dark ties...

Just having fun.

Ajax' thanks for the good summary on LDS

Much as I appreciate the stereotype, and the humor it invites, I'd call myself rather a liberal Mormon. I did serve a mission, but it was very difficult with my personality and outlook. I'm not out to convert the world, though I do think mutual understanding between religions is very beneficial.

(Of course, if anyone is looking for a visit from the 'Jesus Boys,' I'd be happy to oblige )

Ajax

[Pindar]

I know that Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics might not fit within the Nicene Creed. What about Mormons? Anybody familiar with LDS theology who can take a stab at an answer?

I didn't see this earlier. To add to what Ajaxfetish posted: The LDS Church rejects the Nicene Creed (as it does all the Ecumenical Councils) as non-authoritative. The basic view is that primitive Christianity did not survive: meaning the authority to speak for Deity and to seal the temporal and the eternal passed from the earth. The rhetorical posture is that the Church is a restoration of that original authority and thus has Apostles as was orignally the case and an open canon.

[Pindar]

Reading up myself a bit on wiki, the followers of Eutychianism (notice that they don't techically follows Eutyches, but that they hold his view that Jesus was purely divine) is currently formed into the Jacobite Church. They are less common than the Miaphysites.

That is correct. Whether one agrees with the claimed distinction is a separate issue.

The terminology in this area seems to have some problems with definitions.

It is a sticky business to be sure, much of which is due to the bugger of trying to avoid a Eutychian or even Docetic posture on the one hand and also avoid a Nestorian position on the other. For anti-Chalcedonians the creed of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is an embrasure of Nestorianism.

[Pindar]

That's the way I see it too. However in defense of those who think otherwise, it's mentioned somewhere (OT I believe) that God would act to preserve his word, and that he'd punish those who would alter/add anything to it...

I think what you are thinking of is this reference:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelations 22:18-19

There is a similar passage found in Deuteronomy:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

Also while I'm not technically christian, I've since a long time viewed the endorsement of Pauls writings to be an odd choice. As pointed out previously his writings are often contradictory to those of the other apostles, and his status as an apostle is arguably spurious because he never actually met Jesus- he claims he saw him in a vision. How do you Orgahs view him?

There is no statement in the New Testament that an Apostle must actually have met Jesus. Paul's Apostle title was never challenged by other Christians. One can also note Barnabas as an example of a Apostle who never met Jesus.

One could note that the initial compilation of a "New Testament" canon was actually done by Marcion (condemned by proto-orthodoxy as a heretic and would be Gnostic). It could be argued that the drive to create a canon was done in direct response to the Marcionite (and Gnostic) challenge: various groups (including proto-orhtodoxy) trying to assume the high ground of what was canonical as it were. (Maricon included Pauline writings in his compilation).

As far a Paul vis-a-vis another Gospel are concerned: this is a common claim, but I think many who do so are unaware of the subtlety of Paul's writings. I think this is due to the fact the Christian Humanist tradition that is the rhetorical bedrock of Reformation Scholarship is in many ways opposed to and ignorant of the Classical mind and often applies an anachronistic reading to the text(s). The book of Romans comes to mind: I could give you an example if you are interested. Otherwise I'll let this pass as this is an aside from the thrust of the thread.

[GoreBag]

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, besides 'Be a Christian or Die'.

[Sigurd]

I think what you are thinking of is this reference:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelations 22:18-19

There is a similar passage found in Deuteronomy:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

John is of course refering to his book or scroll (NWT) and not the compilation that later will become the Bible we know today. The same goes for Moses with his five books.
The Jews actually were very carful not to make translation errors and it was a death sin to change any part of the torah. that doesn't mean it never happened.

If one should add to the basic tenets in this thread it would be safe to say that Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God with the small addendum; if it has been translated correctly.

[Mooks]

Im a devout chistrian. But I could rather care less if jesus was half divine or mortal or w/e.

[Divinus Arma]

The general consensus seems to be that my summary of assertions is essentially correct. I would now like to clarify each of these one at a time. I am looking for evidence, documentation, and so forth in order to substantiate these assertions.

Starting with:

(1) Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil Further Clarification- asserts that modern man is incapable of perfection. In other words, all men will commit some minimal evil in their lives.

I understand that the Torah asserts to Adam, essentially, "If you eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, then you will be doomed to die". (Genesis 2:16-2:17). And so this occurs in Genesis 3:1-3:24. This passage is the basis of all Western Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam which regards the Torah as holy but subordinate to the Qu'ran.

Modern Western Religion is differentiated from Eastern Religions based on the belief that man is born evil. (I plan on discussing the consequences of this in the next portion).

Is the passage of Adam and Eve in Genesis to be taken as literal?

Concurrent to the first question: Genesis refers to other human beings aside from Adam and Eve. In fact, Genesis 4:13 refers to Cain's fear of being killed by others and Gensis 4:17 refers to Cain's wife. How do the actions of Adam and Eve affect those who are not descendant from them?

[Don Corleone]

Well, Navaros is sure to excommunicate me for this one, but Genesis is an allegory. The story of Adam and Eve, on into Cain and Abel, are a metaphorical representation of an underlying, but complex and difficult to explain truth. I don't think you were meant to think we're all doomed because Adam bit an apple. It more is a literal example of the perverse nature of human will (perverse in the non-sexual sense). God told man NOT to eat that apple, and true to form, that was the first thing we did. The rebellious, undisciplined, contrary nature of man, that's the underlying truth in that story.

[Divinus Arma]

Could Adam and Eve even understand the concept of definace as wrong? If they were ignorant of good and evil, how were they to know that disobediance was wrong?

[Pindar]

The general consensus seems to be that my summary of assertions is essentially correct. I would now like to clarify each of these one at a time. I am looking for evidence, documentation, and so forth in order to substantiate these assertions.

Starting with:

(1) Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil

This is a bogus position. I have already noted that this view is rejected by Eastern Christianity. I have provided citation. This is not a question of consensus or personal preference it is doctrinal. To pursue this theses in the face of obvious counter examples is to demonstrate a loyalty to position over reality or substance and to place whatever you intended to describe not as Christianity but a subset only.

Modern Western Religion is differentiated from Eastern Religions based on the belief that man is born evil.

I don't know what "Modern Western" refers to here. Christianity is 2000 years old and Judaism if traced from Moses over 3000 years old. The most Modern would be Islam which is roughly 1500 years old. Save for circles within Latin Christianity none of the three faiths hold the view put forward: Greek Christianity rejects such a view. Judaism rejects such a view. Islam rejects such a view.

[Sigurd]

So, on the question of Man’s nature there are disagreements between eastern and western Christianity.
What would be the consensus for both camps on this particular issue?
That man is in a fallen state prone to do evil and thus needs salvation through a saviour i.e. the Christ.

[Pindar]

So, on the question of Man’s nature there are disagreements between eastern and western Christianity.
What would be the consensus for both camps on this particular issue?
That man is in a fallen state prone to do evil and thus needs salvation through a saviour i.e. the Christ.

The consensus would be: there was a Fall. The Eastern view that would agree with the Western stance is regarding death. Mortality was inherited by Adam's seed: all men die. Man on his own does not have the power to overcome death. Moreover, both would agree that insofar as one sins then there is another lacuna that man cannot overcome. Thus Christ in His atoning act overcomes the twin barriers of death and sin.

I actually think if one wanted to put forward basic tenets of Christianity the thrust lies elsewhere for example:

Christianity as a extension of or derivative from Judaism claims to be monotheistic and accepts the general books of the Tanakh as authoritative. What makes Christianity distinguishable is in seeing Jesus as the Christ. The Messiah role is salvatory in nature etc.

I think this is the kind of approach to take over and above notions of the nature of man which almost immediately become a sectarian issue due to the historical/theological fixity of positions.

[Lemur]

Ajax and Pindar, thank you very much for clearing up my confusion over LDS theology. Very helpful!

[Pindar]

Ajax and Pindar, thank you very much for clearing up my confusion over LDS theology. Very helpful!

[ajaxfetish]

No problem, Lemur. I'd be happy to answer any friendly questions you might have. And Pindar's right on on the issue of authority and restoration. The guy's done his homework! Could I ask about your career/education, Pindar?

Ajax

[Pindar]

Could I ask about your career/education, Pindar?

I'm a yucky international lawyer. I got my J.D. from Columbia.

[IrishArmenian]

Define human: The Monophysitists (although I'm not sure how many of them that's left) asserts that Jesus was 100% divine.

Edit: To be more exact, it claims that when the human part and divine part of Jesus met, the human part became obliterated by the dvine, therefore making Jesus' human body essentially different from any other humans bodies.

But the nature of Christ has been one of the most dividing things in the Christianity throughout history.

Yes, the Nestorian Christians, who are mainly in Syria, believe Jesus was never any part human, and If I remember correctly, just God walking on Earth. They used to be part of the Catholic Chruch until they were dismissed by the pope about 50 yeers ago or so.
Also, I beleeve you have that misphrased. We beleeve he was all God, yet walking on Earth. Jesus, as I beleeve is no part man, just all God. The Oriental Orthodoxy includes the Armenian Apostlic Chruches and various other smaller ones that I cannot name rite now.