- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It's the other way around: the NT is based on Christianity.
The New Testament is based on the fact that a new covenant was predicted to come by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31-34
That prophecy in includes these words.
"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, alhough I was thier Husband, declare Jehovah." (v.31,32)
This promise of a NEW COVENANT pre-dates Christianity. And the words of Jesus in His last supper confirmed that He saw Himself as establishing this NEW COVENANT that Jeremiah having spoken through God, would come.
"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the NEW COVENANT established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)
The New Testament was written by mostly eyewitnesses to Jesus and His redemptive death and resurrection to establish the new covenant.
How do you think the religion was built up and survived three centuries, before the canon was established at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?
You're over playing your church history card making it cover too much.
Had there been no Gospel and no opponents of the already written Gospel
there would have been no NEED for a Nicean Council.
The Nicean Council invented the Christian faith manuevor won't work.
Nobody participating in the Nicean Council was alive when Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, and Acts were written and being circulated and copied.
The furthest back NT documents we have are the letters of the Apostle Paul.
Blaming everything pertaining to Jesus Christ on Nicea isn't representative of
the true history of the Christian faith.
By following the verbal teachings of the Apostles, which had been given to the bishops of the churches they founded at Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, and other places, that's how.
The earliest writings the world has pertaining to the Gospel are Paul's letters.
By examining his letters we can see what was being taught, what he received, his
virtual autobiography, and his interaction with the other apostles.
Paul in First Corintians 15 laid out a formulaic credal like statement which represented the Gospel.
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; The He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remains until now, but some haveer fallen asleep; Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And last of all He appeared to me also, as ot were to one born prematurely."
Certainly the first part of this is a creedal statement. It has the form typical of rabbis declaring that they are teaching what was delivered to them to which they ar being faithful - "For I delivered to you, forst of all, that which also I received."
Ultra liberal "Nicea invented Christian Faith"is modernist revisionism.
This is not to say ALL matters in the New Testament are alluded to in the Nicean council's creedal formula.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Me:
Are you saying the apostles honoured a fool, a self-deceived man, or a terrible charlatan and deceiver of the world ?
No.
Again, NOBODY at Nicea was yet born when thousands of Jerusalem Jews suddenly broke from centries of tradition to change the most important day of the week from the seventh day Sabbath to the new day of the week - "the Lord's day". That was the day they believed Jesus of Nazareth was raised by God after His being crucified. THOUSANDS of Jerusalem Jews dramatically shifted for some reason. (Reasons stated in the Gospels), And the new covenant assembly was established. The first Christians were JEWS.
Nobody officiating at Nicea was yet born.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Ghost, the Forum's Bible quoting atheist, keeps bragging that the Christians have called me a blasphemer.
Do I blaspheme for believing any of the following passages in the NT?
"And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one." (John 17:22)
Do I commit blasphemy for believing in this petition of Christ to His Father will be fulfilled?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Do I blaspheme God becuse of believing this promise?
"Beloved, now we children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is." (1 John 3:2)
Is it blasphamy against God to believe this apostolic promise and have this hope?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Do I commit blapshemy for believing that part of New Testament salvation is to be made "PARTNERS . . . of Christ"?
"For we have become partners of Christ, if indeed we hold fast the beginning of the assurance firm to the end - " (Heb. 3:14)
Is it blashemy against God to believe and hope that we the saved may be constituted "partners of Christ?"
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30605
@sonship saidYour blasphemy is firmly rooted in your assertion that you will be deified, an assertion completely unsupported by scripture and Christians in this forum.
Ghost, the Forum's Bible quoting atheist, keeps bragging that the Christians have called me a blasphemer.
Do I blaspheme for believing any of the following passages in the NT?
"And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one." (John 17:22)
Do I commit blasphemy for believing in this petition of Christ to His Father will be fulfilled?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
The question is specifically (regardless of ? ? ? _____ification terms used) do I blaspheme by believing, hoping in, and teaching the Lord's petition in John 17:22?
Is that a YES - to believe this is blasphemy.
Is that NO - to believe this is not blasphemy.
Which according to you?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30605
@sonship saidYour question is a nonsense. I've told you precisely where you are guilty of blasphemy.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
The question is specifically (regardless of ? ? ? _____ification terms used) do I blaspheme by believing, hoping in, and teaching the Lord's petition in John 17:22?
Is that a YES - to believe this is blasphemy.
Is taht NO - to believe this is not blasphemy.
Which according to you?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Your question is a nonsense. I've told you precisely where you are guilty of blasphemy.
The question/s are not nonsense but are avoided by you to coward away from
acknolwedging the obvious stupendous promise of oneness with God indicated in the prayer.
The question is specifically (regardless of ? ? ? _____ification terms used) do I blaspheme by believing, hoping in, and teaching the Lord's petition in John 17:22?
And you are hypocritical and wrong.
For you are a CAREER blasphemer denying God's existence totally.
It is therefore no suprise that the Son's petition to the Father concerning the extent of our salvation in God Himself is disbelieved and swept under a rug by you.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Ghost of a Duke blasphemes in denying God existence.
He denies God's Son therefore.
He denies the work of God's Son.
And He denies the petition of the Son to the Father concerning the extent and assurity of that work.
The real blasphemer here is the atheist Ghost of a Duke.
He will avoid questions which expose his opposition to the nature and work of
God.
The Lord's petition again:
"And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as We are one;
I in them, and You in Me, that they may be PERFECTED into one, . . . " (See John 17:22,23)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Is the glory which the Father gave to Jesus the glory which Jesus gives to all His saved?
In nature is it the same. In degree He is above all His brothers.
"And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them . . . "
Does this glory come out of the divine nature?
I would say yet.
Are the believers to whom Christ has given this glory partakers of the glory producing divine nature? Yes.
" . . . you might become partakers of the divine nature . . ." (2 Pet. 1:4a)
So who is the blasphemer here?
It is the one denying God's existence, God's divine nature, God imparting that
divine nature into those saved by Jesus.
The blasphemy is Ghost's.
The glory giving God he denies.
The Son to whom the Father gives the glory, he also denies.
The Son's imparting that glory in essence to His saved, he denies.
The Son's saved being partakers of the divine nature and being perfected into the
divine glory he also denies.
Pray for his soul.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30605
@sonship saidSonship. 'Am I blasphemous when quoting some random biblical passage?' (A parody)
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Your question is a nonsense. I've told you precisely where you are guilty of blasphemy.
The question/s are not nonsense but are avoided by you to coward away from
acknolwedging the obvious stupendous promise of oneness with God indicated in the prayer.
[quote] The question is specifically (regardless of ? ? ? _____ificati ...[text shortened]... r concerning the extent of our salvation in God Himself is disbelieved and swept under a rug by you.
Ghost. 'No. You are blasphemous when you say you will become a God and twist scripture to support this ridiculous assertion.'
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Ghost. 'No. You are blasphemous when you say you will become a God and twist scripture to support this ridiculous assertion.'
You are dishonest to ignore the limitations and scope of our definition of deification to becomming God in life and nature and expression but not in the Godhead.
For you to ignore this qualification is fanatically slanderous and libelous.
I challenge you to accept the definition as has been circumcribed and explain how the remainder is an insult towards God.
If the life of God is imparted into those born of God for a living union that they may be completely swallowed up in that life, what is the insult in emplyoying a term "deification" to describe that?
I do not insist it be used by others.
I ask what is the insult to God in employing it with its proper theological limits.
I have proved to you creation of demigods is not the teaching of the NT.
Paul and Barnabus as apostles reacted counterwise to being taken as Zeus or other Greek gods in Acts 14:12.