Home Forums Church History I Week #4 Class Response Responding to Previous Questions that I had

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14419
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    After reading this article for a second time and now having a better understanding of certain parts of Christian history I am better able to comprehend what is happening. Many sects broke off into their own groups because of differing interpretations of the Bible and varying controversies that had arisen. When Constantine called a meeting with the bishops he was trying to resolve this issue. He wanted everyone to be teaching a unified message. During the meeting controversies were brought up and some people like Arius, did end up going their separate way. As a part of the bishop meeting the Nicene Creed was composed to refute heresies and give a general understanding of what Christians believe. The Nicene Creed specifically refuted the Arianism heresy claiming that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
    As for all the violence, some of it seems exaggerated or taken out of context. There was definitely lots of violence and many disagreements amongst the people but maybe it was not so directly related to Christianity as is portrayed in this article. My understanding of the violence is that it was more tensions that arose and compounded leading to bigger problems. Once all the smaller things had amounted to something larger or one person was particularly aggravated, then the blood would be shed.
    One question that I still have is, Where did the idea that Jesus had a twin brother come from?

    #14423
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I am glad that most of your questions have been answered now that you have a better understanding of what really happened. I also feel like I am able to grasp more of what is going on and am able to filter through what is true and what isn’t in Kurt’s article. It is kind of scary how quickly something can be taken out of context. Earlier in the course we talked about how no one can be unbiased when it comes to history, and I think that Kurt’s bias really shines through in his interpretation of church history. It seems like his goal is to make the Christians look like the bad guys, and he has done an excellent job of that. I don’t understand why people like Kurt think that they can add to or twist history or how people choose to do the same thing with the Bible, such as those who claim that Jesus had a twin brother, or that He was a created being.

    #14426
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    This article has been a valuable teaching tool for me also. How often do I read something about my faith that I do not understand and just move on from it. I found it very helpful and encouraging to come back to this article with a better understanding and to see it more clearly. I had a lot of similar questions, and am thankful to have better answers! I am also challenged by how even just a little bit of knowledge in one area can make such a difference, there is still so much to know and leaqrn!!

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.