HappyB4 Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Hello All - I'm new to posting here...I've been lurking for a while. You guys can be so funny and have humored me much in my days of confusion. Anyway...I've been (or have tried to be) a Christian for the past couple of years. I just can't seem to get it. I don't even know what's real anymore. After telling my feelings to my somewhat fundy hubby, he has encouraged/forced me to read many things - none very objective, of course. One of these is Daniel 9:24. Finally...my question is this.... Who wrote Daniel...really... and when. And even if it wasn't until later (165BCish) wouldn't it still be consided fulfilled if whoever wrote it backdated then predicted the crucifixion? I apologize for my ignorace. I'm working on it! If that doesn't make sense please tell me and I'll try again. Thanks! Also...what do you all think of Lee Strobel? Hubby thinks I should read The Case for Christ. I kind of think it's too late and don't know if I can be "saved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Lee Stroble is, being kind, excremental apologetic nonsense of the first water. I'd save the money for something useful... like toilet paper The Book of Daniel... I'd look at wiki for the first bit, since it's simple and you can follow external links and references from there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel There a good collection of reading there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Happy B4: Welcome to Ex-Christian. Daniel 9:24: "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." Why this particular verse? Why not start at verse 20 where it is explained that this is a vision and Gabriel is speaking? Most specifically, how is this predicting the crucifixion? Nothing there I can see about crucifying someone. Even if there were, do you think sin has ended as a result of the crucifixion? I am not sure anyone knows who wrote Daniel. According to my Oxford Annotated Bible the stories in the book of Daniel were written by "a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 - 164 B.C." I am much more concerned about why you say "I kind of think it is too late and don't know if I can be saved." Why are you worried, and why do you need to be saved and from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I wonder why be hung up on Daniel 9:24...this mysterious 70 weeks has been tossed around for centuries by the christians as being somehow applicable to their own version of the parousia, but not a whole lot of agreement on what, if anything, it means for christians. Being that the volume was probably written during the period of Seleucid kings, which were hated by the Jews, it was more likely another plea to get the people back on track with their religion so their god would come to their rescue and kick out Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He was responsible for the "abomination that maketh desolate" of the temple. Rather, if you want to get a good perspective on the development of both christian and jewish religious lore, I would highly recommend Dr. Mike Magee's superb web site, www.askwhy.co.uk As far as Lee Strobel goes, don't waste your time, and ignore his contemporary Josh McDowell as well. I tried to read McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" in the 1970's, and even though I'm not schooled in the arts of logic, I couldn't finish it. It contains more bullshit than the Chicago stockyards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'm a little confused as to why your husband is having you read this verse in Daniel. Is he trying to use it as a proof text? Jews for Judaism has a refutation of the Christian "proof texts" in Daniel. You might find that to be useful. I'm with others here in thinking the thing you might need to be "saved" from is Christianity itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyB4 Posted August 26, 2007 Author Share Posted August 26, 2007 First of all let me say that I am in over my head trying to justify my disbelief with my husband. He is much more knowledgable about the Bible than me. This is becoming a major issue between us. I have never felt like crap more than when I go to church to be told how sinful I am and how I can't do anything for myself. I just don't see how the Christian God is so loving. However, I have agreed to "read up" so that I can at least be an informed nonbeliever. I was not a very informed Christian. The more I read, the less I liked God, if he even existed. My husband is hoping that with his help, I will see things the "right" way. I don't think so, but I owe it to him. He really is great. OK... Daniel 9:24: "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." Why this particular verse? Why not start at verse 20 where it is explained that this is a vision and Gabriel is speaking? I started there because that is where my confusion begins and continues through 27. I should have mentioned that. Most specifically, how is this predicting the crucifixion? Nothing there I can see about crucifying someone. Even if there were, do you think sin has ended as a result of the crucifixion? He believes that after the decree was given, and after the first 483 years of the 490, the Messiah was to be cut off. He believes this to mean the death of Jesus, and the opportunity to make reconcilliation for your sins. No - I don't think sin has ended. Sin is just one among many issues for me right now, though. This is all relatively new to me. I am trying to understand Daniel and the math and who wrote what and when. I am stumped on this. I need to do some research, but don't know where to go. I need to put up a good fight and be able to argue knowledgably about this (Daniel's prophecy) as this was one of the main things that convinced him the Bible was THE TRUTH. I am much more concerned about why you say "I kind of think it is too late and don't know if I can be saved." Why are you worried, and why do you need to be saved and from what? I just meant I already think my belief is gone and is Strobel's book really going to help or it is a bunch of nonsense. I was just joking about being saved....but my husband seriously keeps telling me he doesn't want me to go to hell. That's really getting on my nerves! I hope I clarified. I am so tired. I've got two little ones, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the truth or nontruth of the bible. My "coming out" if/when I do will be very devastating for many of my family and friends. I hope I made enough sense to you! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 First of all let me say that I am in over my head trying to justify my disbelief with my husband. He is much more knowledgable about the Bible than me. This is becoming a major issue between us. I have never felt like crap more than when I go to church to be told how sinful I am and how I can't do anything for myself. I just don't see how the Christian God is so loving. However, I have agreed to "read up" so that I can at least be an informed nonbeliever. I was not a very informed Christian. The more I read, the less I liked God, if he even existed. My husband is hoping that with his help, I will see things the "right" way. I don't think so, but I owe it to him. He really is great. OK... Happy, You don't have to justify a disbelief. If you don't have the evidence to believe then you don't and you can't manufacture it. Do you have to justify a disbelief in hobgoblins? Your husband might be knowledgable about christian doctrine and dogma, but I wonder if he's really knowledgable about the bible. When you consider the bible as literature, it becomes a mixed bag of folklore and fables, poetry, outright fiction, and a smattering of ancient wisdom maxims. You're right. The christian god is not loving. He is a monstrosity. And you are not sinful, you are human, and very likely a good one. Good to be an informed unbeliever. Basically, that's what we ex-christians are. No reason to dispute that your husband is a good guy, but like many fundies, just badly misinformed or voluntarily ignorant of what is real. As a christian, of course he doesn't want you to go to hell. And you won't because hell does not exist. No evidence that Jesus christ did either, for that matter. Christianity's big deception...heaven for the believers, eternal torment for the non-believers, despite any good they might have done. What a horrible way to look at life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 HappyB4, I am sorry if it seemed that I was putting any additonal pressure on you. That wasn't my intention at all. You are in a very difficult situation with your husband. I just hate it when people pull verses out of the Bible, totally out of context and then force their interpretation on others. Other members have pointed out different sources you can go to and look up further information. I only say that I hope things improve for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 First of all let me say that I am in over my head trying to justify my disbelief with my husband. He is much more knowledgable about the Bible than me. This is becoming a major issue between us. I have never felt like crap more than when I go to church to be told how sinful I am and how I can't do anything for myself. That's pretty much standard procedure. First convince someone that they have a disease and then sell them the cure for it. Naturally, the cure is "Jesus" and belonging to the right church. Daniel 9:24: "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." Why this particular verse? Why not start at verse 20 where it is explained that this is a vision and Gabriel is speaking? Most specifically, how is this predicting the crucifixion? Nothing there I can see about crucifying someone. Even if there were, do you think sin has ended as a result of the crucifixion? I concluded that it doesn't predict the crucifixion and Jesus never fulfilled it. I would advise not using the KJV when trying to understand this passage because it contains distortions. This translation is not Christian based as the KJV is: Dan 9:24-27 (JPS 1917 Tanach) 9:24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. 9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. 9:26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 9:27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.' He believes that after the decree was given, and after the first 483 years of the 490, the Messiah was to be cut off. He believes this to mean the death of Jesus, and the opportunity to make reconcilliation for your sins. There are two anointed ones involved in this passage. The first is a prince, who comes after 49 years. The time line is broken into three sections, 49 years then 434 years then 7 years which total 490 years. Many interpretations see this prince as Cyrus of Persia, who was declared God's anointed servant. The second anointed is involved 434 years later. It could be a priest or a king. If there are two persons involved with this time line, then Jesus is eliminated as a candidate. The time line also states that when the second anointed one is "cut off", at the end of the 69th week (or year 483) that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 C.E. and if Jesus was crucified or "cut off" around 30-33 C.E., then his death failed to coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, those two events were supposed to happen at the end of the 69th week. But things didn't work out that way. Jerusalem wasn't destroyed until over 35 more years had passed. On another note, valid kings of Israel were supposed to be physically anointed with oil to validate their authority. Jesus was never properly physically anointed by either a prophet or a priest. Calling Jesus "Christ" or "anointed", or "messiah", is presumptuous on the part of Christians. In addition to the links already provided you may find this link helpful regarding Daniel 9 and Jesus. http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/daniel9.htm Also, these links cover the same ground: http://jdstone.org/cr/files/seventyweeksindaniel.html http://jdstone.org/cr/files/danielandtheanointedone.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 He is much more knowledgable about the Bible than me. This is becoming a major issue between us. I have never felt like crap more than when I go to church to be told how sinful I am and how I can't do anything for myself. I just don't see how the Christian God is so loving. However, I have agreed to "read up" so that I can at least be an informed nonbeliever. I was not a very informed Christian. The more I read, the less I liked God, if he even existed. My husband is hoping that with his help, I will see things the "right" way. I don't think so, but I owe it to him. He really is great. OK... It's doubtful that this issue will just drop peacefully at this point. Is your husband also "reading up?" If not, why not? Why does it fall to you to justify everything to him? You should both be "informed consumers" as it were. That seems fair to me. As for the xian god not being loving, well, I'd have to agree. I sometimes think of it like my relationship to my cat. I'd like him to not barf up hairballs just anywhere and not do the other stupid cat things that he does but what can I expect...he's a cat. Ultimately I have to simply accept that fact or I'll look pretty stupid trying to get him to be a human. For some reason though this god wants us to come up to his level. He just can't get over the fact that the people in this bible story just can't stop acting like humans. No matter how much he tortures us and threatens us with more torture we just will not stop acting like people do. So he "loves" us but he can't stand to look upon us or just forgive us outright because we continue to act like we do. For some reason we poor humans can understand that "lessor" beings can't come up to our level, and we adjust our expectations as a result, but this all knowing god can't do likewise? Talk about a real shortcoming. This is all relatively new to me. I am trying to understand Daniel and the math and who wrote what and when. I am stumped on this. I need to do some research, but don't know where to go. Read the Jewish site that was recommended (I think there was another site offered up as well that is pretty good) since this is a Jewish, not xian, text. Understand all the "prophecies" from the Jewish perspective and you'll then understand why they really want nothing to do with this religion. I worked out the dates for the exile a long while back. You can look them up yourself if you like but the file I found where I have them are basically this: 597BCE - The exile begins 586BCE - The second deportation 559-529BCE - Cyrus the Great rules (He was made Messiah. He led the Jews back to Judea and started the rebuilding of the second temple). 537BCE - Second Temple construction begins 521BCE -Darius I takes Babylon (the "writing on the wall" story) 517BCE - Second Temple construction finished So 597BCE (when Daniel was "taken") - 70 years (the "end") is 527BCE but old Danny is still in Babylon to talk about "writing on the wall" and to see Darius I take the throne (and beyond). Most of the Jews left when Cyrus came and took them home (Isaiah can't stop talking about it). So what's this 70 years captivity? No one was holding them anywhere. It's made up. Daniel is about Antiochus IV and the possibility that they just might have another messiah on their hands with Judah Maccabee (they didn't because he died just short of the goal). But if this person was to write about these things in the modern day, and be discovered, that would be unfortunate for everyone, so it was "hidden" in this book of "ancient prophecy." Too bad Antiochus went off to fight a battle he wasn't supposed to, and lost, so that a prediction couldn't come true because now we're left with an unfulfilled "prophecy" that people are trying to finish. Also the final "week" in the xian "prophecy" (if memory serves...again it has been awhile since I've looked at Daniel) always has a break in it. The 69 weeks start and run non-stop but that last week just sort of "pauses" indefinitely for no explainable reason (other than it has to). If that's the case then that should be a huge red flag that the "prophecy" should be tossed. Anyhow, history is your friend with Daniel since that's all it is (same as Revelation...except that one has some xian mucking about in it). Please take the things I said above and check them yourself since there is a lot to learn about these events (and I do make mistakes ). The wonderful thing is that this isn't really biblical history but simply history and there is evidence to support that the events in Daniel never took place as described. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Quote this at your husband and see how he reacts: 1 Corinthians 7 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Chrisitans especially - since they're supposed to be so "full of love" - should be more than willing to love and accept their unbelieving spouse without arguing, trying to change them, or making their lives miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 What amazes me is how people who take the six days of creation to be literally six days can take the seventy weeks mentioned in Daniel to mean 490 years. Why not assume it literally means seventy weeks? That would mean that it was referring to something during the time that the book was originally written. What is the criteria for knowing when to take something literally and when to interpret it in a more mystical or symbolic way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 What amazes me is how people who take the six days of creation to be literally six days can take the seventy weeks mentioned in Daniel to mean 490 years. The text is sometimes translated as "seventy sevens." If you're familiar with Hebrew, it makes perfect sense as a week - there are no Hebrew named-days of the week, just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. People who are not familiar with the concept will take "seven" to mean whatever they want it to mean. What is the criteria for knowing when to take something literally and when to interpret it in a more mystical or symbolic way? In Christianity? Whether or not it fits existing dogma. The Rabbis sometimes say that Christian missionaries use the Tanakh like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination, but for support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I just meant I already think my belief is gone and is Strobel's book really going to help or it is a bunch of nonsense. I was just joking about being saved....but my husband seriously keeps telling me he doesn't want me to go to hell. That's really getting on my nerves! I hope I clarified. I am so tired. I've got two little ones, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the truth or nontruth of the bible. My "coming out" if/when I do will be very devastating for many of my family and friends. I hope I made enough sense to you! Thanks! Hello HB4, My first thought when I read your question about the book of Daniel was to PM MWC to respond to your question (my candle blows out when he jumps into a thread like this ). I’m glad to see he responded already. Avail yourself of his knowledge. What I wanted to contribute here is to make mention of the unfortunate side-effect of faith differences in a relationship. That your husband allows his beliefs to over-ride what’s in his heart to judge you as damned cannot be a settling thing for him! It takes me back to my first marriage, actually where we had a difference of beliefs. I felt obligated to accept the doctrines as true… despite what was in my own heart. That’s the thing. How can love be denied because of doctrine? What’s in his heart? Does he REALLY believe you will be damned to hell for having difficulty accepting vague and confusing teachings that hardly any two churches agree on??? This is the whole problem with this sort of mess called “The Truth”. They buy a bill of goods that’s sounds logical, but makes no sense to the heart. It’s a hard thing for males, many times in our culture, to go with what feels right rather than what sounds logical. But if he is sincere, if he truly wants what is right and true for himself, then he needs to find what he feels is right, and that’s much, much more difficult than turning to a “teacher” to “show you what God says”. That sounds so much simpler for someone less in tune with these sorts of internal voices, but the result is like a meal of no substance. Religion is a substance-devoid meal. It looks like steak, but it’s just a cardboard representation. The struggle is really more his than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 What is the criteria for knowing when to take something literally and when to interpret it in a more mystical or symbolic way? In Christianity? Whether or not it fits existing dogma. The Rabbis sometimes say that Christian missionaries use the Tanakh like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination, but for support. I like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 "is Strobel's book really going to help or it is a bunch of nonsense." Strobel's book really isn't going to help if you've decided that Christianity is false. I'm certain he lies in the fact he was an atheist prior to writing the book, since he only really speaks to religious people about the historicity of Christ. A bit like asking a tweaker if Meth is any good. If you want to go back, and you can suspend disbelief then Strobel may be convincing... As someone with a reasonable, amateur, grounding in the history of the subject, I found Strobel poor. He touts as 'fact' stuff that was discredited among biblical scholars in the 19th Century. He makes giant leaps of faith, and most of the book is a emotive appeal rather than 'hard fact' Hence, I'd not use it as toilet roll... Here's a review of the book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyB4 Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 Thanks for all your suggestions. I think I'll dig in to the links today. Think I'll skip Strobel. I think my hubby is starting to doubt again, too. He won't admit it, but he was online with a perplexed look for hours yesterday. He finally looked at your responses and some other Atheist sites. He had been telling me how evil it all was, but he couldn't stop reading. He got stuck defending the Trinity when we came across Semiramsis. Does anyone have any information on this? It's strange how I find religion much more interesting now. I would post a few more questions, but my 2 year old is climbing on my back. I guess he can't be ignored any longer this morning. I must now enter The Wiggles world. I'll be back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I think my hubby is starting to doubt again, too. He won't admit it, but he was online with a perplexed look for hours yesterday. He finally looked at your responses and some other Atheist sites. He had been telling me how evil it all was, but he couldn't stop reading. An honest read can do this. Hopefully he doesn't simply dig in further but takes the time to check things out. He got stuck defending the Trinity when we came across Semiramsis. Does anyone have any information on this? In what context? The trinity, as a doctrine, wasn't formed until the Council of Nicea. However, triads of gods were common place for as far back I am aware (ancient Egyptians worshiped triads in their major centers of worship dating back into the 3000's BCE). The triads normally consisted of a figure representing a father, mother and child (sun, earth and moon) but it didn't have to be this in every case (sometimes the triad was the same deity in three different "phases" of it's life cycle so perhaps youth, middle and old age). Anyhow, the Romans too worshiped a triad of gods. This was Jupiter, Minerva and Hera around 3rd century CE (although I might have that wrong) and so the desire for the emperor to have a triad, or trinity (since we need one god to have the features of a triad instead of an actual triad), in his new religion is no surprise. The people would probably have actually been more confused by a monotheistic god than that of a triad/trinity (that did all the same things the old pagan gods did). Okay, so to better answer your question from what I know. You're into a type of Gnosticism, and not ancient xian gnosticism, but a more modern movement that really doesn't have a basis in anything. You'd do well to simply move along. There was no worshiping of Nimrod's penis (well, maybe there was, I never saw it) and give birth to Tammuz. The people that talk about this stuff take old Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian myths and crank out the crazy by the bushel. Here's the real deal on Tammuz (from Assyro/Babylonian myth FAQ): Tammuz (Dumuzi, Adonis) the brother and spouse to Ishtar, or the lover of her youth. He is a vegetation god. He went into the underworld and was recovered through the intervention of Ishtar. He is sometimes the guardian of heaven's gates and sometimes a god of the underworld. He is friends with Ningizzia. He is exchanged for Ishtar in the Underworld. He guards the Gate of Anu with Gizzida. And here's his reference from the Sumerian FAQ (where the Assyrian's would have gotten him...not the FAQ...the people): Dumuzi (demigod) (Tammuz) A shepherd, he is the son of Enki and Sirtur. (Wolkstein & Kramer p. 34) He is given charge of stables and sheepfolds, filled with milk and fat by Enki. (Kramer 1961 p. 62) He has a palace in Kur, and is due a visit by those entering Kur. He is Inanna's husband. In life, he was the shepherd king of Uruk. "The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi" Utu tries to set Inanna up with him but she initially rebuffs him, preferring the farmer. He assures her that his parents are as good as hers and she begins to desire him. The two consummate their relationship and with their exercise in fertility, the plants and grains grow as well. After they spend time in the marriage bed, Inanna declares herself as his battle leader and sets his duties as including sitting on the throne and guiding the path of weapons. At Ninshubur's request, she gives him power over the fertility of plants and animals. (Wolkstein and Kramer pp. 30-50) "Descent of Inanna to the Nether World" Upon her rescue from the dead, he was pursued by galla demons, which he eluded for a time with the aid of Utu. Eventually he was caught and slain; however, he was partially freed from his stay in the underworld by the actions of his sister Geshtinanna. Now he resides there only half of the year, while she lives there the other half year; this represents seasonal change (see Inanna and Geshtinanna). (Wolkstein and Kramer pp. 71-89) There was also a deity "Bel" which became the Canaanite "Baal." Without qualification, this word simply does mean "lord" as these people who float these theories state. Sadly they leave out that Baal is a proper term used, not only for some "evil" god but also to refer to someone/thing of high status. A man of high status, like refering to someone as a "Lord" today, would be called a baal. Their reasoning is ludicrous to try to turn this word into something that it is not. So hopefully I am mistaken and you didn't wander into the groups I think you did and I just rambled on about all that for no real reason. Like I said above, let me know what exactly you need in regard to Semiramsis and I'll see what I can tell you (not that there's anything to tell that exists outside this made up context but I'll try to see what I can find). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 The 'Christians of Tarsus and Antioch believed that God wasn't triune but three gods... The Arians in Alexandria were true monotheists.... by concatenating the two ideas at Nicea in The Trinity, both were made simultaneously 'correct' and 'heretical' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts