[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by ndigila2

do you see the trend? you keep mentioning heresies that were eventually defeated. We need something that permanently changed the doctrine of the apostolic church. So that also rules out nestorianism, monophytism, and monotheletism.

let me finish.the influence continues: from 337 to 350 ce, the emperor in the west, constans, was sympathetic to the orthodox christians, and constantius ii, sympathetic to the arians, was emperor in the east. Arian influence was so great that at a church council held in antioch (341 ce), an affirmation of faith was issued which omitted the clause that jesus had the “same divine nature as god”. In 350 ce constantius ii became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the nicene party (orthodox christians) was largely crushed. After constantius the second’s death in 361 ce, the orthodox christian majority in the west consolidated its position. However, the defense of absolute monotheism and the suppression of orthodox christian trinitarian beliefs continued in the east under the arian emperor valens (364-383 ce). It was not until emperor theodosius i (379-395 ce) took up the defense of orthodoxy that arianism was finally crushed. The unitarian beliefs of arius, however, continued among some of the germanic tribes up until the end of the 7th century.the new encyclopaedia britannica, vol. 1, pp. 549-50. To be continue...

[Ndigila2]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

let me finish.the influence continues: from 337 to 350 ce, the emperor in the west, constans, was sympathetic to the orthodox christians, and constantius ii, sympathetic to the arians, was emperor in the east. Arian influence was so great that at a church council held in antioch (341 ce), an affirmation of faith was issued which omitted the clause that jesus had the “same divine nature as god”. In 350 ce constantius ii became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the nicene party (orthodox christians) was largely crushed. After constantius the second’s death in 361 ce, the orthodox christian majority in the west consolidated its position. However, the defense of absolute monotheism and the suppression of orthodox christian trinitarian beliefs continued in the east under the arian emperor valens (364-383 ce). It was not until emperor theodosius i (379-395 ce) took up the defense of orthodoxy that arianism was finally crushed. The unitarian beliefs of arius, however, continued among some of the germanic tribes up until the end of the 7th century.the new encyclopaedia britannica, vol. 1, pp. 549-50. To be continue...

It doesn't matter whether you finish or not. Arianism and Orthodoxy were engaged in a serious conflict and Orthodoxy eventually emerged victorious (because the doctrine of the ante-nicene fathers doesn't support Arianism). The churches of Antioch and Alexandria reaffirmed Orthodoxy, because they fully participated in the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

It doesn't matter whether you finish or not. Arianism and Orthodoxy were engaged in a serious conflict and Orthodoxy eventually emerged victorious (because the doctrine of the ante-nicene fathers doesn't support Arianism). The churches of Antioch and Alexandria reaffirmed Orthodoxy, because they fully participated in the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

1. Today, there are many modern scholars in Christianity who hold that Jesus Christ was not God. In 1977, a group of seven biblical scholars, including leading Anglican theologians and other New Testament scholars, published a book called The Myth of God Incarnate, which caused a great uproar in the General Synod of the Church of England. In the preface, the editor, John Hick, wrote the following: “The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2.21) ‘a man approved by God’ for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us.”(The Myth of God Incarnate, p. ix.)
   More to follow....

[Ndigila2]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

1. Today, there are many modern scholars in Christianity who hold that Jesus Christ was not God. In 1977, a group of seven biblical scholars, including leading Anglican theologians and other New Testament scholars, published a book called The Myth of God Incarnate, which caused a great uproar in the General Synod of the Church of England. In the preface, the editor, John Hick, wrote the following: “The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2.21) ‘a man approved by God’ for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us.”(The Myth of God Incarnate, p. ix.)
   More to follow....

Uh.. oh. We've got problems
1) You've stepped out of the limits (between 1st and 7th century)
2) The Church of England here is making a theological and not a historical argument (theological arguments very easily refuted by St Irenaeus)

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

Uh.. oh. We've got problems
1) You've stepped out of the limits (between 1st and 7th century)
2) The Church of England here is making a theological and not a historical argument (theological arguments very easily refuted by St Irenaeus)

1. But you wanted to know the influence of those people to the Church! So, I took you from 2 nd Century to the Modern thought of some Christians! and the story goes on!
2. There is a broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him; he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate [in the flesh].[The Metaphor of God Incarnate, pp. 27-8.] The late Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who was himself a New Testament scholar, wrote that “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.”[Jesus and the Living Past, p. 39.] His contemporary, the New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule, said that, “Any case for a ‘high’ Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.”[The Origin of Christology, p. 136.]

1. In a major study of the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation, James Dunn, who affirms orthodox Christology, concludes that “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.”[Christology in the Making, p. 60.] Again, Brian Hebblethwaite, a staunch upholder of the traditional Nicene-Calcedonian Christology, acknowledges that “it is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus.”[The Incarnation, p. 74.] Hebblethwaite and Dunn, and other scholars like them who still believe in Jesus’ divinity, argue instead that Jesus did not know he was God incarnate.
   NEXT.....GET BE PREPARED FOR THE SHOCK!

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

Uh.. oh. We've got problems
1) You've stepped out of the limits (between 1st and 7th century)
2) The Church of England here is making a theological and not a historical argument (theological arguments very easily refuted by St Irenaeus)

1. But you wanted to know the influence of those people to the Church! So, I took you from 2 nd Century to the Modern thought of some Christians! and the story goes on!
2. There is a broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him; he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate [in the flesh].[The Metaphor of God Incarnate, pp. 27-8.] The late Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who was himself a New Testament scholar, wrote that “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.”[Jesus and the Living Past, p. 39.] His contemporary, the New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule, said that, “Any case for a ‘high’ Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.”[The Origin of Christology, p. 136.]

1. In a major study of the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation, James Dunn, who affirms orthodox Christology, concludes that “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.”[Christology in the Making, p. 60.] Again, Brian Hebblethwaite, a staunch upholder of the traditional Nicene-Calcedonian Christology, acknowledges that “it is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus.”[The Incarnation, p. 74.] Hebblethwaite and Dunn, and other scholars like them who still believe in Jesus’ divinity, argue instead that Jesus did not know he was God incarnate.
   NEXT.....GET BE PREPARED FOR THE SHOCK!

[Ndigila2]

Originally Posted by Muhammad_4

1. But you wanted to know the influence of those people to the Church! So, I took you from 2 nd Century to the Modern thought of some Christians! and the story goes on!
2. There is a broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him; he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate [in the flesh].[The Metaphor of God Incarnate, pp. 27-8.] The late Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who was himself a New Testament scholar, wrote that “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.”[Jesus and the Living Past, p. 39.] His contemporary, the New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule, said that, “Any case for a ‘high’ Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.”[The Origin of Christology, p. 136.]

1. In a major study of the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation, James Dunn, who affirms orthodox Christology, concludes that “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.”[Christology in the Making, p. 60.] Again, Brian Hebblethwaite, a staunch upholder of the traditional Nicene-Calcedonian Christology, acknowledges that “it is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus.”[The Incarnation, p. 74.] Hebblethwaite and Dunn, and other scholars like them who still believe in Jesus’ divinity, argue instead that Jesus did not know he was God incarnate.
   NEXT.....GET BE PREPARED FOR THE SHOCK!

Okay, with this post I've reached my "I've had enough of this" point.

I leave the readers to form their own conclusion. Did Muhammad fully justify Islam's claim that Christianity deviated from Christ's teachings between 1st and 7th so as to justify the coming of another Prophet to correct those teachings?

Muhammad, I urge you not to read the Ante-nicene fathers for yourself, instead of relying on secular scholars to interpret history for you.

[Muhammad_4]

Originally Posted by Ndigila2

Muhammad, I urge you not to read the Ante-nicene fathers for yourself, instead of relying on secular scholars to interpret history for you.

1. Regretable, I have a lot to share with you please dont leave.
   Following is an article, which appeared in The Daily News (25/06/84) some years ago, clearly indicates the degree to which there are doubts among the clergy regarding Jesus’ divinity.
   Shock survey Of Anglican bishops
   LONDON: More than half of England’s Anglican bishops say Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today.
   The poll of 31 of England’s 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ’s miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible.
   Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as “God’s supreme agent”. One declined to give a definite opinion.
   The poll was carried out by London Weekend Television’s weekly religion show, Credo.
   “DAILY NEWS” 25/6/84

MORE TO FOLLOW....