- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,13:28) Quit being ridiculous. I also gave evidence that “monogenes” simply meant “only” or “one of a kind” (see our debate). I also gave instances where the LXX uses “monogenes” in place of the Hebrew “yachid” which always means “one” or “only.” So I have used an example that is not so good. That doesn't get you off the hook because “monogenes” was used as an equivalent for the Hebrew “yachid” which means “only.”
Very good, Roo.We have effectively concluded that “monogenes” had different defintions. Nevermind, I'll save the rest of my response for the debate. See my last post on cif thread. If you agree, pick either one of questions I last posted in our debate, and let's get going.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,13:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,13:28) In the end Eusebius retracted his views anyway.
Hi Jack,What views did he retract?
mike
Have you been reading the Protokos thread? Eusebius submitted his creed to the Council which said that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all the ages.” The Council omitted the “before all the ages” part and put in their revision which goes like this; “begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father.”Then they added these words: “And those who say 'There was when he was not,' and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,'…these the Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes.”
EUSEBIUS SIGNED THIS REVISED CREED THUS ANTATHEMATIZING THOSE WHO SAY THAT JESUS HAD A BEGINNING. THUS EUSEBIUS ANATHEMATIZED YOU.
Did not Eusebius himself “anathematize” you by his signature? Yet you invoke him for support when he anathematizes you. I am now thinking that you did not read my posts (plural) which contained this information because you were afraid you would learn sommething that hurts your case.
At first Nick tried to invoke Eusebius by citing some who said that he was a “good teacher.” But after I posted this information Nick himself said that Eusebius was “inconsistent” because he was not an “anointed” man. Then JA more recently advised us to move on. But you must keep up your filibuster.
Eusebius has anathematized YOU!
the Roo
Please can Mike and KJ remember that the focus and source of our Salvation is through the Testsment of Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures, not Eusebius and what he may or may not have said!
Hi KJ,
Eusebius is only of interest as a carnal librarian.
He claimed to have an original copy of Matthew's gospel in his library later burned down by the romans.He said that this copy read in Mt 28 the words of Jesus as to “baptise in his name”and not in any triad. Who here can argue with him?
Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,18:19) Please can Mike and KJ remember that the focus and source of our Salvation is through the Testsment of Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures, not Eusebius and what he may or may not have said!
AMEN!KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,19:51) Hi WJ, You're getting closer to being completely honest. You said:
Quote What proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning. Now if you take the final leap and admit that there is no doubt about what Eusebius DID suggest in his letter, you will be honest. You don't have to agree with him, but all three of you KNOW you're lying to say it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
You and Paul (and maybe Roo, I can't remember) have both hit me with what Thomas said in Titus. I didn't do end runs around the question, did I? As I remember, I simply stated that I have no response for that scripture. I don't know why Thomas said it, and I don't know why John or Jesus didn't correct him. That's honesty. All I wanted was the same from any or all of you.
You said:
Quote I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. A majority doesn't equal right. And you are right – he could have changed his mind. But for him to have changed it, it would have to mean that he believed what he wrote first. And that was my only point – that in Eusebius' view, at least at the time he wrote the letter you produced, prototokos pasa ktisis DID mean firstborn of every creature.
And the creed that Eusebius signed off on doesn't even imply a trinity. It says the Son was genao by the Father, that he is God FROM God, Light FROM Light, etc.
And you ignore both the info from Wikipedia I posted that says Eusebius submitted under threat of excommunication, and the info that Roo posted that says he came to believe that Arius didn't think Jesus was divine at all, so he joined the “opposition”. So it is just conjecture on both our parts whether he actually changed his beliefs. I don't think so. I think he was like the leaders in John who believed in Jesus, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being put out of the synagogue. By that is my opinion, you're welcome to yours that he truly changed his mind – but that opinion is only valid if you believe he thought differently when he wrote the letter.
peace and love,
mike
MikeHave it your way. Turn your head! Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! You say you want to learn but apparently it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs.
Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change!
How many scriptures does it take Mike?
Why do you keep ignoring the earlier writings of Ignatius and the other Fathers I have posted that denys what you say Eusebius said?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,03:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,19:51) Hi WJ, You're getting closer to being completely honest. You said:
Quote What proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning. Now if you take the final leap and admit that there is no doubt about what Eusebius DID suggest in his letter, you will be honest. You don't have to agree with him, but all three of you KNOW you're lying to say it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
You and Paul (and maybe Roo, I can't remember) have both hit me with what Thomas said in Titus. I didn't do end runs around the question, did I? As I remember, I simply stated that I have no response for that scripture. I don't know why Thomas said it, and I don't know why John or Jesus didn't correct him. That's honesty. All I wanted was the same from any or all of you.
You said:
Quote I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. A majority doesn't equal right. And you are right – he could have changed his mind. But for him to have changed it, it would have to mean that he believed what he wrote first. And that was my only point – that in Eusebius' view, at least at the time he wrote the letter you produced, prototokos pasa ktisis DID mean firstborn of every creature.
And the creed that Eusebius signed off on doesn't even imply a trinity. It says the Son was genao by the Father, that he is God FROM God, Light FROM Light, etc.
And you ignore both the info from Wikipedia I posted that says Eusebius submitted under threat of excommunication, and the info that Roo posted that says he came to believe that Arius didn't think Jesus was divine at all, so he joined the “opposition”. So it is just conjecture on both our parts whether he actually changed his beliefs. I don't think so. I think he was like the leaders in John who believed in Jesus, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being put out of the synagogue. By that is my opinion, you're welcome to yours that he truly changed his mind – but that opinion is only valid if you believe he thought differently when he wrote the letter.
peace and love,
mike
MikeHave it your way. Turn your head! Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! You say you want to learn but apparently it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs.
Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change!
How many scriptures does it take Mike?
Why do you keep ignoring the earlier writings of Ignatius and the other Fathers I have posted that denys what you say Eusebius said?
WJ
Keith,IF Mike has interpreted fragmented qoutes from Eusebius correctly, then it is clear that Eusebius did not stand by what he believed. For he signed the Nicean Creed which condemned Arianism and resulted in his friend Arius being anathematized and going into exile.
Is this Mike's idea of a worthy source and a hero?
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,12:03) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,03:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,19:51) Hi WJ, You're getting closer to being completely honest. You said:
Quote What proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning. Now if you take the final leap and admit that there is no doubt about what Eusebius DID suggest in his letter, you will be honest. You don't have to agree with him, but all three of you KNOW you're lying to say it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
You and Paul (and maybe Roo, I can't remember) have both hit me with what Thomas said in Titus. I didn't do end runs around the question, did I? As I remember, I simply stated that I have no response for that scripture. I don't know why Thomas said it, and I don't know why John or Jesus didn't correct him. That's honesty. All I wanted was the same from any or all of you.
You said:
Quote I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. A majority doesn't equal right. And you are right – he could have changed his mind. But for him to have changed it, it would have to mean that he believed what he wrote first. And that was my only point – that in Eusebius' view, at least at the time he wrote the letter you produced, prototokos pasa ktisis DID mean firstborn of every creature.
And the creed that Eusebius signed off on doesn't even imply a trinity. It says the Son was genao by the Father, that he is God FROM God, Light FROM Light, etc.
And you ignore both the info from Wikipedia I posted that says Eusebius submitted under threat of excommunication, and the info that Roo posted that says he came to believe that Arius didn't think Jesus was divine at all, so he joined the “opposition”. So it is just conjecture on both our parts whether he actually changed his beliefs. I don't think so. I think he was like the leaders in John who believed in Jesus, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being put out of the synagogue. By that is my opinion, you're welcome to yours that he truly changed his mind – but that opinion is only valid if you believe he thought differently when he wrote the letter.
peace and love,
mike
MikeHave it your way. Turn your head! Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! You say you want to learn but apparently it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs.
Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change!
How many scriptures does it take Mike?
Why do you keep ignoring the earlier writings of Ignatius and the other Fathers I have posted that denys what you say Eusebius said?
WJ
Keith,IF Mike has interpreted fragment qoutes from Eusebius correctly, then it is clear that Eusebius did not stand by what he believed. For he signed the Nicean Creed which condemned Arianism and resulted in his friend Arius being anathematized and going into exile.
Is this Mike's idea of a worthy source and a hero?
Jack
Hi JackAgreed! He is desperatly grasping for some evidence that proves his theory, and all he keeps coming up with is a huge pile of straw!
He keeps beating this dead horse!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,04:16) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,12:03) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,03:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,19:51) Hi WJ, You're getting closer to being completely honest. You said:
Quote What proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning. Now if you take the final leap and admit that there is no doubt about what Eusebius DID suggest in his letter, you will be honest. You don't have to agree with him, but all three of you KNOW you're lying to say it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
You and Paul (and maybe Roo, I can't remember) have both hit me with what Thomas said in Titus. I didn't do end runs around the question, did I? As I remember, I simply stated that I have no response for that scripture. I don't know why Thomas said it, and I don't know why John or Jesus didn't correct him. That's honesty. All I wanted was the same from any or all of you.
You said:
Quote I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. A majority doesn't equal right. And you are right – he could have changed his mind. But for him to have changed it, it would have to mean that he believed what he wrote first. And that was my only point – that in Eusebius' view, at least at the time he wrote the letter you produced, prototokos pasa ktisis DID mean firstborn of every creature.
And the creed that Eusebius signed off on doesn't even imply a trinity. It says the Son was genao by the Father, that he is God FROM God, Light FROM Light, etc.
And you ignore both the info from Wikipedia I posted that says Eusebius submitted under threat of excommunication, and the info that Roo posted that says he came to believe that Arius didn't think Jesus was divine at all, so he joined the “opposition”. So it is just conjecture on both our parts whether he actually changed his beliefs. I don't think so. I think he was like the leaders in John who believed in Jesus, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being put out of the synagogue. By that is my opinion, you're welcome to yours that he truly changed his mind – but that opinion is only valid if you believe he thought differently when he wrote the letter.
peace and love,
mike
MikeHave it your way. Turn your head! Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! You say you want to learn but apparently it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs.
Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change!
How many scriptures does it take Mike?
Why do you keep ignoring the earlier writings of Ignatius and the other Fathers I have posted that denys what you say Eusebius said?
WJ
Keith,IF Mike has interpreted fragment qoutes from Eusebius correctly, then it is clear that Eusebius did not stand by what he believed. For he signed the Nicean Creed which condemned Arianism and resulted in his friend Arius being anathematized and going into exile.
Is this Mike's idea of a worthy source and a hero?
Jack
Hi JackAgreed! He is desperatly grasping for some evidence that proves his theory, and all he keeps coming up with is a huge pile of straw!
He keeps beating this dead horse!
WJ
Jack
Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,18:19) Please can Mike and KJ remember that the focus and source of our Salvation is through the Testsment of Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures, not Eusebius and what he may or may not have said!
Okay. To JA, Nick And Roo:How do you know that God is the head of Christ? Is it because you read Greek? NO. It is because some non-inspired human rendered Greek words INTO English words.
Now suppose the trinitarian “scholars” recently “discovered” that the Greek in that phrase really meant “God is the EQUAL of Christ”, because even though the Greek word means “head” today, it had the understood meaning of “equal” in NT times. And Roo, Paul and WJ started pushing this “new discovery” on everyone at HN.
THEN, you found an old NT times letter that said, “I think God is greater than Jesus because the scriptures tell us that God is the “head” of Christ. It would be like a eureka moment for you. You could PROVE from the letter of a mere man that the trinitarian claim is false by the wording of the letter. The writer wouldn't have said, “I think God is greater…because God is the 'equal' of Christ”, right? So you KNOW that the “new discovered” evidence is false, and you get your “God is the HEAD of Christ” scripture back that they were trying to take away from you.
NOW do you understand why the Eusebius letter is important to me? It gives me back “monogenes” AND “prototkos pasa ktisis” that they were trying to take away from me.
peace and love,
mikeHi WJ,
Quote Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! But that is exactly what I should say to you, Keith! Because the letter he wrote of his beliefs agree with mine, not yours. Would you believe if he told you exactly what he wrote in person, in the flesh?
Quote , for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs. Just more end runs. My beliefs just happen to be Eusebius' beliefs. I believed the way I do long before I knew the name Eusebius or Ignatius. Speaking of Ignatius, I bumped two posts for you and Jack and Paul in the prototokos thread.
Quote Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change! How many scriptures does it take Mike?
More than one, Keith.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,04:03) IF Mike has interpreted fragmented qoutes from Eusebius correctly
IF?Good, Jack. You are getting closer to the light. Don't be afraid to come into it.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:19) It gives me back “monogenes” AND “prototkos pasa ktisis” that they were trying to take away from me.
Mike!They stole your monogenes!!!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 21 2010,01:19) WJ…………..I think it is you who is flattering yourself, I see no one learning to become a (TRINITARIANS ) Here who has already proven the False teachings of the Trinity to themselves by the Spirit of the Living GOD. Wide is the Path that leads to destruction (TRINITY AND PREEXISTENCE), Narrow is the Path that leads to Life (non trinitarians and non preexistences). Nearly all “Christendom” believes in the APOSTATE TRINITY TEACHINGS , only a few do not. But you and Thinker are good for us though it keep those proofs of the fallacy of the Trinity ever before us. Keeps us Sharp As we will have to teach the whole World in the future of those false teachings. IMO
Gene! I have read two of your statements about the trinity which I agree with. However when you put in the Preexcisting of Jesus, I have to say to you again, that you are wrong….First of all why do you do that when they are not talking about that…. and second you are wrong I can prove to you that Jesus by His own words was with His Father before the world was…. John 17:5 and He was The Word of God in John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13 and verse 16.
John 6:38says this:” For I have come down from Heaven not to do My will, but the will of Him who send Me.” And
John 3:17 God did not send His Son into the world to…. where did God send His Son from?
?? From Heaven Scripture told me….John 6:38
All these Scriptures and you want to deny that He was with His Father before He came to earth? That is unbelieveable….because I have given you these Scriptures before….. why can't you for once learn from someone else…. yet you expect W.J. to do so~!!!!! that is not right ….I believe that John who was the Brother of Jesus should know and I for one do believe Him, you don't?? that is sad….IreneQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,19:37) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:19) It gives me back “monogenes” AND “prototkos pasa ktisis” that they were trying to take away from me.
Mike!They stole your monogenes!!!
It's okay now, Dennison. Ignatius and Eusebius found it and brought it back to me.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:19) Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,18:19) Please can Mike and KJ remember that the focus and source of our Salvation is through the Testsment of Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures, not Eusebius and what he may or may not have said!
Okay. To JA, Nick And Roo:How do you know that God is the head of Christ? Is it because you read Greek? NO. It is because some non-inspired human rendered Greek words INTO English words.
Now suppose the trinitarian “scholars” recently “discovered” that the Greek in that phrase really meant “God is the EQUAL of Christ”, because even though the Greek word means “head” today, it had the understood meaning of “equal” in NT times. And Roo, Paul and WJ started pushing this “new discovery” on everyone at HN.
THEN, you found an old NT times letter that said, “I think God is greater than Jesus because the scriptures tell us that God is the “head” of Christ. It would be like a eureka moment for you. You could PROVE from the letter of a mere man that the trinitarian claim is false by the wording of the letter. The writer wouldn't have said, “I think God is greater…because God is the 'equal' of Christ”, right? So you KNOW that the “new discovered” evidence is false, and you get your “God is the HEAD of Christ” scripture back that they were trying to take away from you.
NOW do you understand why the Eusebius letter is important to me? It gives me back “monogenes” AND “prototkos pasa ktisis” that they were trying to take away from me.
peace and love,
mike
bumpQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,23:27) Hi WJ, Quote Really from what I have seen it wouldn't matter if Eusebius himself in the flesh told you that Jesus did not have a beginning but was always with the Father, you would still deny it! But that is exactly what I should say to you, Keith! Because the letter he wrote of his beliefs agree with mine, not yours. Would you believe if he told you exactly what he wrote in person, in the flesh?
Quote , for it appears you will not accept anything that contradicts your own manmade theology which is a carbon copy of the JWs. Just more end runs. My beliefs just happen to be Eusebius' beliefs. I believed the way I do long before I knew the name Eusebius or Ignatius. Speaking of Ignatius, I bumped two posts for you and Jack and Paul in the prototokos thread.
Quote Your own admittance about John 20:28 is proof that you will not change! How many scriptures does it take Mike?
More than one, Keith.
mike
MikeThats right, you rest your faith on a questionable figure!
At the same time you deny the other witnesses from the early church Fathers writings which disagree with you, including Ignatius the earliest.
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
How can you claim any natural default meaning to the words “Firstborn” and “Begotten” when Ignatius says clearly…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man…
And again the creed that Eusebius signed off on states…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
But you seem content in buiding straw mans houses that will burn down!
WJ
WJ,
Let me know when you want to take things seriously and actually have a discussion where questions get answered. I've grown weary of all this avoiding and smokescreen crap. I'll repeat the questions one more time:
But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.
This is a letter Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians. What do you think Ignatius meant when he said,
a. The Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD?
b. The Father is unbegotten?
c. The Father is the begettor of the only begotten Son?
d. The Son was the only begotten Son and Word, BEFORE TIME BEGAN, but who AFTERWARDS became also man?a. Do you think he meant that the Father AND the Son are the ONLY TRUE GOD by his statement?
b. Do you think he meant the Father was “un-unique”?
c. Do you think he meant the Father was the “unique-er” of the “unique” Son?
d. Do you think he meant that the Son became the only begotten Son at a time LATER than BEFORE TIME BEGAN?Okay. I've asked them again. I've even clarified the questions one by one for you so there can be no misunderstanding of what I'm asking. Either answer the points DIRECTLY, or don't answer at all, please.
In other words, Keith, I'm NOT asking about Eusebius at all.
I'm NOT asking about anathema's attached to the Nicene Creed.
I'm NOT asking about “fully investitured sons”.
I'm NOT asking about anything else Ignatius wrote.
I'm NOT asking about church fathers.
Etc, etc, etc.It is only 4 questions based on 2 sentences Ignatius wrote. It shouldn't be that hard.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
