Answers - Part Two

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jun 15, 2010 at 19:38

In addressing your continued concerns, there is the sense that a difficulty arises in trying to understand the efforts of many who, in their desire to provide some illumination of an intellectual sort, tend to lose the simple truth in a confusion of rhetorical and interpretational over-analysis. This goes back to the first attempts to discern just exactly what Jesus Christ said, and few could impart the simplicity of it all.

Many appear to have problems in determining doctrine from simple truth. From my perspective, Paul had the Spirit guiding him in taking the Old Testament, examining it under the old school of his rabbinical scholasticism, converting it by understanding Who Jesus Christ is in New Testament, and disseminating what he learned from Jesus Christ to the first century disciples. That Paul was misunderstood initially by those early believers was put under scrutiny when he and Peter had their meeting of the minds and Peter was guided by the Spirit to understand what Paul was witnessing. Over analysis of that leads to missing the simple beauty of what Paul had learned and was sharing with his fellow believers. Guess what that message was.

By the time of the Nicene frame of reference, much in the way of error had already been introduced, as Paul had warned, being found in the Gnostics and others. This interference was an outgrowth and variation of the attacks by the enemies of Christianity is trying to dissuade others from becoming believers in faith. It is a process that continued until the time of the Islamic Prophet, out of which corrupted teachings we find the understanding of why the Quran was dictated.

As to the historical and 'provable' aspects of the Nicene council, it is a record of an outcome that is as exposed to question as any other aspect of history, which for me makes it suspect if there is a contradiction to the truth of Jesus Christ. One would think that as close to the time of Jesus Christ's mission to His people as that was, there would have been no question as to the authenticity of their efforts; and yet here you are questioning it. I can see the reason why. For example, after the Roman attempts to 'cleanse' the ethnicity and religious aspects of the Jewish presence in the former kingdom of Judaea, I have read where Constantine's mother tried to determine the location of revered sites, such as where the crucifixion was, or the location of the tomb, and they could not. Today, the location of the cross is a matter of geological evidence, and one in Jerusalem can walk right up to it, though I would suspect permission is needed. On the other hand, I could not care less where the tomb is, for Jesus Christ is not buried, there, or anywhere else: He lives. This is the simple basis of what Paul teaches.

Because that is what Paul teaches, it is the very reason that he was persona non grata. Indeed, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, he was considered a traitor, and if they could have at the time, they would have attempted to strip him of his identity: they chose to have him executed instead. The Romans would have that privilege later. Flavius Josephus, as I was taught, was a Roman consort (hence the Latin name), who was of the same school as those who would have sentenced Paul to death. In that vein, what might you think he is going to write as a non-Christian…it is a no-brainer. But, he does mention Jesus, even if it is a footnote to his history.

So the Nicene council moves Christianity to its next era, a phase, so to speak. It is a beginning that finds the disparity of beliefs taking root in the unbelief, caused by a lack of being true to Jesus Christ's teachings, and a point of furthering the factiousness that became inherent in the religiousness of the varying sects, without seeking the unity of obedience to the simple message of Jesus Christ. Paul ridiculed the bickering of such disunity, saying that his knowledge of the Judaic ways was loss to him of it interfered with his relationship with Jesus Christ. If we find that the Nestorians, and those who have followed in their footsteps, have fallen away from the simple truth of the words of Jesus Christ, then they too are suspect in their teachings. I have read that the Gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic, of a necessity to underscore the trace of Jesus Christ's throne in the fulfillment of His accession to the throne of David. But the rest of the Gospels were in the koine international tongue understood by many of the people of time. Why is there a difference? I have curiosity which begs the question, but the answer is not necessary to the establishment of my faith. As such, when Mel Gibson made his movie and was using subscripted Aramiac for its dialogue, it was interesting, but unnecessary for the undergirding of my faith. The simple message of Jesus Christ being punished for telling the truth and then put to death at the misguided whim of the Roman procurator to please the Pharisees and Sadducees is all that needs be demonstrated for the redemption of sinful mankind; and the resurrection and ascension to justify my faith in Who Jesus Christ really is. Paul speaks to that issue as well.

As to the attempt of making a comparison between Paul's conversion in His meeting with Jesus Christ, and that claimed by the Islamic Prophet, there is no conversion apparent in the Islamic Prophet's encounter (unless there is such found in the writings-no one has clarified that to me): as such, I would have to say that no conversion means the meeting did not go well. In every meeting of Biblical persons in the Holy Bible, the encounter with the Almighty God of the universe produces a cathartic type of experience with results that are still the basis of faith in Jesus Christ today. Maybe that is why it is difficult to understand why there are converts from Islam to Christianity, which in doing so invokes the wrath of fundamentalist Muslims.

Remember that there is no humanly logical reason to discuss whether Jesus Christ met the Islamic Prophet in the same way that Paul had his conversion experience; that for me, if no conversion took place, then the witnesses would have dramatic differences, as can be seen in the disparity between the two. Therefore, there is NO comparison. Paul had his conversion; the Islamic Prophet had his vision.

Isaiah 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7) Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. 8) The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

Acts 10:38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

This can only be fulfilled by the Son of David. The Islamic Prophet determined he, like you, did not desire to believe the Holy Bible, and so the Quran was dictated.

So, we do return to the question of the identity of Israel, and of its preparation to be fully returned to becoming the throne of the Son of David. That the current status of the Jewish mentality towards Israel's Jewish identity is under question is exemplified in Ezekiel, chapters 36 and 37. So, the Zion model as espoused by Hertzl is so identified, under the misguided thinking that a secular Israeli state would be acceptable in a world that chases out truth with religious fanaticism, only to try and replace it with some secularly scrubbed government. Paul writes all government is given of Almighty God. How those governments function, whether under scriptural guidance or not, determines their fate in history. You mentioned the Jewish population in Persia, and that they were under Cyrus's control…read about that in Isaiah, and understand that Persia today is nothing but a shadow of its former glory.

NO, I do not have the belief that western Christianity is going to replace Israel in the Holy Land. That is as unscriptural as any other false belief. You are correct in the statement of inherent danger in attempts to contradict the WORD of the LORD. Yet that is what Islam seems to be doing just as much as the misguided idea that Jerusalem is going to be ruled by any other then Jesus Christ Himself. That is the point of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of John. One does not separate from the other, and that is underscored in the writings of Paul.

In the auspices of the above, only those who have faith in Jesus Christ are going to have an inheritance, whether Jewish, Gentile, sons of Abraham (in his faith in Almighty God and His truth) and the sons of Ishmael. Muslims claim to the right of the land have been determined already by the Holy Bible, and understanding that will bring anyone who wants to know how to a point where he (or she) needs to declare a true faith in Jesus Christ, or wonder instead why they cannot understand Paul.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".