Why Was A New Covenent Required?

[ad_orientem]

You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.

No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.

[trippymonkey]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

[ippy]

The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.

I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.

Part of the problem, ippy, is that when you try to do so, you do so so poorly.

Still raining up there Hope?

ippy

[Anchorman]

You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.

No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.

-
Just because many qualified historians have reassessed Constantine in the light of both documentary and archaeological evidence makes them neither cynic nor atheist.

[ad_orientem]

I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent

Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.

The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.

I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.

ippy

I understand humour as well as most, especially sarcasm, but it didn't come across as a joke.

[ad_orientem]

You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.

Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.

No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.

-
Just because many qualified historians have reassessed Constantine in the light of both documentary and archaeological evidence makes them neither cynic nor atheist.

No, what they do is reject faith and therefore they (Ss. Constantine and Helena) assume that neither actually saw their respective visions nor that the cross that was found was the True Cross. However, the faith of the Church testifies that they did and that it was.

[Anchorman]

The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.

[BashfulAnthony]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

Easy!  The story isn't true!

[ad_orientem]

The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.

The faith of the Church is never at odds with Christ. I gave the example of Jonah, or are to going to argue that God never actually spoke to Jonah because he didn't act as he should have straightaway? Sometimes it takes a while to work things out or to act as we should, just as in Jonah's and Constantine's case, but it does not make the vision or conversion less true.

[ad_orientem]

If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.

That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.

The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.

Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.

[trippymonkey]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

Easy!  The story isn't true!

OK So there are some bits in the Bible YOU feel are not true?
Is this one 'false' because it conflicts with what YOU believe or feel God is/was ?

[ad_orientem]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

Easy!  The story isn't true!

OK So there are some bits in the Bible YOU feel are not true?
Is this one 'false' because it conflicts with what YOU believe or feel God is/was ?

It's because he's a Marcionite.

[trippymonkey]

AAHH DO please explain,!!!

[ad_orientem]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

[Anchorman]

The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.

The faith of the Church is never at odds with Christ. I gave the example of Jonah, or are to going to argue that God never actually spoke to Jonah because he didn't act as he should have straightaway? Sometimes it takes a while to work things out or to act as we should, just as in Jonah's and Constantine's case, but it does not make the vision or conversion less true.

-
Well. if his mibs' 'conversion' was so genuine. why could he contenance the minting of coinage with his face - and a PAGAN deity? Why would this monotheistic superhero even THINK oftemples to gods he supposedly didn't believre in being dedicated in his name?
If he WAS Christian, he was a hypocritical Christian.

[Anchorman]

If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.

That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.

The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.

Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.

Not according to the Bible, it ain't.
The church, bells, smells, dog collars and tradition though it is, is NOT the Bible.

[ad_orientem]

If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.

That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.

The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.

Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.

Not according to the Bible, it ain't.
The church, bells, smells, dog collars and tradition though it is, is NOT the Bible.

But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.

[Hope]

But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.

ad_o, whilst the Jews had lots of tradition (as illustrated in the Old Testament), by the time the New Testament documents were written, there was very little 'Christian' tradition.  Apart from the Lord's Supper/Eucharist and (possibly) Baptism there was very little 'traditional' behaviour.

[ad_orientem]

But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.

ad_o, whilst the Jews had lots of tradition (as illustrated in the Old Testament), by the time the New Testament documents were written, there was very little 'Christian' tradition.  Apart from the Lord's Supper/Eucharist and (possibly) Baptism there was very little 'traditional' behaviour.

You don't know what tradition, from a Christian perspective, is.

[Anchorman]

Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)

[Sassy]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

Can you please explain what relevance you think the answer to the question above has to the 'thread question'. Ta

[Sassy]

Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....

Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah???

Nick

Easy!  The story isn't true!

What part of the story of Noah and the flood isn't true?
I ask because Christ tells us differently.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and    what is more, Abraham could not  have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.


http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

No Noah then no Abraham, Isaac, David or Christ....

Bash you need to re-think what you state... God is not a liar and Christ certainly confirmed Noah existed and the flood took place.

[floo]

The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.

[Leonard James]

If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and    what is more, Abraham could not  have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.

Trying to make a coherent, sensible story of dozens of books written by different authors at different periods is an impossible task, with or without the "Holy Spirit". 

That is why you Christians squabble about it so much, and break into different factions.

[Sassy]

The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.

Credible:

Show us what is credible about us, that is us, - being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..


Now show what credibility has to do with either?