While Britain claims to be an advocate of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and many other countries around the world, British history itself is corroborating evidence that Britain, the greatest human rights preacher, has also been the most flagrant human rights breacher.
More than 500,000 German civilians and refugees, mostly women and children, were slaughtered by Britain’s saturation bombing in 1945, one of the worst massacres of all time.
Over 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million defenseless inhabitants of German city Dresden under Britain’s then Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s order, which not only reduced one of the greatest centers of northern Europe to flaming ruins, but also led to one of the worst war crimes of the Second World War.
Dresden’s bombing in February, 13, 1945 was so relentless that some historians believe it was the height of Winston Churchill’s madness.
“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau,” Churchill said once.
Toward the end of the war, Churchill’s desired firestorm was finally created. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted after British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) assaulted Dresden. However, those who perished in the centre of the city could not be traced, as the temperature in the area reached 1600 degree Centigrade.
Dresden’s citizens barely had time to reach their shelters and those who sought refuge underground often suffocated as oxygen was pulled from the air to feed the flames. Others perish in a blast of white heat, heat strong enough to melt human flesh.
When the bombing started, no one could imagine that in less than 24 hours all those innocent people could die screaming in Churchill’s firestorms.
If there was a war crime, certainly the Dresden tragedy would rank as one of the most sinister of all time. Sadly, however, Churchill, who ordered the slaughter of up to a half million innocent people in this horrifying tragedy, was knighted by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.
Two years after the U.S. State Department cited Korean “juicy bars” for suspected human trafficking, U.S. Forces Korea is promoting a video acknowledging that the bars routinely patronized by thousands of American soldiers encourage the sexual exploitation of the young hostesses who work there.
A public service video recently posted on the YouTube page of USFK’s Public Affairs Office states unequivocally that “buying overpriced drinks in a juicy bar supports the human trafficking industry, a form of modern-day slavery.”
Yet American commanders continue to allow U.S. service members to patronize the bars as long as the establishments have not been caught directly engaging in prostitution or human trafficking.
USFK commander Gen. James D. Thurman declined a request to explain whether commanders are sending American soldiers a mixed message regarding the juicy bars, which are found clustered in seedy entertainment districts near some of the U.S. military’s larger bases in Korea.
The bars are primarily staffed by Philippine women who are imported to flirt with service members and encourage them to buy expensive juice drinks – usually about $10 each – in exchange for more time to talk and flirt.
A 2009 Stars and Stripes investigation found that girls who fall short of juice-sale quotas are sometimes forced by club owners to prostitute themselves to make up the revenue difference – a practice known as “bar fining.”
In addition, some of the girls arrange to meet customers outside of work, where they strike sex-for-cash deals or pose as girlfriends who then hit the men up for money, purportedly to send home or pay off debts.
Since that report, the Philippine government has tried to tighten its emigration regulations in hopes of reducing the numbers of women brought into South Korea for the primary purpose of flirting with and/or prostituting themselves to American service members.
The U.S. State Department, in its 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report, referenced the plight of women who work at the juicy bars near U.S. military facilities as one of its ongoing human trafficking concerns in South Korea.
The recently-posted USFK public service announcement – which aired earlier this year on AFN – puts juicy bars under a much harsher spotlight.
“Right now, young women are being lured to Korea thinking they will become singers and dancers,” the narrator says. “Instead, they will be sexually exploited in order to support their families.”
The spot ends with the words “Stop human trafficking” on the screen, along with the website address for the Defense Department’s “Combating trafficking in persons” page.
Yet USFK officials have declined to put all juicy bars off-limits.
In 2010, then-USFK commander Gen. Walter Sharp said, “The bottom line is that juicy bars … have women that are there to talk to soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines. You can’t presume that things go beyond that, which is what you would have to do if you want to put them (all) off-limits.”
Instead, USFK officials maintain they are doing all they can to make sure that juicy bars frequented by U.S. service members are operating legally.
“(USFK) opposes prostitution, forced labor and any activities that contribute to trafficking in persons,” USFK officials said in a statement provided in response to queries from Stars and Stripes.
“According to (USFK) policy, all personnel are required to respect Korean laws or risk apprehension, trial and confinement.”
USFK said it enforces a zero-tolerance policy toward human trafficking by placing juicy bars caught tolerating or promoting prostitution off-limits, as well as by joining South Korean authorities on “town patrols” in the areas around U.S. bases and maintaining a hotline.
“We may determine that an establishment is engaging in human trafficking by observing a number of factors, including a high turnover of young workers, an inordinate amount of private security or the known solicitation of prostitution,” the statement said.
Yi Hun-hui, president of the Korea Foreigner Tourist Facility Association, which represents about 200 base-area juicy bars, said he was not happy about the video posted on the USFK website.
“Their logic goes over my head,” Yi said. “Everybody is equal before the law.”
He contended there is nothing wrong with a U.S. service member spending as much as $100 in a night to drink and talk to a young woman in a public place like a juicy bar. Stars and Stripes
Christians regards their religion as monotheistic, since Christianity teaches the existence of one God – Yahweh, the God of the Jews. It shares this belief with two other major world religions, Judaism and Islam.
However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct “persons” constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, “three”).
Fast Facts on the Trinity
The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible
The word “Trinity” was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: “One God, three Persons”
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the “specialness” of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative
History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.
The word “Trinity” is not found in the New Testament, nor is the doctrine explicitly taught there. However, foundations of the concept of the Trinity can be seen in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, one of the latest and most theologically developed of the New Testament books.
1: Hints of Trinitarian beliefs can also be seen in the teachings of extra-biblical writers as early as the end of the first century. 2 However, the clearest early expression of the concept came with Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. Tertullian coined the words “Trinity” and “person” and explained that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were “one in essence – not one in Person.”
2: About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius’ teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.”
3: Nicea did not end the controversy, however. Debate over how the creed (especially the phrase “one substance”) ought to be interpreted continued to rage for decades. One group advocated the doctrine that Christ was a “similar substance” (homoiousios) as the Father. But for the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy.
3: Most post-Nicene theological discussion of the Trinity consisted of attempts to understand and explain such a unique concept. Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise, That There are Not Three Gods, compared the divinity shared by the three persons of the Trinity to the common “humanness,” or human nature, that is shared by individual human beings. (Ironically, this initially promising explanation has been seen by some to yield a conclusion quite opposite than the title of his work.)
4: Saint Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers of the early church, described the Trinity as comparable to the three parts of an individual human being: mind, spirit, and will. They are three distinct aspects, yet they are inseparable and together constitute one unified human being.
Modern Denominational Statements on the Trinity
There are many differences in doctrine between various mainstream Christian denominations, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not one of them.
The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life.
– Roman Catholicism
The fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church is the faith revealed in the True God: the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence .– Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod)
We trust in the one triune God. – Presbyterian Church (USA)
The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. – Southern Baptist Convention
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. – United Methodist Church
Critics of the Trinitarian Doctrine, Past and Present
Despite its widespread acceptance among Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity has been a stumbling block to many non-Christians throughout its history. The fiercely monotheistic Jews rejected the idea of the Trinity since it first arose, it has been similarly rejected by Islam since that religion was founded, and many other men and women of all backgrounds have found the concept difficult to understand or accept.
This section provides a brief summary of groups and individuals who have rejected the Trinity, presented in roughly chronological order.
Judaism
In the New Testament, Jews are described as rejecting Jesus’ claims apparent claims to divinity, accusing him of blasphemy. In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, Jesus forgives a man’s sins and some Jewish teachers thought to themselves: “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 5 In the Gospel of John, some Jews began to stone Jesus, explaining that they did so “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides also rejected the Trinitarian beliefs of Christians.
In his aversion to what he considered to be Christian dilutions of pure monotheism, especially in its doctrine of the Trinity, much of Maimonides’ philosophical critique of Christian theology is similar to Islamic arguments against it. In his earlier work, Maimonides translated his theoretical disdain of Christianity into practice. He deemed Christians to be idolators and bemoaned the fact that political necessity forced many European Jews to live in Christian societies. 7
Today, Jewish counter-missionary movements like “Jews for Judaism” seek to educate Jews about why belief in the Trinity is incompatible with Judaism.
,,,
,,,
Arianism
Arianism is the name given to an anti-Trinitarian belief system taught by Arius, an elder in the Alexandrian church, in the early fourth century AD. Arius affirmed the uniqueness of God and denied the complete divinity of the Son (Christ). He taught instead that Christ was a created and changeable being, who, while superior to humans, is not of the same order as the one God.
Arius and Arianism were condemned at the famous Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which proclaimed that the Son was of “the same substance” as the Father. After Constantine’s death, however, Arianism flourished again for some decades and almost overcame the Nicene party. Arianism was finally condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Islam
The sacred text of Islam, the Qur’an (or Koran), explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity. It appears to understand the Christian Trinity as being the Father, Son and Mary:
And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): ‘O ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ! Did you say unto men: Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory be to you! It was not for me to say that which I had no right (to say).
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian group founded in the United States, rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, it teaches a doctrine similar to that of Arius in the fourth century – Christ is the Son of God, a special being, created by God before the beginning of time, but not equal with God. Witnesses regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, their movement’s founder. 9
A Jehovah’s Witness brochure entitled “Beliefs and Customs that God Hates” includes the Trinity, saying:
Is Jehovah a Trinity-three persons in one God? No! Jehovah, the Father, is “the only true God.” (John 17:3; Mark 12:29) Jesus is His firstborn Son, and he is subject to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28) The holy spirit is not a person; it is God’s active force.-Genesis 1:2; Acts 2:18.
In addition to the Bible verses cited above, Witnesses point out that it was the secular Emperor who proposed the doctrine of Christ as “same substance” with God, not the bishops present, and that the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., including the divinity of the Holy Spirit) was not actually brought forth at Nicea at all. Jehovah’s Witnesses also argue that the Athanasian Creed, which sets forth the doctrine more clearly, was not only probably not written by Athanasius himself, but may not have been composed until the fifth century. Finally, they note the presence of Trinitarian-type beliefs in pagan religion, and argue that paganism is the source of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as well.
Mormonism (LDS)
Mormons believe that the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings who are “one in purpose” but not in being. Jesus is affirmed as Son of God, but not God himself. He is a created spirit.
Unitarianism
“Unitarianism” is the doctrine of the oneness of God, with the resultant denial of the Trinity. Today, the doctrine of unitarianism is expressed by the Unitarian Universalist Association and similar groups, which have their historical roots in sixteenth-century eastern Europe. Historically, Unitarian Universalists are defined by their rejection of the Trinity and their belief in the ultimate salvation of all humanity.
Today, however, Unitarians draw from a variety of religious traditions and do not focus on doctrine and creeds as much as love and justice between human beings. Because of this de-emphasis on doctrine, modern Unitarian Universalist arguments against the Trinity are scarce. However, the official Web site of the Unitarian Univeralist Association describes the early history of their beliefs this way:
During the first three centuries of the Christian church, believers could choose from a variety of tenets about Jesus. Among these was a belief that Jesus was an entity sent by God on a divine mission. Thus the word “Unitarian” developed, meaning the oneness of God. Another religious choice in the first three centuries of the Common Era (CE) was universal salvation. This was the belief that no person would be condemned by God to eternal damnation in a fiery pit. Thus a Universalist believed that all people will be saved. Christianity lost its element of choice in 325 CE when the Nicene Creed established the Trinity as dogma. For centuries thereafter, people who professed Unitarian or Universalist beliefs were persecuted. 11
The Da Vinci Code
Although neither a scholarly nor a religious source, Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code is mentioned here because it has been widely read and it claims to present numerous “historical facts” about the development of the Trinity and other aspects of early Christianity. At one point in the novel, a learned character explains that the Trinity was unheard of until the Emperor Constantine enforced the foreign idea of Christ’s divinity on Christendom. Brown writes, “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.” This is not historically accurate. For more information on The Da Vinci Code as it relates to Christian history and theology, see the feature article on the subject.
References
E.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1; John 10:30.
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1.58); The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (ANF 1.42).
ANF 3.621; c. 213 AD.
William Placher, Readings in the History of Christian Theology, 53.
Mark 2:7.
John 10:33.
David Novak, “The Mind of Maimonides.” First Things, February 1999.
“Arianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service, 2004.
“How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?” Watchtower.org.
Jesus Christ is one the most fascinating and enigmatic figures in history. Despite his humble origins (a son of a carpenter from the Judean countryside), short life (about 33 years), and very short public career (between one and three years), Jesus is the central focus of the world’s largest religion and has meant many things to many people since his death almost 2,000 years ago. Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions calls Jesus “arguably the most important figure in the history of western civilization.”
In recent years, both scholarly and popular attention has been focused on the “quest for the historical Jesus,” an attempt to distinguish the human Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee from the “Christ of faith” developed by the early Christians. This subject will be discussed in a separate article (currently under development).
This article focuses on the “Christ of faith” – that is, the Christian doctrine about who Jesus was. This topic is known to Christian theologians as “Christology,” a field that seeks to answer the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” from a theological perspective. The article that follows will focus on five major answers that Christians have traditionally given to this question: he was a real human being, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God, and God.
Christ as a Historical Human Being
First, Christians believe Jesus to have been a historical human being who was born in Bethlehem between 7 and 4 BC. {1} The humanity of Jesus is now one of the least controversial areas of Christology, but this was not always so.
In the early years after Christ, some taught that Jesus’ body, suffering, and death were merely appearances. Scholars call this view “docetism,” from the Greek word meaning ”to seem.” Docetism arose from the Gnostic view that all matter is evil, and concluded that God could not have been actually associated with it.
Christ as the Messiah
Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, the “anointed one” predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. The word “Christ” comes from the Greek for “Messiah,” (it is actually a title, not a surname). According to the Hebrew prophets, the Messiah is a king-like figure from the line of David who would, among other things, rescue Israel from her oppressors, return Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and usher in an age of peace. {2} There is evidence that Jewish messianic expectation was high at the time of Jesus, associated with hope of liberation from Roman occupation.
Jews and Christians disagree, of course, as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. The arguments given for both sides and the history of this disagreement is worthy of fuller treatment, and will be the subject of a future feature article. In the meantime, an overview of Jewish beliefs about the Messiah can be found in the article on Jewish Beliefs.
In the New Testament, affirmations of Jesus as the Messiah are found almost exclusively in the four Gospel narratives and the Acts of the Apostles. The Pauline and other epistles, many of which predate the Gospels, do not attempt to show that Jesus is Messiah, yet they refer to him almost exclusively as “Christ.” In the Gospels, various people identify Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus himself reinforces this perception:
After meeting Jesus, Andrew runs to tell Peter that he has found the Messiah (Jn 1:41)
In a conversation with Jesus, a Samaritan woman says she knows the Messiah is coming. Jesus replies, “I who speak to you am he.” (Jn 4:25-26)
When Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, Peter answers, “You are the Christ.” (Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20)
During the Triumphal Entry, the crowds shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” and the Gospel author explains that this fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. (Mt 21:4-9)
When Jesus stands trial before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish high court), the high priest asks him if he is ” the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” and Jesus replies, “I am.” (Mk 14:61-62)
In Acts, one of the primary messages of the apostles is that Jesus is the Messiah:
“Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they [the apostles] never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” (Ac 5:52)
“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and one three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,’ he said.” (Ac 17:2-3)
Before King Herod Agrippa II, Paul insists, “I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen – that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” (Ac 26:22-23)
It is interesting to note that although Jesus appears to see himself as the Messiah in the Gospels, he does not go out of his way to identify himself as such, and those who do are commanded not to tell anyone about it. {3} This is known as the “messianic secret,” and its significance remains somewhat of a mystery to biblical scholars.
Christ as Son of Man
“Son of Man” is one of the more interesting and enigmatic titles of Jesus. It used 81 times in theGospels, and always by Jesus himself. No other character in the Gospel narratives nor any other New Testament writer uses the term. {4} Various explanations have been offered as to why Jesus employed the term and others did not. It may have been a term Jesus could use early in his ministry without inciting much hostility, because of its various meanings, but that would later encompass his messianic claims. The early Christian writers may have been reluctant to use it because the Greek phrase is somewhat ambiguous (Jesus would have used the simpler Aramaic term). {5}
To determine what Jesus meant by the phrase, Biblical scholars turn to its use in the Old Testament. There the term “Son of Man” is used in three main contexts:
an address to the prophet Ezekiel (e.g. Ezekiel 2:1);
to refer to humanity in general, especially its lowliness when compared to God and the angels (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 8:14); and
to refer to an eschatological figure whose coming signals the end of history (Daniel 7:13-14). {6}
Jesus appears to use the phrase especially in the third sense. He uses the phrase “Son of Man” when speaking of his roles of saving and judging (e.g. Mk 10:45; Mt 25:31) and of the future coming of an exalted, heavenly figure (e.g. Mt 13:41, 24:30; Mk 14:62; Lk 18:8).
Christ as Son of God
Another title used to refer to Jesus in the New Testament is “Son of God.” In the Old Testament, this phrase had a general meaning of “belonging to God.” It was applied to the people of Israel in general and especially its rulers (see e.g. Ex 4:22; 2 Sa 7:14).
Jesus does not refer to himself as the Son of God in the Gospels, but the term is used in the writings of Paul (e.g. Ro 1:4, 8:31) and in the epistle to the Hebrews (4:14). The Gospel of John refers to Jesus simply as “the Son,” which may have a similar meaning. Paul uses the term for both Christ and Christians, but distinguishes between the two. Christians become sons of God by adoption, but Jesus is the rightful Son of God by nature. {7}
Christ as God
Finally, Christians believe that Christ is God. This concept seems to be stated explicitly in the New Testament in at least the following places:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1,14)
Thomas said to him [the resurrected Jesus], “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
But about the Son he [God] says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.” (Hebrews 1:8)
In addition, some important titles and functions applied to Christ in the New Testament indicate early belief in his divinity. The statement “Jesus Christ is Lord (Greek kyrios, Hebrew adonai)” is found throughout the New Testament and was one of the earliest Christian confessions of faith. Due to the substitution of the word “Lord” in place of YHWH (the holy name of God that may not be pronounced) in Torah readings, “Lord” had come to be almost synonymous with God in Jewish thinking by the time of Jesus. This associated can be seen in the Jews’ refusal to address the Roman emperor as “lord,” even under penalty of death. {8}
Finally, as noted by Alister McGrath, the New Testament writers apply the following functions to Jesus that are associated only with God:
Jesus is the savior of humanity (Mt 1:21, Ac 4:12, Lk 2:11)
It is appropriate to call on the name of Jesus in prayer (1 Co 1:2) and to worship him (Mt 28:9)
Jesus reveals God directly: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (Jn 14:9) {9}
,,,
References;
1. Jesus was born “Before Christ” due to a calculation error by the monk Dionysius Exiguus, who established the Christian calendar in 525 AD.
2. See, for example, 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 23:5-8; 30-31; Hosea 3:5.
3. Mt 16:20; Mk 8:30, 9:9; Lk 8:56, 9:21.
4. ”Son of Man,” Catholic Encylopedia (1912).
5. Ibid.
6. McGrath, Christian Theology, 327.
7. Ibid., 326.
8. Ibid., 328, citing the Jewish historian Josephus.
Anti-Trinitarians falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with “no understanding” of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. These are all lies and deliberate misrepresentations of history!
In this document:
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old TestamentKing of Judah Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian. Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from? Ossius‘ influence on Constantine Opposition to the Nicene creed Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
Lies vs. Facts on the life of Constantine:
How Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history
True facts of history
Constantine was a pagan who worshipped the sun until just before he died.
The fact is that Constantine stopped worshipping the sun at his conversion many years before Nicea.
Constantine’s anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah. He took major steps to rid his land of paganism.
Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was nothing more than a political move and was not genuine as evidenced by the fact he was not baptized until just before his death.
The facts of Constantine’s life refute this silly unscholarly notion. His anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah.
It was the practice of the day to delay one’s baptism until just before death. In other words, it was typical of Christianity of the day, to do what Constantine did. He was the norm, not the exception.
Constantine had no knowledge of Christian doctrine.
Constantine was personally involved in the “Donatus” controversy in 313 AD, 12 years before Nicea! The council of Nicea was Constantine’s, second major involvement in doctrinal disputes.
Constantine was preaching sermons on a regular basis.
We know for a fact, from letters Constantine wrote to “imperial officials and to Christian clergy” that he had open and clear views of Christian doctrine of good general knowledge.
Constantine, (a pagan sun worshipper who knew nothing about Christian Doctrine) was the author of the Nicene creed.
This is the impression anti-Trinitarians leave in the mind of readers.
Although Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term “homoousios” (of one substance), it is universally recognized that Ossius (a bishop and Constantine’s spiritual adviser) was the one who told Constantine to suggest the term be in the creed.
Anti-Trinitarians irresponsibly portray Constantine as a faithless sun-god pagan idol worshipper with no understanding of Christianity who single-handedly introduces trinity to Christianity from the pagans and is almost the author of the Nicene creed.
Constantine was introduced to the trinity debates which existed before he became emperor.
To suggest that Constantine introduced trinity doctrine from pagan sources is as preposterous as it is false.
The majority opposed the Nicene creed because they viewed Jesus as a creature, not God.
We will grant, for argument sake that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ. (Even though the deity of Christ was the main purpose of the council)
The opposition was also from those who “misunderstood” what the creed was saying. In other words, they felt the creed could lend support to Sabellianism (modalism, as taught today by the United Pentecostal church UPCI) of which they were equally opposed, when in fact it did not! But again, although opposed to the creed, did not view Jesus as a creature.
You will notice that only a few bishops from the west (Ossius: Alexandrian party) were present and most of the bishops were from the east (Oregonian theology), but neither viewed Jesus as a creature! In addition to this there were a small number aligned with Arius who openly stated Jesus was a creature!
The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius! The “majority who disliked” firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn’t like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!
When Frend says “The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position” he tells us what that position is: “The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them “Semi-Arian.” In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church”
“The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Constantine favoured Athanasius over Arius in the Nicene council.
The fact that Athanasius, who was in agreement with the creed, was personally banished by Constantine, should dispel that notion.
Constantine was quite impartial, but wanted peace. He was a peacemaker!
Even if this was true, Constantine’s son showed “equal bias” towards Arius for 50 years, yet in the end, Arius was refuted!
Detailed documentation:
When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: “How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.” (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine’s coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive “Unconquered Sun” had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine’s refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
the accusation that his [Constantine's] generosity was only made possible by his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
He showed marked favour to Christians, thereby causing a flood of interested conversions. At the same time his attitude to his pagan subjects became more severe. Shortly after his victory over Licinius be issued an edict urging all his subjects to adopt the Christian faith, but at the same time he confirmed his policy of toleration to paganism (although in contemptuous language) and forbade overzealous Christians to disturb the pagan cult. He nevertheless destroyed three famous temples, at Aegae in Cilicia and at Apheca and Heliopolis in Phoenicia, and in 331 confiscated all the temple treasures, even stripping the cult statues of their gold; he probably also seized the temple endowments. Before the end of his reign he may even have banned sacrifice.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith
Assessment. The reign of Constantine must be interpreted against the background of his clear and unambiguous personal commitment to Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Such pronouncements, expressed in letters to imperial officials and to Christian clergy, make untenable the view that Constantine’s religious attitudes were even in these early years either veiled, confused, or compromised. Openly expressed, his attitudes show a clear commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine’s coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive “Unconquered Sun” had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Constantine the Great: later in life he was in the habit of delivering edifying sermons … It is even possible that members of Constantine’s family were Christians. Constantine himself was said to have converted his mother … Throughout his life, Constantine ascribed his success to his conversion to Christianity and the support of the Christian God. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Yet to suggest that Constantine’s conversion was “politically motivated” means little in an age in which every Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety. … What is far more remarkable is Constantine’s subsequent development of his new religious allegiance to a quite extreme personal commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Commitment to Christianity. … As he said in a letter of, 313 to the proconsul of Africa, the Christian clergy should not be distracted by secular offices from their religious duties ” … Constantine’s personal “theology” emerges with particular clarity from a remarkable series of letters, extending from 313 to the early 320s, concerning the Donatist schism in North Africa. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
The reasons for Constantine’s conversion to Christianity have been much debated. Some believe that it was an astute stroke of policy, designed to win the support of the Christians, or a wise act of statesmanship aimed at buttressing the decaying fabric of the empire with the strength of the Christian church. Neither view is very likely (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine’s refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
The Emperor was always an earnest student of his religion and spent hours discussing it with bishops. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
He composed a special prayer for his troops and went on campaign equipped with a mobile chapel in a tent. He issued numerous laws relating to Christian practice and susceptibilities: for instance, abolishing the penalty of crucifixion and the practice of branding certain criminals, “so as not to disfigure the human face, which is formed in the image of divine beauty”; enjoining the observance of Sunday and saints’ days; extending privileges to the clergy while suppressing at least some of the more offensive pagan practices. Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
During the decade following his conversion Constantine’s legislation shows many signs of Christian influence. For example, he repealed the legislation of Augustus that penalized celibates, legalized bequests to the church and gave full validity to manumission performed in a church. He even gave powers of jurisdiction to bishops, allowing either party to transfer a suit to the cognizance of a bishop, whose verdict should be final and executed by the civil authority. He also made Sunday a public holiday according to Christian practice (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Yet this was less an expression of religious megalomania than of Constantine’s literal conviction that he was, in a quite precise sense, the successor of the evangelists, having devoted his life and office to the spreading of Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
In later years, he wrote to Eusebius to commission new copies of the Bible for the use of the growing congregations at Constantinople. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
It was his [Constantine's] personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state. It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded his reign as the fulfillment of divine providence nor to concede the force of Constantine’s assessment of his own role as that of the thirteenth Apostle. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
“When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; But there was Christian influence in his houselhold since he had a half-sister named Anastasia (anastasis = resurrection). At the crisis of his career in the war of 312 to gain sole power in the West, Constantine invoked the might aid of the Christian God and was not disappointed. His rise to power in 306 AD made it certain that persecution would not affect provinces under his control. [page 122]… “The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe.” … “But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians….He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or ‘established’ religion of the empire.” (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127)
The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.
We are not told why Constantine murdered his son. Anti-Trinitarians are basically trying to trash the genuineness of Constantine’s Christianity and his involvement in the Nicene creed. Britannica notes Constantine putting his son to death, but says it was for reasons unknown. What if his son committed murder himself, and Constantine, just like the USA today, executed him, being head of state! The fact that Constantine killed his own son, could be taken, should the facts ever be known, as a sign of his impartial intolerance of sin even in his own family! In this case the murder of his son could be viewed as an act of righteous faith!
Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine
Constantine was soon involved in ecclesiastical controversy, in particular that associated with Donatus. In 313 a group of African bishops led by Majorinus, who claimed to be bishop of Carthage, submitted to him charges against Caecilian, the rival bishop of Carthage, and asked him to appoint judges to decide the dispute. Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine’s second involvement in an ecclesiastical issue followed the defeat of Licinius as promptly as the involvement in Donatism followed that of Maxentius; but the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine’s educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. The Council of Nicaea, which opened in May 325 with an address by the Emperor, had already been preceded by a letter to the chief protagonist, Arius of Alexandria, in which Constantine stated his opinion that the dispute was fostered only by excessive leisure and academic contention, that the point at issue was trivial and could be resolved without difficulty. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Not understanding the theological points at issue Constantine first sent a letter to the two parties rebuking them for quarreling about minute distinctions, as he believed them to be, about the nature of Christ (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine had a good understanding of Christianity. What Lohse means and Britannica confirms: “the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine’s educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) is that the arguments between the Trinitarians and the Arians in council of Nicea, were based on complex etymology (precise Greek word definitions etc).
Let me illustrate: How many English speaking Jehovah’s Witnesses living in North America today could immediately identify and define complex sentence structure in English. (noun, verb, adverb, predicate, subject, past-participle, pronoun.) If we started arguing some doctrinal point because the of the nature of the past-participle in the English Bible, it could be truthfully said: “Jehovah’s Witnesses have basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in English theology”.
Now true, Constantine had also not grappled with the concepts of the Trinity discussion. But again the same is true of 99% of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If this author, for example, had a private audience with 100 different Jw’s, they would walk away saying of themselves, “I don’t understand the subject”. Whereas there are a tiny number of Jw’s who do understand Trinity doctrine who would be able to argue in an intelligent manner (unsuccessfully none the less).
“Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from?Ossius’ influence on Constantine
Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine was convinced, doubtless by Ossius, that dissension in his church was deeply displeasing to God. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed, no doubt on Ossius’ prompting, the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, “of one substance with the Father” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
The first emperor to become a Christian, Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. … Even though he had a general antipathy to the controversies, and even though he himself had only a rudimentary “theology,” he was still not entirely without sympathy for the problems which arose. In any case, he permitted himself to be more fully instructed about many things by his episcopal counselors. The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios (“of one substance”), comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the emperor got the term. It seems likely that it was suggested to him by his episcopal counselor, Bishop Hosius (Ossius) of Cordova, and it was probably nothing more than a Greek translation of a term already found in Tertullian (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)
Opposition to the Nicene creed
The issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Attempts to overthrow the Nicene Formulas: The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [Greek] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism (taking [Greek] in the sense of particular reality and erroneous metaphysically. Athanasius was twice exiled, and when ninety bishops assembled at Antioch for the dedication of Constantine’s ‘Golden Church’ a council was held and a ‘Creed of the Dedication’ put forward as a substitute for that of Nicaea, in spite of, or perhaps because of, a letter from Pope Julius urging Athanasius’ restoration. (Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41)
In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Most of the bishops who were present at the council signed this creed. Among the signers were those who, judging by their theological presuppositions, could not do so, or could hardly do so, such as Eusebius of Caesarea. What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios, which in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension. Even most of the Arians put their names to the creed. Only Arius and two of his friends refused to sign, for which they were excommunicated.” (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)
The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther
Luther was uneasy with the term trinity, not the idea of Trinity, for Luther most certainly always was a trinitarian. Luther did not disagree with the Trinity, but was afraid of thewords, or theological terminology such as the Latin word “person” (persona), which might imply tritheism instead of trinity.
Luther’s hesitation is exactly that of many who signed the Nicene creed. It was not that they questioned if Jesus was a creature, but that they felt the words used to convey the ontological relationship between God and Jesus were inadequate.
“On the words persona, (etc. ). . . . Much has been said, about the time of the Reformation, concerning the tendency of these terms to lead to tritheism; and among the advocates for their expulsion from theological disquisition, might be mentioned a number of the first divines of the age, not excepting Minnius and even Luther himself.–Yet, to prevent the charge of Arianism or Socinianism, which he knew his enemies would eagerly seize the least pretext to prefer against them, Luther yielded to Melanchthon’s wishes, and in the Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in the old scholastic terms. (G. C. Storr & Flatt’s , Biblical Theology. S. S. Schmucker, trans., p. 301)
Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker
The emperor’s cherished aim was to reconcile Arius with the church, but Athanasius stubbornly refused to accept Arius’ vaguely worded submission. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Schism, in Constantine’s view, was “insane, futile madness,” inspired by the Devil, the author of evil. Its partisans were acting in defiance of the clemency of Christ, for which they might expect eternal damnation at the Last Judgment (this was a Judgment whose rigours Constantine equally anticipated for himself). (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius
At last, in 335, Constantine summoned a council of bishops at Tyre to investigate various charges against Athanasius and ordered him to appear. The council condemned him; he appealed to Constantine himself, who banished him to Gaul. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians
In 350 Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was “unlike” (anomoios) the Father. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Arianism, Vol. I, p.509)
Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
“Politics and Theology: In 337, Constantine died and his three sons inherited the empire. Constantine II received the far western part: Britain, Gaul, and Spain. Constantius received the far eastern part: Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Constans received the area lying in between:, Italy, North Africa, and Illyricum. Both Constantine II and Constans took the western position and supported Athanasius.Constantius supported the Arians. In 340, Constantine II was killed in battle with the forces of Constans, leaving the empire divided between Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. In 350, Constans was assassinated by the rebel German emperor Magnentius. Three years later Constantius defeated and killed the latter. Thus, by 353 the entire empire was in the hands of power of the empire, Constantius decided that the religious question should now be decided once and for all. In councils held in the West at Arles and Milan, he forced the western bishops to abandon Athanasius, and he exiled some of their leaders. In 357 a council held in Sirmium in Illyria forbade the use of ousia (nature) in speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son. With this the homoousios of Nicaea became a dead confession. This was a complete victory [for the Arians].” (A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R. Boer, p117)
Other texts of interest:
“The Nicene Solution: In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. The Lucianists, who fully expected to prevail, without previously conferring with the Origenists, put forth a rather blunt statement of their beliefs. To their considerable surprise, this was summarily rejected. It was then their hope that the Eusebian position, which was something of a midpoint between the Arian and the Alexandrian parties, would prevail. Indeed, Eusebius put forth a creed, which was unanimously pronounced to be orthodox by those present. Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion. The Origenists had considerable reservation about some elements of the creed, fearing that phrases such as “out of the Father’s substance” and “of the same substance as the Father” could be interpreted in a material sense, could be understood as Sabellian, and were not of biblical origin. The emperor exerted considerable influence, saying that there was a desire to preserve the spirituality of the Godhead. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three members of the council. Even most of Arius’s allies abandoned him, and as Pelikan says, “saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had.” The creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. [But for those who say: "There was a time when he was not"; and, "He was not before he was made"; and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable"-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church .] The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. One question that then must be raised, however, pertains to just what the council meant by this statement. On the one hand, the usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, “of the same nature.” In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example. On the other hand, it could connote an individual thing as such. While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion. Both J. N. D. Kelly and G. L. Prestige argue that whether that is properly the terms meaning, it was this more modest version that they had in mind. Among their reasons are the fact that Arius, prior to the council, objected to the term homoousious, but it is apparent that he was repudiating the Son’s alleged divinity, rather than the unity of God. Further, the issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. In addition’ if Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it. Finally, we know that later the most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
“THE COUNCIL OF NICEA: In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. There is no record of the acts of the Council. Only its Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal letter condemning Arius are extant (Denz 125-130). The Nicene Creed says simply: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well…. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: ‘There was a time when He did not exist’ and ‘before He was begotten, He did not exist’ and ‘He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,’ alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change such persons the Catholic and apostolic Church condemns (Denz 125-126). What the Creed rejected is clear enough. It was Arius’ doctrine that the Son is not true God but a creature, that He was not begotten of the substance of the Father but was made from nothing, that He was not eternal but rather that ‘there was a time when He did not exist.’ What was affirmed was a belief in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ. through whom all things were made and who is the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, born of the substance of the Father. true God from true God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father; and in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is merely mentioned together with the Son and the Father, to indicate belief in the Triad of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but He is given no further attention. All the conciliar stress was on the Son, His status, and His relation to the Father. Somewhat surprisingly the Council still used the words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. Several points stand out. The Council Fathers did not use the term Logos for Christ but the more evangelical word Son. They stressed that He was not created but begotten, not made from nothing but born from the substance of the Father, thus indicating that His was not a metaphorical or adoptive sonship but a real, metaphysical sonship that entailed consubstantiality or community of divine nature between the Father and the Son. They emphasized His divinity by saying He was not only born of the Father and not created but also was eternal and was God from God, true God from true God. But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant ‘of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means ‘of identically the same substance.’ For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father’ had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father,’ it meant at least that He is ‘utterly like the Father in substance,’ ‘utterly unlike creatures in substance,’ that He is ‘of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of no other substance.”" But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out ‘Sabellanism.’ Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son’s full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son’s full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood ‘consubstantiality’ as likeness in substance. But perhaps an even stronger case can be made for the traditional view that they understood consubstantiality as identity of substance. Could they have failed to realize that if the Son was ‘of the Father’s substance,’ then He must be like the Father in substance? Why, then, would they add consubstantial if it merely meant ‘like the Father in substance’? Again, it would seem to be unnatural” for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai. And yet the Fathers must have realized that they would be doing just that if they said the Son was only ‘like the Father in ousia.’ Further, why is it logical to say that the Fathers used ‘consubstantial’ in its Origenist sense of ‘like the Father,’ when they must have known that for Origen it meant ‘like but inferior to the Father,’ while they were intent on affirming the Son’s equality with the Father? Again, why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this ‘new’ term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term? Again, if Hosius of Cordova influenced the adoption of the term, would he have failed to indicate to the Nicene Fathers that for him and the West it signified ‘identity of substance’? Finally. to all this we might add Athanasius’ declaration that it was the intention of the Nicene decree to go beyond mere likeness and touch identity (De decr. nic. syn. 20). SUMMARY In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ’s origin. nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. In their somewhat infelicitous attempts to explain the Son’s divine status and His relation to the Father by a two-stage theory of a preexistent Logos, the Apologists obscured if they did not deny the eternal personality and the eternal generation of the Son. Clement and Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but ‘diminished gods,’ inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a ‘diminished god’ but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. The question that Arius put and answered so bluntly was a ‘live’ question, of vital importance to the Christian and trinitarian faith of the Church and one that was deeply disturbing. The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. It firmly declared that He was begotten, not made, was born of the Father’s substance. was true God from true God, was consubstantial with the Father. It did more. In the New Testament affirmations about the Son were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the Son into a single affirmation that the Son is not made but born of the Father, true God from true God, and consubstantial with the Father. A definitive answer was given to the question of Arius not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being. Nicaea did not describe; it defined. It defined what the Son is, in himself and in his relation to the one God the Father. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way, begotten as Son,, not made as a creature. The Son is all that the Father is. except for the Name of Father. This is what homoousion means. This is what the Son is. . . . The Nicene definition … formally established the statute of the ontological mentality within the Church. It was the precedent for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which resolved the issue of the internal constitution of Christ, the Son Incarnate, in the ontological categories of nature and person. . . . By its passage from the historical-existential categories of Scripture to the ontological or explanatory categories exhibited in the homoousion Nicaea sanctioned the principle of the development of doctrine . . . of growth in understanding of the primitive affirmations contained in the New Testament revelation.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
I am quite pissed of of this Islam has done this and that rather then saying a typical culture of the clans in different parts of the world. Googling is easy but googgling in the positive way is important. I am just wondering now anyone dare to argue this; the asshole so call themselves men and bitches so call themselves respectable or what ever women shit they say. Would any one would be prick enough to comment on this; As they always point finger on Islam rather a Muslims So should I be questioning the Christian faith or the followers……… Think!
Anyone talk about Islam without having knowledge of Islam, I can understand if any follower of Islam does any act or something bad the individual should be responsible but not Islam……. So my humble advise to you is honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, if you don’t have knowledge of Islam it means not Fox News bloody Taliban and CNN stuff and some other bla bla blaa. I meant if you haven’t read the the translation of Quar’an then get yourself a duct tape and conveniently place it on your big mouth and it may help. I bet not many of you read the Bible yourself and the other references.
z
The Church of England has voted not to let women become bishops after the ballot did not receive the two third majority it needed to go ahead.
The House of the Bishops and the House of the Clergy were in favour of female bishops, with 44 votes to three and 148 votes to 45 respectively. But the Laity recorded 132 votes for and 74 against. Just two bishops abstained.
Over the course of the day, more 100 speeches were made both for and against the move.
Those who voted for female bishops wanted women to be treated equally in the church, while those against said female bishops contravened scripture.
The vote was preceded by a two-minute prayer and the Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch, urging the Synod to vote in favour. He said a No vote would prolong the for years.
Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester, wanted the Synod to back the measure, in order “to speak for millions who want to see us do this”.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, urged support for the motion. “It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure,” he said. “The Church of England needs to show how to develop the mission of the church in a way that demonstrates we can manage diversity of view without division. Diversity in amity; not diversity in enmity.”
The legislation to allow women to be bishops was backed by 42 out of the 44 CoE dioceses, but to pass it, there needed to be a two-thirds majority.
It was considered to be the biggest decision the Synod has had to make since it approved female priests two decades ago.
The debate was hotly contested.
Those in favour said there was a general consensus within the Church that the role of bishop should be open to women. They added that women priests made up a third of the clergy.
But opponents argued that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore the spiritual leadership of the CoE should be by men only.
Others said that ordaining women bishops would prevent unity with Roman Catholics.
Prior to the vote, it was speculated that the ballot result would be close.Those in favour said that if the vote did not pass, the Church would be in danger of fading away into irrelevance.
Canon Rosie Harper said: “As a church for the whole country we will be seen to have failed to do what is right and honourable. A church with lower moral standards than the rest of society risks its right to comment on other issues.
“Secondly, it will inevitably be seen as the act of a dying church more wedded to the past than committed to hope for the future.”
Rev Rod Thomas, vicar of St Matthew’s Elburton, Plymouth and leader of Evangelical group Reform, said the vote itself was forcing CoE members to “accept something that we do not believe the Bible teaches”.
It is thought that it could be 2019 before another vote on the issue takes place.
Call Angels is the perfect way to promote growth and healthy profits
“God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendent of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.”
–Luke 1:26-27, NIV
“Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” –Hebrews 1:14, NIV
According to a March 2004 Gallup poll, belief in angels and demons is on the rise, at least in the United States. In 1994, 72% of Americans said they believed in angels; in 2004, 78% indicated belief in angels. Belief in the devil has risen even more dramatically, increasing from 55% in 1990 to 70% in 2004. 1
Other English-speaking countries are more skeptical, however. In November 2004, a Gallup poll showed that 56% of Canadians and 36% of Britons believe in angels and only 37% of Canadians and 29% of Britons believe in the devil. 2
Belief in angels is common to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The concept of angelic beings is very similar in all three faiths: angels are spiritual beings who were created by God before the world was created. Their role is to glorify God, minister to God, and, especially, act as God’s messengers to humans in matters of great importance (such as the announcement to Mary in Christianity and the revelation of the Qur’an in Islam). They are also helpers and guardians of the faithful.
Angels in the New Testament
In the New Testament, angels appear frequently as the ministers of God and the agents of revelation (Matt 1:20 to Joseph, 4:11 to Jesus, Luke 1:26 to Mary, Acts 12:7 to Peter); and Jesus speaks of angels as fulfilling such functions (Mark 8:38, 13:27), implying in one saying that they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mark 12:25). Angels are most prominent in Revelation.
The New Testament takes little interest in the idea of the angelic hierarchy that developed later, but there are traces of the doctrine. The distinction of good and bad angels is recognized; there are names: Gabriel (Luke 1:19), the evil angels Abaddon or Apollyon (Rev. 9:11), Beelzebub (Mark 3:22) and Satan (Mark 1:13); ranks are implied: archangels (Michael, Jude 9), principalities and powers (Rom. 8:38; Col. 2:10), thrones and dominions (Col 1:16). Angels occur in groups of four or seven (Rev 7:1).
In Rev 1-3 we meet with the “Angels” of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor. These are probably guardian angels, standing to the churches in the same relation that the “princes” in Daniel stand to the nations; practically the “angels” are personifications of the churches. A less likely view is that the “angels” are the human representatives of the churches, the bishops or chief presbyters.
The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in the traditional role of messenger to inform her that her child would be the Messiah, and other angels were present to herald his birth. An angel appeared at Jesus’ tomb, frightened the Roman guards, rolled away the stone from the tomb, and later told the myrrh-bearing women of Jesus’ resurrection. Two angels witnessed Jesus’ ascent into Heaven and prophesied his return. When Peter was imprisoned, an angel put his guards to sleep, released him from his chains, and led him out of the prison. Angels fill a number of different roles in the book of Revelation. Among other things, they are seen gathered around the Throne of God singing the “Holy, holy, holy” hymn.
Artistic and Literary Depictions of Angels in Christianity
Angels are frequently depicted as human in appearance, though many theologians have argued that they have no physical existence. (Hence the frequently recounted tale of Scholastics arguing about how many angels could fit on a pinhead; if angels possess physical bodies, the answer is “a finite number”, if they do not, the answer is “an infinite number”.) Seraphim are often depicted as six wings radiating from a center — either concealing a body, or without a body.
Beginning in the end of the 4th century, angels were depicted with wings, presumably to give an easy explanation for them travelling to and from heaven or to depict them as spirits. Scholastic theologians teach that angels are able to reason instantly, and to move instantly. They also teach that angels are intermediaries to some forces that would otherwise be natural forces of the universe, such as the rotation of planets and the motion of stars. Angels possess the beatific vision, or the unencumbered understanding of God (the essence of the pleasure of heaven). Furthermore, there are more angels then there are anything else in the universe (although when first written this would have probably not included atoms since atomic structure was not known).
Religious thought about the angels during the middle ages was much influenced by the theory of the angelic hierarchy set forth in the The Celestial Hierarchy, written in the 5th century in the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. The creeds and confessions do not formulate any authoritative doctrine of angels; and modern rationalism has tended to deny the existence of such beings, or to regard the subject as one on which we can have no certain knowledge. The principle of continuity, however, seems to require the existence of beings intermediate between man and God.
Some Christian traditions hold that angels are organized into three major Hierarchies which are subdivided into orders or Choirs, and list as many as ten orders of angels. This is particularly clear in the above-mentioned The Celestial Hierarchy, which gives the names that have become part of tradition: Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim. In this hierarchy, the Cherubim and Seraphim are typically closest to God, while the Angels and Archangels are most active in human affairs. Many of these names come from verses in the Bible which would appear at first to be referencing a literal thing, although retroactively suggesting that they really mention angels can also make sense in the context. For example the verse in Paul “our struggle is not with earthly things but with principalities and powers” (meaning, according to most theologians, the fallen angels of those choirs, used as an example of all the fallen angels).
Some Christian traditions also hold that angels play a variety of specific roles in the lives of believers. For instance, each Christian may be assigned a guardian angel at their baptism (although never defined by the Catholic or Orthodox churches, this is personally held by many church members and theologians). Each consecrated altar has at least one angel always present offering up prayers, and a number of angels join the congregation when they meet to pray. In the story of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste, in which 40 Christian Roman soldiers were made to stand naked on a frozen lake in the snow until they renounced their faith, angels were seen descending from Heaven placing the crowns of martyrs on their heads.
Certain Christian traditions, especially the Protestant Reformed tradition, hold that references to the “Angel of the Lord” are references to pre-Incarnation appearances of Jesus.
In many informal folk beliefs among Christians concerning the afterlife, the souls of the virtuous dead ascend into Heaven to be converted into angels. However, this belief is not supported by the Bible and theologians are quick to discount it.
References
“Eternal Destinations: Americans Believe in Heaven, Hell.” Gallup Poll News Service, May 25, 2004.
One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.
Dr Hajo Meyer, 86, who survived 10 months in the Nazi death camp, spoke out as his 10-day tour of the UK and Ireland – taking in three Scottish venues – got under way.
Dr Meyer also attended hearings at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Thursday, where five pro-Palestine campaigners are accused of racially aggravated conduct after disrupting a concert by the Jerusalem Quartet at the city’s Queen’s Hall.
Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
He said: “The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
“It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world … but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured.”
Dr Meyer was born in 1924 in Bielefeld, Germany. He was not allowed to attend school there after November 1938. He then fled to the Netherlands, alone. In 1944, after a year in the underground, he was caught by the Gestapo and survived 10 months at Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.
He now lives in the Netherlands, and is the author of three books on Judaism, the Holocaust and Zionism.
Dr Meyer also insisted the definition of “anti-Semitic” had now changed, saying: “Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.”
A spokesman for the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, of which Dr Meyer is a member, said criticising Israel was “not the same” as criticising Jews.
Mick Napier, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign chairman and one of the five demonstrators facing charges when the court case continues in March, said: “Palestinians are happy to have him as an ally in their cause.
“Hajo knows that Israel has a long history of abusing the tragic history of the Holocaust in order to suppress legitimate criticism of its own crimes.
“Especially since Gaza, people are no longer taken in by their claim that anyone that criticises Israel is anti-Semitic.”
Christopher from Colombo asked “The Qur’an says believe in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Bible says believe in Jesus (PBUH) and he will give eternal life so where did Jesus make his mistake to unable to save the people?” Watch this video to know the answer… I) Position of Jesus (pbuh) in Islam: (i)Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh).
(ii) We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).
(iii) We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.
(iv) We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).
(v) We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission.
(iv) We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission. II) Concept of God in Christianity: 1. Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, “I am God” or where he says, “worship me”. In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh): (i) “My Father is greater than I.” [The Bible, John 14:28]
(ii) “My Father is greater than all.” [The Bible, John 10:29]
(iii) “…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God….” [The Bible, Mathew 12:28]
(iv) “…I with the finger of God cast out devils….” [The Bible, Luke 11:20]
(v) “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” [The Bible, John 5:30]
2. The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) — to Fulfill the Law Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” [The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]
3. God Sent Jesus’ (pbuh)
The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:
(i)”… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” [The Bible, John 14:24]
(ii)”And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.” [The Bible, John 17:3]
4. Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity
Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:
“And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ “ [The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17] Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh). 5. Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth — a Man Approved of God
The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God. “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” [The Bible, Acts 2:22]
Definition of blaspheme; speak irreverently about God or sacred things: such as he has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.
Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things. Some countries have laws to punish blasphemy, while others have laws to give recourse to those who are offended by blasphemy. Those laws may discourage blasphemy as a matter of blasphemous libel, vilification of religion, religious insult, or hate speech.
Etymology
The word “blasphemy” came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Late Latin blasphemare from Greekβλασφημέω, from βλάπτω = “I injure” and φήμη = “reputation”. From blasphemare also came Old French blasmer, from which English “blame” came. Blasphemy: ‘from Gk. blasphemia “a speaking ill, impious speech, slander,” from blasphemein “to speak evil of.”‘ ”In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.).”
Blasphemy laws
In some countries with a state religion blasphemy is outlawed under the criminal code. Such laws can be used to victimize non-members of, and dissident members of, the state religion.
Christianity
The satirical Alexamenos graffito is believed to be the earliest known representation of Jesus.
Christian theology condemns blasphemy. It is spoken of in Mark 3:29, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable—the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense; and over the meaning of “unforgivable”. In 2 Kings 18, the Rabshakeh gave the word from the king of Assyria, dissuading trust in the Lord, asserting that God is no more able to deliver than all the gods of the land. In Matthew 9:2, Jesus spoke the words “Your sins are forgiven you”; He was accused of blasphemy, since only God can forgive sins, although Christians believe that Jesus is God and hence entitled to do so.Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians.
Thomas Aquinas says that “it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.”
The Book of Concord calls blasphemy “the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed”.
The Baptist Confession of Faith says: “Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.”
The Heidelberg Catechism answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that “no sin is greater or provokes God’s wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name”.
The Westminster Larger Catechism explains that “The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane…mentioning…by blasphemy…to profane jests, …vain janglings, …to charms or sinful lusts and practices.”
Calvin found it intolerable “when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.”
Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy
In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy. For instance, The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer) first introduced by Sister Marie of St Peter in 1844 is recited “in a spirit of reparation for blasphemy”. This devotion (started by Sister Marie and then promoted by the Venerable Leo Dupont) was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885. The Raccolta Catholic prayer book includes a number of such prayers. The Five First Saturdays devotions are done with the intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives.The Holy See has specific “Pontifical organizations” for the purpose of the reparation of blasphemy through Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ, e.g. the Pontifical Congregation of the Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face.
The penalties attached to blasphemy
In the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on the occasion of theblasphemy of Salumith’s son: “The man that curseth His God, shall bear his sin: And he thatblasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die” (Leviticus 24:15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (2 Kings 18:37, 19:l; Matthew 26:65).
Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a constitution of A.D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks, according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A.D. 818, this sin was a capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of “the things that defile a man” (Matthew 15:20; Mark 7:21-23).
Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by Pius V in his Constitution “Cum primum apostolatus” (p. 10). According to the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year’s income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys.
Writer Salman Rushdie was accused of blasphemy and subject of a fatwā issued byAyatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in February 1989.
Death sentence
Christianity In Britain’s last blasphemy execution, 20-year-old Thomas Aikenhead was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.
Islam
The Quran and the hadith do not mention blasphemy. According to Pakistani religious scholar, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, nothing in Islam supports blasphemy law. Rather,Muslim jurists made the offense part of Sharia; the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa.
Judaism
In the third book of the Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that he that blasphemes the name of the LORD ”shall surely be put to death”. See also List of capital crimes in the Torah. The Seven laws of Noah, which Judaism sees as applicable to all people, prohibit blasphemy.
The United Nations
In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue for the United Nations. The General Assembly passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the “defamation of religions.”
Colloquial usage;
Blasphemy has been used to mean “irreverence” in a non-religious context. Sir Francis Bacon uses “blasphemy” in this way in Advancement of Learning, where he speaks of “blasphemy against teaching”.”Blasphemy” may be used as a substitute for “profanity” or “cursing” as it is used in this sentence: “With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive’s replacement spring was finally fitted.”In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often used hyperbolically. This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the word ‘blasphemy’ is a common case used for illustrative purposes.
P.S. Zionist may not like this, they can go and play in the traffic lmao
z
