- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Jack,
Do you even read what you write? First, why wasn't it mentioned that the holy spirit was a third of God in the original Nicene Creed? In other words, why do you think it took 55 years to give props to your God #3? It's a direct question, I'll await a direct answer.
Second, you said:
Quote ATTN MIKE: Whether the ancient peoples were right or wrong is not the point. Many ancient peoples had a concept of God as a triune being. Yes Jack. These are the people God had the land “vomit up” because of their disgustion practices. And now you claim that the trinitarians are in “good company”?
WOW!mike
Quote (martian @ Aug. 02 2010,02:19) This is the sense of John 6:62 as well. Yahshua was, at one time, in heaven. He existed in the loins of His Father Yahweh (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth.
Hi Martian,So Jesus was looking forward to ascending back to where he could be a “sperm” inside his Father's “loins” again? This is the fantastic “glory” Jesus was talking about? He was hoping to go back to a “sperm” that couldn't walk, talk, think or do anything else?
Not likely.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2010,15:24) Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,23:03) To mike. Origen said this in the early 200s.
(He was said to be a man who knew the languages of his time.)Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
I don't necessarily disagree with your (and apparently Origen's) understanding. Origen even claims the same reason for coming to his understanding as you do…….fear of people thinking “two gods”. He says people's fear of this drives them to false doctrines.I completely understand this fear. But should we make it out to be “god” instead of “a god” out of fear of what others would make of it?
Where else in all of scripture is “god” used as a qualifier without any article or as a substitute for “divine”?
mike
Hey t8,I thought of something else. John 1:18 NWT says,
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
The Greek manuscripts vary. Some have “only begotten son” while others have “only begotten god”. NETBible says only one letter differentiated between the words. They also say that “theos” is the more likely candidate, since it is less likely a scribe rendered “son” as “god” than it is the other way around. They list more info than I can understand:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18I'll look into it a little closer sometime, but “the only begotten god” makes a good case for John thinking Jesus was “a god”, but not “THE God”. And that fits well with my understanding of John 1:1. And also shreds the first evidence I personally would call “solid” about why neither John nor Jesus said anything to Thomas when he said, “My Lord and my god”. If it was common word usage to call a mighty one “god”, then I'm sure that's what Thomas was implying when he saw the once dead, now living Jesus in front of him. For a dead person to be alive again must have seemed like a very “mighty” thing to accomplish in Thomas' eyes.
peace and love,
mikeFood for thought,
mikeMike………….Jesus became a begotten Son at the Jordan River. Jesus Plainly said ” FOR THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD” Can we not agree on that at least brother.
peace and love to you and yours………………………gene
hi
the pharisees believed in the resurrection,how come?
the sadducees did not why ?
the zealots believe that it was trough a men from David offspring that Israel will trow the enemy out of the land .why?why did Jesus not joint any of them?was it because there was no truth in them? like in most of today Christians,
how better the lip service how bigger is the pay back and deceit,
we are after all in the advance world today,
there is so knowledge that we forgot to practice what we should.no time to obey to the word,only talk about.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2010,15:24) Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,23:03) To mike. Origen said this in the early 200s.
(He was said to be a man who knew the languages of his time.)Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
I don't necessarily disagree with your (and apparently Origen's) understanding. Origen even claims the same reason for coming to his understanding as you do…….fear of people thinking “two gods”. He says people's fear of this drives them to false doctrines.I completely understand this fear. But should we make it out to be “god” instead of “a god” out of fear of what others would make of it?
Where else in all of scripture is “god” used as a qualifier without any article or as a substitute for “divine”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21) Hey t8, I thought of something else. John 1:18 NWT says,
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
The Greek manuscripts vary. Some have “only begotten son” while others have “only begotten god”. NETBible says only one letter differentiated between the words. They also say that “theos” is the more likely candidate, since it is less likely a scribe rendered “son” as “god” than it is the other way around. They list more info than I can understand:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18
I love it when you guys use Trinitarian quotes to support your conclusions even though the conclusions of the Trinitarian Scholars disagree with yours. For instance this part of the NET's commentary…Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). “Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.“” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21) I'll look into it a little closer sometime, but “the only begotten god” makes a good case for John thinking Jesus was “a god”, but not “THE God”.
But that is not the conclusion of the Scholars at all is it Mike. So you think you know more than they?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21) And that fits well with my understanding of John 1:1. And also shreds the first evidence I personally would call “solid” about why neither John nor Jesus said anything to Thomas when he said, “My Lord and my god”. If it was common word usage to call a mighty one “god”, then I'm sure that's what Thomas was implying when he saw the once dead, now living Jesus in front of him. For a dead person to be alive again must have seemed like a very “mighty” thing to accomplish in Thomas' eyes.
Please!!! Where in the NT is it “common usage to call one god”?Thomas didn't call Jesus “his mighty one” did he? There are Greek and Aramaic words for that.
But once again you disagree with Thomas testimony for you say Jesus is not your God (Theos), while Thomas calls Jesus his “Lord and God (Theos)”.
WJ
Keith,
I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do. I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger. Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?
The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith,
I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do. I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger. Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?
The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.
kathiThere is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.
The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…
“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 03 2010,19:02) Hey Brother Terra, where ya' been, man?
hi JAit all is repetition over and over again,it is like building a house then destroyed it and start over again never built a town only same things over ,many do not read the past topics,they do not supply truth but their views disregard what is written in scriptures,
as long that it make sense to them it s ok.Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith,
I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do. I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger. Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?
The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.
kathiThere is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.
The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…
“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?
WJ
Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages. That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE. That is what their point is. The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father. The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father. That is what these early Christians are saying.Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that. The Son's nature, common to God, existed always. The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal. Perfect came FROM Perfect. Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect. The Son's nature is not less than the Father's. That is the message.
The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!
The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.
WorshippingJesus,Aug. wrote:[/quote]
Hi WJ,You quoted:
Quote means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.“” I can live with that second one…….so what's your point?
You said:
Quote But that is not the conclusion of the Scholars at all is it Mike. What are you talking about? The Greek says “the only begotten god”. Well, actually it says:
God no one has seen at any time; only-beggotten god the [one] being into the bosom of the Father, that [one] explained.
How did I misspeak?
You said:
Quote Please!!! Where in the NT is it “common usage to call one god”?
First, I didn't say NT. And I referred to “Biblical times” in general. And there were many called “god” in the Bible. One of them was Jesus. Another was Satan. Some were angels and some were men. The word simply meant “mighty one” in those days.You said:
Quote Thomas didn't call Jesus “his mighty one” did he? There are Greek and Aramaic words for that.
Well, if he called him “god”, then he was calling him a “mighty one”. The question is, do you think Thomas was really saying Jesus was “THE ALMIGHTY ONE”, and no one said anything about it?mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:42) There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time. The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
Hey WJ,Why don't you try to show that from the Nicene Creed? Not the anathema, but the Creed itself. Or maybe from Eusebius or Ignatius.
Kathi is right, the “trinitarians” of old seemed to teach nothing of what you and Jack claim they believed.
And I asked Jack, so now I'll ask you:
Why do you think it took 55 years from the Nicene Creed for your God #3 to be established as a member of the trinity?1. The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. was actually scriptural.
2. The anathema added to it spoke about more of a “binity”.
3. God wasn't a “trinity” until 381 A.D.Why do you think that is?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2010,13:36) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:42) There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time. The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
Hey WJ,Why don't you try to show that from the Nicene Creed? Not the anathema, but the Creed itself. Or maybe from Eusebius or Ignatius.
Kathi is right, the “trinitarians” of old seemed to teach nothing of what you and Jack claim they believed.
And I asked Jack, so now I'll ask you:
Why do you think it took 55 years from the Nicene Creed for your God #3 to be established as a member of the trinity?1. The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. was actually scriptural.
2. The anathema added to it spoke about more of a “binity”.
3. God wasn't a “trinity” until 381 A.D.Why do you think that is?
mike
mike
Mike! My Husband knows much about Ancient History. In His Book He writes that it was Constantine in 313A.D. when that after a brutasl and bloody three Centuries He issued an edit granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion…. was it not about he same time when Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian came up with the trinity??? It is said that the trinity is His best achievement to Christianity…
He was born to Pagan Parents in A.D. 155. To 381 He would have to been 126 years old….That sounds rather old….Do you have any prove of that? Also it was the Roman Universal Church at that time, which became the Roman Catholic Church….And all other Churches came out of Her….
Rather interesting….IreneQuote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,13:51) Mike! My Husband knows much about Ancient History. In His Book He writes that it was Constantine in 313A.D. when that after a brutasl and bloody three Centuries He issued an edit granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion…. was it not about he same time when Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian came up with the trinity??? It is said that the trinity is His best achievement to Christianity…
He was born to Pagan Parents in A.D. 155. To 381 He would have to been 126 years old….That sounds rather old….Do you have any prove of that? Also it was the Roman Universal Church at that time, which became the Roman Catholic Church….And all other Churches came out of Her….
Rather interesting….Irene
Hi Irene,This is some of what I know about it:
I don’t think anyone can say for sure when some people started to consider Jesus Christ as Almighty God. There is no evidence of this kind of thinking for almost 300 years after Jesus died. Then, in the year 321 A.D., a bible scholar from Alexandria, named Arius, differed with his bishop, Athanasius on the question of whether Christ was a finite or an eternal being. Arius believed that Jesus, even as the Logos (Word), was a created being. Jesus, he argued, had a beginning, while God was without beginning. Athanasius asserted that the Son was eternal, uncreated, and of the same essence with God. To settle the dispute, Athanasius had Arius deposed, which only caused the controversy to spread all over.Roman Emperor Constantine, an early champion of the Catholic Church, wanted peace among his subjects, many of whom were Christians. After trying (and failing) to mediate a resolution, he called a council of the whole church to settle the issue once and for all. In the year 325 A.D., delegate bishops were invited, and 300 of those (about 18% of those invited) met at Nicaea and, under pressure from the Emperor, adopted the Nicene Creed. This famous creed states that the Son is, “…God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father…”. This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”
But the decision of these councils did not stand. The church later went back to the Nicene Creed. Even then it took many generations before it became sacrosanct and infallible in the eyes of the church.
This is from research I have done, but it doesn't tell us how Athenasius came to believe like he did. So maybe it did all start with Tertullian. I have no reason to doubt Georg's research.
But the Nicene Creed was penned in 325, and the Constantinopolitan Creed was penned in 381. You can study it and see both creeds side by side on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…._of_381peace and love,
mikeMike,
The more that I read of earlier Christians, the more I think the difference between the Arians and the others was the question, “Was the Son made of the same substance as the Father or was He made out of nothing and thus a foreign substance-but one that is very much like the substance of the Father.”This attachment put on the first Nicene Creed goes along with what I just posted above.
[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.]
found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…._of_381
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith,
I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do. I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger. Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?
The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.
kathiThere is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.
The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…
“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?
WJ
Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages. That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE. That is what their point is. The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father. The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father. That is what these early Christians are saying.Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that. The Son's nature, common to God, existed always. The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal. Perfect came FROM Perfect. Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect. The Son's nature is not less than the Father's. That is the message.
The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!
The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.
KathiIts real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture.
So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point?
WJ
WJ………..So you believe like the Gnostic's Did right, they believed that Jesus shot out from the Pelora as a GOD and came into this earth to straighten out everything. This teaching was exactly what John was fighting when He wrote that if a man believes not that Jesus came in the flesh he is a Antichrist. The words CAME there means (CAME INTO EXISTENCE). All who believe Jesus was a Preexistence Being are Antichrists. This is the (SPIRIT) (intellect) of the Antichrists.
God was not trying to perfect preexisting Beings , but mankind and Jesus was the (FIRST) to achieve that goal of perfection among the creation of Man. This shows us what GOD can DO (IN) and Ordinary Man. IMO
peace and love………………………gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,01:07) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith,
I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do. I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger. Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?
The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.
kathiThere is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.
The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.
They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.
You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…
“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?
WJ
Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages. That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE. That is what their point is. The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father. The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father. That is what these early Christians are saying.Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that. The Son's nature, common to God, existed always. The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal. Perfect came FROM Perfect. Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect. The Son's nature is not less than the Father's. That is the message.
The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!
The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.
KathiIts real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture.
So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point?
WJ
W.J. Not only Col. 1:15-17 and Rev. 3:14 talks about the firstborn of all creation. also in Hebrew 1:6 He says that He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says………..so we have three Scriptures that states firstborn. Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman. Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. This only can means that it was Jesus or The Word of God at that time…..verse 30 Also I do not go by any of the Forefathers….. Some are Catholic and they are worship in vain. Math. 15:9 We did for a long time…..From birth to when my Husband was 46 and I was 45. We both were born into that Church….
Peace and Love Irene
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
