Alte puncte de vedere despre Natura lui Isus:
The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."
At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.
328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.
If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict
**********************************************************************************
Spicuiri:
La sfirsitul conciliului Constantin ia partea lui Ayhanasius impotriva lui Arie si-l exileaza pe Arie in Iliria (Albania)
328 AD - Constantine cheama pe Arie din Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine ia acum partea lui Arie si exileaza pe Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - Noul imparata, Constantiu, porunceste intoarcerea lui Athanasius la Alexandria.
341 AD - Doua concilii se tin la Antioch (impotriva celui de la Niceea). Se scriu Primul, al Doile si al Treilea CREZ ARIAN, ca un inceput al unei doctrine opuse Crezului Nicean.
343 AD - La conciliul din Sardica, episcopii rasariteni cer inlaturarea lui Athanasius.
351 AD - Al doile conciliu antti-Nicene tinut la Sirmium.
353 AD - Un conciliu tinut la Aries, directionat impotriva lui Athanasius.
355 AD - La conciliul de la Milan. Athanasius este codamnat din nou.
357 AD - Se cheama al Treilea Conciliu de la Sirmium. Aminfoua doctrinele homoousios si homoiousios (acceasi/similara "substanta" in Tatal si Fiul) sunt evitate ca fiind ne-Biblice si se convine ca Tatal este mai mare decit Fiul care este subordonat.
359 AD - Sinodul de la Seleucia afirma ca Isus este "asemenea Tatalui," dar nu specifica asemnarea.
361 AD - Un conciliu este tinut la Antioch si confirma pozitia lui Arius.
381 AD - Primul Conciliu din Constantinople se tine pentru a discuta controversa de la Nicaea. Imparatul Theodosius stabileste Crezul de la Niceea ca fiind oficial in imparatie. Crezul Niceean este re-evaluat si acceptat cu aditia unor clause despre Duhul Sfint si alte chestiuni.
Daca la Niceea s-a formulat o teza prevalenta in Biserica, de ce atitea conflicte? Pentru ca la Niceea nu s-a formulat invatatura existenta in Crestinism ci doar o factiune a Bisericii si-a impus pounctul de vedere, rezultind un conflict major (impotriva majoritatii).
Teza Trinitatii, Isus=D-zeu, este o Teza Politica si Anti-Evanghelica.
Versiune completa:Discutii despre natura lui Iisus
HanuAncutei.com - ARTA de a conversa > Odaia Dezbaterilor: Stiinta si Cultura > Comunitatea Credintei - Religie
Spune-mi, te rog, ce e Iisus pentru tine si de ce ? Daca nu e Dumnezeu, ce este El in ceruri?
Fiul Tatalui, Noul Adam trimis sa desfaca facerea Vechiului Adam.
Din Enciclopedia Britanica - despre Natura lui Isus
Arianism, and Arius (4th century CE)
Arianism was a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. The fundamental premise of Arius was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable. The Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God.
An ascetical, moral leader of a Christian community in the area of Alexandria, Arius attracted a large following through a message integrating Neoplatonism, which accented the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfection, with a literal, rationalist approach to the New Testament texts. Christ was viewed as the most perfect creature in the material world, whose moral integrity led him to be "adopted" by God as a son but who nevertheless remained a secondary deity, or Logos substantially unlike the eternal, uncreated Father and subordinate to his will. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated so that the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable (being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change) cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. This thesis was publicized ~323 through the poetic verse of his major work, Thalia (Banquet), and was widely spread by the tactic of popular songs written for laborers and travelers.
According to its opponents, especially Athanasius, Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since the worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only Christ who was truly God could redeem the world. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of ousia ("substance" or "stuff"), which was foreign to the New Testament itself.
Following and exchange of condemnations (323-324) between the Arians and various gatherings of clergy in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, Constantine, eager for unity and peace, sent emissaries to mediate the conflict. This effort failed, and he summoned the Council of Nicaea (the First Ecumenical Council) in May 325, to settle what he termed "a fight over trifling and foolish verbal differences". The bishops issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion to Patri (of one substance with the Father), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. When Arius refused to sign the creed, the bishops declared him a heretic and exiled him and the Arian leaders. This seemed to end the controversy, but it was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.
Although the Arian leaders were exiled, they tried by intrigue to return to their churches and sees and to banish their enemies. They were partly successful. Influential support from colleagues in Asia Minor and from Constantia, the Emperor's daughter, succeeded in effecting Arius' return from exile and his readmission into the church after consenting to a compromise formula, despite the opposition from Athanasius. Shortly before he was to be reconciled, however, Arius collapsed and died while walking through the streets of Constantinople in 336.
When Constantine died in 337, Constans became emperor in the West and Constantius II became emperor in the East. The former was sympathetic to the orthodox Christians and the latter to the Arians. At a council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion clause was issued. Another council was held at Sardica in 342, but little was achieved by either council.
In 350 Constantius II became sole ruler of the empire, and other his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was anomoios (unlike) the Father. These Anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in 357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was homoiousios (of similar substance) with the Father, and conservatives, who asserted that the Son was homoios (like) the Father. Constantius at first supported the Homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the Homoenas, led by Acacius. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds were rejected, the term ousia ("substance" or "stuff") was repudiated, and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was "like the Father who begot him".
After Constantius' death in 361, the orthodox Christian majority in the West consolidated its position. The Arian persecution conducted by Emperor Valens (364-378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the Homoiousian majority in the East to realize its fundamental agreement with the Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367-383) and Theodosius I (379-395) took up the defense of orthodoxy, Arianism collapsed. In 381 the Second Ecumenical Council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed and the Nicene Creed was approved.
Although this ended the heresy in the empire, Arianism continued among some of the Germanic tribes to the end of the 7th century. In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of the Jehovah's Witnesses is also a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement.
*************************************************************************************************
Spicuiri:
Constantin porunceste Conciliului din Nicaea in May 325, sa rezolve "bataia pentru nimicuri si diferente verbale prostesti"
Conastantin, mare politician, nu vedea in Crestinism decit un factor dezbinator al Imperiului, motiv pentru care si-a impus punctul de vedere la Niceea. Arie era mai tare in Rasarit, Athanasiu mai tare in Apus, iar Constantin avea propriile lui criterii politice in vedere: unitatea Imperiului! Prin urmare, Dogma Ortodoxa rezulta din Masuri Politice care nu au de a face cu Credinta sau cu Adevarul Evanghelic. Ca dovada ca disputa despre Natura lui Isus n-a fost niciodata terminata cu totul pentru ca ipoteza Trinitatii ascunde in ea Anti-Crestinism si Absurditate.
Arie a intuit pe undeva Adevarul desi nu in intregime, motiv pentru care Ipoteza Ariana producea contradictii. Nu mai putine contradictii produce Ipoteza Trinitara ci mai multe. Arie este in acord cu Evanghelia, desi nu a dus interpretarea pina la capat, nerezolvind falsele "contradicitii". Ipoteza Trinitatii este pur si simplu Anti-Evanghelica deci nu merita comparare.
Arie avea cumva dreptate, desi nu stia de ce, respectind totusi Evanghelia.
Trinitatea nici nu are dreptate, nici nu stie de ce, sfidind (chiar FALSIFICIND) Evanghelia.
Arianism, and Arius (4th century CE)
Arianism was a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. The fundamental premise of Arius was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable. The Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God.
An ascetical, moral leader of a Christian community in the area of Alexandria, Arius attracted a large following through a message integrating Neoplatonism, which accented the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfection, with a literal, rationalist approach to the New Testament texts. Christ was viewed as the most perfect creature in the material world, whose moral integrity led him to be "adopted" by God as a son but who nevertheless remained a secondary deity, or Logos substantially unlike the eternal, uncreated Father and subordinate to his will. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated so that the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable (being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change) cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence. This thesis was publicized ~323 through the poetic verse of his major work, Thalia (Banquet), and was widely spread by the tactic of popular songs written for laborers and travelers.
According to its opponents, especially Athanasius, Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since the worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only Christ who was truly God could redeem the world. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of ousia ("substance" or "stuff"), which was foreign to the New Testament itself.
Following and exchange of condemnations (323-324) between the Arians and various gatherings of clergy in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, Constantine, eager for unity and peace, sent emissaries to mediate the conflict. This effort failed, and he summoned the Council of Nicaea (the First Ecumenical Council) in May 325, to settle what he termed "a fight over trifling and foolish verbal differences". The bishops issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the Son is homoousion to Patri (of one substance with the Father), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. When Arius refused to sign the creed, the bishops declared him a heretic and exiled him and the Arian leaders. This seemed to end the controversy, but it was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.
Although the Arian leaders were exiled, they tried by intrigue to return to their churches and sees and to banish their enemies. They were partly successful. Influential support from colleagues in Asia Minor and from Constantia, the Emperor's daughter, succeeded in effecting Arius' return from exile and his readmission into the church after consenting to a compromise formula, despite the opposition from Athanasius. Shortly before he was to be reconciled, however, Arius collapsed and died while walking through the streets of Constantinople in 336.
When Constantine died in 337, Constans became emperor in the West and Constantius II became emperor in the East. The former was sympathetic to the orthodox Christians and the latter to the Arians. At a council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion clause was issued. Another council was held at Sardica in 342, but little was achieved by either council.
In 350 Constantius II became sole ruler of the empire, and other his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was anomoios (unlike) the Father. These Anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in 357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was homoiousios (of similar substance) with the Father, and conservatives, who asserted that the Son was homoios (like) the Father. Constantius at first supported the Homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the Homoenas, led by Acacius. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds were rejected, the term ousia ("substance" or "stuff") was repudiated, and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was "like the Father who begot him".
After Constantius' death in 361, the orthodox Christian majority in the West consolidated its position. The Arian persecution conducted by Emperor Valens (364-378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the Homoiousian majority in the East to realize its fundamental agreement with the Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367-383) and Theodosius I (379-395) took up the defense of orthodoxy, Arianism collapsed. In 381 the Second Ecumenical Council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed and the Nicene Creed was approved.
Although this ended the heresy in the empire, Arianism continued among some of the Germanic tribes to the end of the 7th century. In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of the Jehovah's Witnesses is also a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement.
*************************************************************************************************
Spicuiri:
Constantin porunceste Conciliului din Nicaea in May 325, sa rezolve "bataia pentru nimicuri si diferente verbale prostesti"
Conastantin, mare politician, nu vedea in Crestinism decit un factor dezbinator al Imperiului, motiv pentru care si-a impus punctul de vedere la Niceea. Arie era mai tare in Rasarit, Athanasiu mai tare in Apus, iar Constantin avea propriile lui criterii politice in vedere: unitatea Imperiului! Prin urmare, Dogma Ortodoxa rezulta din Masuri Politice care nu au de a face cu Credinta sau cu Adevarul Evanghelic. Ca dovada ca disputa despre Natura lui Isus n-a fost niciodata terminata cu totul pentru ca ipoteza Trinitatii ascunde in ea Anti-Crestinism si Absurditate.
Arie a intuit pe undeva Adevarul desi nu in intregime, motiv pentru care Ipoteza Ariana producea contradictii. Nu mai putine contradictii produce Ipoteza Trinitara ci mai multe. Arie este in acord cu Evanghelia, desi nu a dus interpretarea pina la capat, nerezolvind falsele "contradicitii". Ipoteza Trinitatii este pur si simplu Anti-Evanghelica deci nu merita comparare.
Arie avea cumva dreptate, desi nu stia de ce, respectind totusi Evanghelia.
Trinitatea nici nu are dreptate, nici nu stie de ce, sfidind (chiar FALSIFICIND) Evanghelia.
Edinide, cred ca am inteles...
Esti adeptul lui Arie, de care biserica s-a delimitat. Pacat ca te intorci astfel cu spatele la toti sfintii bisericii, ale caror cuvinte le-ai apreciat. Sunt buni numai in masura in care gasesti la ei ce iti convine.
Noi ortodocsii alegem duhul pe care Sfintii Parinti il mentin in biserica. Tu aduci in discutie alte idei, alt duh, bine ca recunosti ca nu esti de acord cu biserica in problemele fundamentale, sa se limpezeasca apele...
Esti adeptul lui Arie, de care biserica s-a delimitat. Pacat ca te intorci astfel cu spatele la toti sfintii bisericii, ale caror cuvinte le-ai apreciat. Sunt buni numai in masura in care gasesti la ei ce iti convine.
Noi ortodocsii alegem duhul pe care Sfintii Parinti il mentin in biserica. Tu aduci in discutie alte idei, alt duh, bine ca recunosti ca nu esti de acord cu biserica in problemele fundamentale, sa se limpezeasca apele...
| QUOTE |
| Paisie este argumentul inexistentei Scolii!, este Exceptia care inatreste Regula: din pacate, NOI suntem Regula... |
Daca Paisie ar fi singurul... Dar mai sunt multi, unii chiar numiti sfinti, Paisie e numit doar Cuvios! Daca el poate ce ai vazut in carte, iti dai seama ce pot sfintii!
Ce vad iar ca nu intelegi este chiar evolutia bisericii. Se vede in ceea ce asteapta mirenii de la preot. Nu spectacol, minune, nu o cale batuta in cuie pt. toti la fel, ci dragoste si lipsa de atasament fata de lume. Dumnezeu lucreaza cum ni se promite, cu fiecare in parte. Tu te bagi intre om si Dumnezeu cind ne indepartezi de tainele bisericii prin care Dumnezeu vine la om.
Nu cunosti biserica, dar lupti impotriva ei, impotriva lui Paisie si a altora pe care nu ii cunosti dar sunt vii in ea. Eu nu m-as juca cu asa ceva...
Ce vad iar ca nu intelegi este chiar evolutia bisericii. Se vede in ceea ce asteapta mirenii de la preot. Nu spectacol, minune, nu o cale batuta in cuie pt. toti la fel, ci dragoste si lipsa de atasament fata de lume. Dumnezeu lucreaza cum ni se promite, cu fiecare in parte. Tu te bagi intre om si Dumnezeu cind ne indepartezi de tainele bisericii prin care Dumnezeu vine la om.
Nu cunosti biserica, dar lupti impotriva ei, impotriva lui Paisie si a altora pe care nu ii cunosti dar sunt vii in ea. Eu nu m-as juca cu asa ceva...
Edinide, este dreptul tau de a imbratisa orice doctrina, dar, in acest topic, tu ai impus regula de a vorbi excvlusiv pe baza Bibliei. Esti initiatorul topicului, asa ca te rog sa te limitezi la citate sin Scriptura, daca vrei sa mai discuti cu noi.
Edinide, daca Iisus e Fiul Tatalui, iar Tatal e Dumnezeu, nu e si Iisus Dumnezeu?
Cum poti sa te desprinzi din ceruri, di Duhul lui Dumneze, se te intorci la Tatal, si sa nu mai fi Dumnezeu?
Vreau sa subliniez, ca eu caut sa te inteleg, nu sa te contrazic.
Cum poti sa te desprinzi din ceruri, di Duhul lui Dumneze, se te intorci la Tatal, si sa nu mai fi Dumnezeu?
Vreau sa subliniez, ca eu caut sa te inteleg, nu sa te contrazic.
Eu nu cred ca cineva ca Edi se poate lasa convins usor de ceva sau cineva aici pe acest pamant atata vreme cat el nu este in stare sa-si recunoasca propriile contraziceri.
Si farieseii care erau invatati si cunoasteau VT pe de rost nu l-au recunoscut si inteles pe Iisus.
Invatatii - fie ei de orice fel - nu pot fi invatati decat de propria ratiune in mod gresit sau de Dumnezeu personal. Si asta nu merge decat prin recunoasterea greselilor proprii.
Cine nu este voitor sa-si vada sau recunoasaca propriile greseli - nici macara cand acesta sunt scrise negru pe alb - acela nu este inca apt de a intelege sau invata. Asta este o regula generala, care se poate aplica oricand.
Nu am nimic cu Edi - mai ales ca stiu cum sunt oamenii - dar ma indoiesc ca vreunul din voi il va face pe Edi sa inteleaga un singur lucru mai mult decat el stie deja.
Si farieseii care erau invatati si cunoasteau VT pe de rost nu l-au recunoscut si inteles pe Iisus.
Invatatii - fie ei de orice fel - nu pot fi invatati decat de propria ratiune in mod gresit sau de Dumnezeu personal. Si asta nu merge decat prin recunoasterea greselilor proprii.
Cine nu este voitor sa-si vada sau recunoasaca propriile greseli - nici macara cand acesta sunt scrise negru pe alb - acela nu este inca apt de a intelege sau invata. Asta este o regula generala, care se poate aplica oricand.
Nu am nimic cu Edi - mai ales ca stiu cum sunt oamenii - dar ma indoiesc ca vreunul din voi il va face pe Edi sa inteleaga un singur lucru mai mult decat el stie deja.
Aceasta este o versiune "Text-Only" a continutului acestui forum. Pentru a vizualiza versiunea completa, cu mai multe informatii, formatari si imagini,click aici.