Godhead
On May 20, 325 AD the world was forever changed. Emperor Constantine called a meeting of the 318 Bishops at Nicea and on that day they instituted one of the greatest flaws of American religion today. This is the doctrine of the Trinity, suggesting the view of the Oneness doctrine, believing on one God and His name being Jesus, is no longer correct.
The Trinity doctrine cannot be proven by simply reading the scriptures; it has to be described and explained in detail, before you can begin to see the Trinitarian view. The Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of inference, not a doctrine of fact. If you ever listen or take part in a Oneness verses Trinity debate you will find that as long as they are quoting scriptures the Trinity looses ground. Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity must be “injected” into the scriptures to prove itself. One man once said “The Trinity has to be piped into Scripture before it can be piped out.”
The best example is: everyone knows you can’t get milk from cotton. But, if you take the cotton and soak it in milk first then you can squeeze the milk from the cotton. In the same sense the Trinity doctrine is like this. Before you can begin to see the Trinity doctrine, someone has to tell you about it and then go to scripture to prove it as fact.
By just reading the scriptures first, no one will ever find the Trinity represented, for the scriptures prove the Oneness of Jesus Christ all through the Bible.
I do not understand how the doctrine of the Trinity can get around the unity of the Old Testament and New Testament stating the One God facts. Deuteronomy 6:4(NKJV) states: “Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:”. That sums up the doctrine of the Oneness. But, one instance will not satisfy. Here are just a few of the misconceptions of the Trinity Doctrine that cause it to be in fault:
First: “Elohim”
“Elohim”, meaning "God", is sometimes confused to show the plurality of the Godhead, this is not a correct interpretation. In the Hebrew words are plural in construction but singular in the way that they are used. Also the Hebrew often used plural forms to show majesty or greatness of one person or deity. Even though these are plural words, to say they represent a multiplicity in the Godhead would be wrong.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s attitude towards the French Revolution is one that has often raised questions. That the revolution had an influence on Bonaparte’s regime cannot be denied – but to what extent? When one looks at France after Napoleon’s reign it is clear that he had brought much longed for order and stability. He had also established institutions that embodied the main principles of the revolution. However, it is also evident that many of his policies directly contradict those same principles. Was Napoleon betraying the same revolution that gave him power, or was he merely a pragmatist, who recognised that to consolidate the achievements of the revolution he needed to sacrifice some of those principles?
He was a big supporter of the revolution and the Directory and served them well. According to the Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia of January, 2013: “Napoleon’s remarkable early success was in part a matter of good fortune and in part the product of an unconquerable will and energy that took the maximum advantage of every political and military opportunity” (Rollyson). He was a brigadier general for the revolution, but was imprisoned when Jacobins were taken out of power and Thermidorean was sent into it. He however was soon released. With many great victories in Egypt and a powerful marriage, he was a very known and liked man. Napoleon was able to overthrow the Directory in 1799. Napoleon was a great leader and settled the chaos of the revolution down. He was able to restore France’s relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope in 1801. He proclaimed himself supreme Emperor of France in 1804. He also gave religious freedom to Protestants and Jews. He also published the Napoleonic Code/Civil Code of 1804. This code established political and legal equality for all adult men; therefore, religion no longer had a prejudice in court or people of authorities. With this code; however, he restricted the freedom of speech and freedom of the media. Throughout his career, he expanded France’s borders to the size of an empire. The only reason Napoleon was not able to take all of Europe
Napoleon was able to grant French citizens natural rights, which was the main purpose of the Revolution, and use this to better society as a whole. For example, he used a plebiscite, vote of the people, to approve a new constitution that gave him power to rule. By getting the consent of the people to rule and to create and pursue certain actions in government, Napoleon used the governed as a ruling mechanism; he didn't ignore them. He created a system of meritocracy (what the people wanted): granting positions to those that deserved them based on qualifications, not just handing out jobs to people of higher social status giving “careers open to talent (Coffin and Stacey, 494).” Finally through his supremacy as French ruler,...
One of Napoleon’s first areas of concern was in the strengthening of the French government. He created a strong centralized government and pretty much got rid of the hundreds of localized law codes that had existed during under the control of the monarchy. He also created an army of government officials. He had the entire country linked under a rational administration. He also was able to get an easy supply of taxes and soldiers under his new and improved French government. Before he could get very far, however, he had to gain public favor and shape the public opinion. To do this he used reforms of propaganda and thus caused people to think that they were getting the better end of the deal, but were actually, subconsciously giving Napoleon their approval for his actions. Among some of the methods he used for propaganda included getting all of the printers and book sellers to swear an oath to Napoleon and all newspapers fell under state control, so Napoleon gained access to almost everything that the citizens of France were able to read. Many of the gains from the French Revolution were kept, such as equality before the law, and careers open to talent. Some anti-revolution actions that Napoleon took included repressing liberty, restoring absolutism, and ending political liberty. He believed that allowing political freedom would end with a state of anarchy. He believed that he could solve these problems by acting in favor of the people’s interests as an enlightened desp...
Sabbagh, S. J., & American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, W. C. (1990). Sex, Lies, & Stereotypes: The Image of Arabs in American Popular Fiction. ADC Issue Paper No. 23. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Movies, one can argue, are one of America’s greatest pastimes. Unfortunately, after 9/11, films have become increasingly prejudiced against American Muslims. In movies Muslims are frequently portrayed negatively. According to James Emery, a professor of Anthropology, Hollywood profits off of “casting individuals associated with specific negative stereotypes”. This is due to the fact that viewers automatically link characters with their clichéd images (Emery). For Muslims, the clichéd image is of the violent fundamentalist, who carried out the terroristic attacks on 9/11. As a result, the main stereotypes involved in movies display Muslims as extremists, villains, thieves, and desert nomads. An example of a movie that has such a negative character role for Muslims in film is Disney’s cartoon Aladdin, depict...
One of the most controversial figures in European History, Napoleon Bonaparte has never ceased to be a generator of debate and analysis among historians, authors, and students. Napoleon has been closely scrutinized by many in attempts to defend or demote his motives, ambitions, and actions as Emperor of France. Nonetheless, those with true qualities of a ruler are few and far between – and Napoleon possessed the drive and ambition to bring these qualities to their full potential. Napoleon was the hero of nineteenth-century France, restoring the country to its former glory after the violence, instability, and turmoil of the French Revolution. Napoleon was the classic underdog, originally viewed as a “second-class Frenchman” due to his Corsican origins, but rising to success based on his own hard work and determination. He demonstrated the most improbable capacity for resilience; although he faced defeat on multiple occasions, he persevered and continually refused to surrender. As well, Napoleon was a protector and enforcer of “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” through the promotion of religious freedom and the nationwide application of French laws throughout his rule.
Krostenberger and Swain (2008) from the patristic period until today, John's Gospel has served as a major source of the church's knowledge, doctrine and worship of the triune God. Among all New Testament documents the Fourth Gospel provides not only the most raw material for the doctrine of the Trinity, but also the most highly developed patterns of reflection on this material—particularly patterns that seek to account in some way for the distinct personhood and divinity of Father, Son and Spirit without compromising the unity of God. While there have been recent, fine studies on aspects of John's doctrine of God, it is surprising that none summarises and synthesises what John has to say about God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In order to fill this
Napoleon Bonaparte should be considered a “benevolent despot” to a near-full extent because while some may argue that Napoleon’s political actions were solely based on self-empowerment due to him limiting the voice of the people, it is important to note that Napoleon’s regime was designed for the purpose of benefiting French society as a whole by implementing various French Revolutionary ideals such as the promise of equal rights amongst all citizens. Hence, through incorporating such ideals, Napoleon was able to gain the support of his subjects, and therefore was able to further expand his empire.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Nothing has been simpler than my elevation…It is owing to the peculiarities of the time.” Coming to power at a time of instability and disorder in France immediately following the French Revolution, Napoleon quickly established himself as the political leader and military power behind France. Easily and efficiently overthrowing the poorly managed Directory, Napoleon established a three man governing body referred to as the Consulate. Naming himself Consul for Life in 1802, and crowning himself emperor in 1804, Napoleon made it clear that is was a time of dramatic change in France. Although establishing himself as an absolute ruler, Napoleon did it all with the support of the people, through the use of a plebiscite. Obviously a man that held immense power, Napoleon has been credited with many great successes. To the people of France, Napoleon was a savior, a man who could, despite being an autocrat, implement the ideals of the French Revolution. Establishing order, giving the French people a sense of security, and running his government smoothly became Napoleon’s priorities. Through a variety of reforms including, centralizing the government, establishing public education, instituting religious tolerance specifically signing the Concordat of 1801, and stimulating the economy, Napoleon won the support of French people across the classes, including the peasantry who in years previous had suffered greatly under absolute rulers. One of Napoleon’s most lasting reforms was his installment of the Napoleonic Code, a set of laws that reflected the idea of equality so evidently bannered throughout the French Revolution. Napoleon was able to capture the attention of the French people through every facet except absolutism.
Shaheen, Jack. “The Media’s Image of Arabs.” Writing on the River. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw,
Napoleon had been influenced and guided by the revolution, but he was able to use it to his ends. One of Napoleons greatest strengths was being able to take advantage of a situation, and he certainly was able to utilize the chaos and fear of the revolution. He is forever intertwined with the French Revolution, and it with him.
The doctrine of the Trinity, as seen in the Holy Bible, means that there is one God who eternally subsists as three distinct persons: the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Although they are stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. If examined closer, one can see three important principles. One being, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each distinct persons, the second is each Person is fully God, and the last is there is only one God. In the Bible for example, it speaks of the Father as God, Jesus as God, and the Holy Spirit as God. If one were to simply read these passages, it could seem to be somewhat contradictory. One could believe that these are three different ways to look at God, or maybe three different roles that God plays. However, the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all distinct persons. For example, since God sent his son Jesus into the world, as seen in the book of John, He cannot be the same person as the Son. Furthermore, after Jesus returned to God, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into...
With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country, France, from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.
French Revolution brought a great number of great ideas, but ideas are not beneficial unless they are realized and stabilized. The man to stabilize the concepts of French Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. He started out as an Italian general and ended up being one of the greatest historical figures. First, Directors requested Napoleon's support while organizing a coup d'etat. Then, Bonaparte fought Britain in order to benefit France. Lastly, he was called to help creating a new constitution and ended up as the First Consul of France. At home, he ruled using flattery, but also he strongly resisted the opposition. Napoleon is a pro-revolutionist because he denied all the privileges of the aristocracy, created a new constitution, and also established the Napoleonic Code.