Raja Petra or Pete as some know him as, in his opening statement begins
with a quandry
Now, why did Emperor Constantine who was not even a Christian
take so much trouble to interfere in Christianity and decide what form
Christianity should take? In fact, it was Constantine who called for the
Conference and who took charge of the proceedings.
Raja Petra is not raising anything new or unheard off. Essentially, what he
is trying to say is that the Emperor Constantine forced the concept of the Trinity
at the Council of Nicaea 325AD. I have addressed what he said, in an earlier blog.
See Constantine and the Council of Nicaea . In that blog article, i pointed multiple
accounts of early Christian fathers, and personal statements written in letters,
as proof that Christ divinity was understood prior to the Council of Nicaea. What
could be referred to as a legal precedent i.e. stare decisis. These are documented
facts prior to the gathering at Nicaea.
Proceeding with a new hyphothesis that there was a big battle between Unitarians?
and Trinitarians after the Council Nicaea. Forced apon, a mythical genocide, in
Christendom between the two factions.
Raja Petra is spinning yarn faster than i can lay a foundation of logic. He probably
is not aware that there are different types of Unitarianism. One started as a movement
in Europe in the mid 16th century. Unitarian churches in the United States, are really,
atheist churches. I know that it sounds like an oxymoron. Ask Dan Barker, a famous
atheist.
Raja Petra also associates Christendom as the net result of many wars in the Dark
Ages to the period of Enlightment. I do agree that Christian Nations were involved
in sectarian warfare. What i disagree with, the nature of the involvement was the result
of the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah. In a one statement Raja Petra makes to John
MacKee (Why the Bible can use Allah) he quotes:
John Mackee, and please, please, please tell the Christians that this is what Jesus said:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes
will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy
of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake
will find it. (Matthew 10.34-39)
Did Yeshua mean, go to war, and murder in my name inorder to spread the Good
News ? I'll let the reader decide. Luke's passage is clearer.
Politicians, Goverments and Religious Authorities certainly used the banner of
Christianity to justify or turn a blind eye, to unjust wars, colonialism, and yes,
massacres. What did Yeshua, in effect, say to anyone who used his name
"Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. ~ Matthew 7:21
I think it is important that Raja Petra raised these issues. The Church has ,and will
have much soul searching, repentance, and acknowledgement off, sins of the past.
This had nothing to do with 'Unitarian Christians of James, Peter and the other
Apostles, and the Trinitarian Christians of Paul.'
This apparent wedge of two groups of apostles, is really, made up. There was a
disagreement between Peter and Paul ,stemming from an Incident at Antioch.
Circumcision of Gentile Christians versus the Jewish Christians. If what Raja Petra
said was true. The apostles would not have gone separate ways, to the furthest
corners of the world ,and lay their lives on the line. Both Peter and Paul were
martyred in Rome in 66AD. Why didn't they plot against each other or lead jihadist
armies the likes of what occurred after the death of the founder of Islam? There
always has to be a cause and effect in order to explain a hypothesis.
In Part III, i will show what the Quran really says about the Trinity, in reference
to Raja Petra's quote
with a quandry
Now, why did Emperor Constantine who was not even a Christian
take so much trouble to interfere in Christianity and decide what form
Christianity should take? In fact, it was Constantine who called for the
Conference and who took charge of the proceedings.
Raja Petra is not raising anything new or unheard off. Essentially, what he
is trying to say is that the Emperor Constantine forced the concept of the Trinity
at the Council of Nicaea 325AD. I have addressed what he said, in an earlier blog.
See Constantine and the Council of Nicaea . In that blog article, i pointed multiple
accounts of early Christian fathers, and personal statements written in letters,
as proof that Christ divinity was understood prior to the Council of Nicaea. What
could be referred to as a legal precedent i.e. stare decisis. These are documented
facts prior to the gathering at Nicaea.
Proceeding with a new hyphothesis that there was a big battle between Unitarians?
and Trinitarians after the Council Nicaea. Forced apon, a mythical genocide, in
Christendom between the two factions.
Raja Petra is spinning yarn faster than i can lay a foundation of logic. He probably
is not aware that there are different types of Unitarianism. One started as a movement
in Europe in the mid 16th century. Unitarian churches in the United States, are really,
atheist churches. I know that it sounds like an oxymoron. Ask Dan Barker, a famous
atheist.
Raja Petra also associates Christendom as the net result of many wars in the Dark
Ages to the period of Enlightment. I do agree that Christian Nations were involved
in sectarian warfare. What i disagree with, the nature of the involvement was the result
of the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah. In a one statement Raja Petra makes to John
MacKee (Why the Bible can use Allah) he quotes:
John Mackee, and please, please, please tell the Christians that this is what Jesus said:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes
will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy
of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake
will find it. (Matthew 10.34-39)
Did Yeshua mean, go to war, and murder in my name inorder to spread the Good
News ? I'll let the reader decide. Luke's passage is clearer.
25 A large crowd was following Jesus. He turned around and said to them, 26 “If
you
want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and
mother,wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise,
you cannot be my disciple. 27 And if you do not carry your own cross and follow
me, you cannot be my disciple.28 “But don’t begin until you count the cost. (Luke 14)
want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and
mother,wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise,
you cannot be my disciple. 27 And if you do not carry your own cross and follow
me, you cannot be my disciple.28 “But don’t begin until you count the cost. (Luke 14)
Politicians, Goverments and Religious Authorities certainly used the banner of
Christianity to justify or turn a blind eye, to unjust wars, colonialism, and yes,
massacres. What did Yeshua, in effect, say to anyone who used his name
"Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. ~ Matthew 7:21
I think it is important that Raja Petra raised these issues. The Church has ,and will
have much soul searching, repentance, and acknowledgement off, sins of the past.
This had nothing to do with 'Unitarian Christians of James, Peter and the other
Apostles, and the Trinitarian Christians of Paul.'
This apparent wedge of two groups of apostles, is really, made up. There was a
disagreement between Peter and Paul ,stemming from an Incident at Antioch.
Circumcision of Gentile Christians versus the Jewish Christians. If what Raja Petra
said was true. The apostles would not have gone separate ways, to the furthest
corners of the world ,and lay their lives on the line. Both Peter and Paul were
martyred in Rome in 66AD. Why didn't they plot against each other or lead jihadist
armies the likes of what occurred after the death of the founder of Islam? There
always has to be a cause and effect in order to explain a hypothesis.
In Part III, i will show what the Quran really says about the Trinity, in reference
to Raja Petra's quote
No comments:
Post a Comment