- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,13:10) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,05:50) Kathi said: Quote The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh.
It was by becoming flesh that Jesus became a Son. Paul said that he was “born according to the seed of David and decreed to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1).Jesus could not have neen God's Son before becoming flesh because ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD.
the Roo
Hey Roo.Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,Except if you are female that is.
Do you really believe that?
You are lowering yourself t8. I was simply saying that Christ in His pre-existent condition could not have been a son of God because only men (humans) are sons of God.Again a cheap shot.
KJ
Oh, I didn't get that.
Might have been clearer to me had you said “man” or “mankind” instead of “men'.
Also, considering your other beliefs, new earth and Satan in the Lake of Fire, it wasn't hard to think that this is what you meant.
Apologies.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,09:56) TO ALL: From the Jodi Lee thread:
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?
To MIKE:
Your “expert” did not stand for what he believes assuming that you have interpreted fragmented quotes from Eusebius correctly.
Is this your idea of “expert” testimony Mike? One who says one thing then when the heat is turned up he signs a document that results in his personal friend being anathematized and his going into exile?
the Roo
Yes, Jack. Is that all you have to dispute how Eusebius understood the words “prototokos pasa ktisis”?Will you ever answer the point in question?
I and you both have posted the reasons Eusebius “submitted” to the “opposition”. What does “opposition” mean, Jack? That came from your post.
Mine said he caved under threat of being excommunicated.
To both I say, “SO WHAT?” Answer the point for once so we can move off Eusebius.
This is why we need a judge to “command” you to answer to the point in question. You have been running all around this thing for weeks now. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Is it that hard for you?You said:
Quote Is this your idea of “expert” testimony Mike? One who says one thing then when the heat is turned up he signs a document that results in his personal friend being anathematized and his going into exile? I might ask you the same. Is your idea of “heroes” people who admittedly CHANGE someone's own words and beliefs so that they fit more into THEIR beliefs?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,13:11) Mikeboll said: Quote I am also having trouble figuring out what he meant when he said the Father was the “begetter of the only begotten Son”. Mike,
Eusebius was struggling in his Christology. My textbook sources indicate that he was very concerned about being a peacemaker of Trinitarians and Arians. He wanted them to get along. And I have seen men who want peace use terminology that pleases all parties.
In the end Eusebius signed the Nicean Creed which resulted in his personal friend Arius being anathematized and exiled. So if you are correct in your interpretations of his fragmented quotes, then Eusebius was clearly a man who did not stand up for what he believed.
Is this your idea of a noteworthy source and a champiom apologist?
the Roo
If
AGAIN Jack, you speak of Eusebius in response to something I posted from Ignatius.
Do you even READ my posts?
mike
I have set up a discussion on “Eusebius”, so we can move on with the “Protokos in colossians 1:15 means “preeminent” topic.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,13:17) You are lowering yourself t8. I was simply saying that Christ in His pre-existent condition could not have been a son of God because only men (humans) are sons of God. Again a cheap shot.
Why do you persist in this “only mankind are sons of God” nonsense? You have been scripturally shown by Dennison and JA that you are wrong.mike
Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,13:24) I have set up a discussion on “Eusebius”, so we can move on with the “Protokos in colossians 1:15 means “preeminent” topic.
Hi t8,I started an Eusebius thread, but Jack thinks he is more in control if the thread has his name as starter. So he moved our discussion about Eusebius to this thread. Eusebius has EVERYTHING to do with the “preeminent” question.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,13:17) You are lowering yourself t8. I was simply saying that Christ in His pre-existent condition could not have been a son of God because only men (humans) are sons of God. Again a cheap shot.
KJ
Yes, it's a race to the bottom for the Arians when it comes to their opinions of the nature and identity of Yeshua. Sometimes it appears that they are trying to out do eachother with their negative assessments. Already some of them aree claiming that He was/is just a man like us and no more. I'm waiting for one of them to conclude that He wasn't an actual historical figure.Others here, yourself included, extoll Him in the highest, just like the NT writers do.
Is 1:18.
For us there is one God the Father. You can't ignore that we believe the truth in this matter and no amount of special wording changes that fact. Truth is truth. Fight it and you will lose.
The Father is the one God.
We are confident that the Father is the one true God and he sent Jesus to us.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,13:29) Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,13:24) I have set up a discussion on “Eusebius”, so we can move on with the “Protokos in colossians 1:15 means “preeminent” topic.
Hi t8,I started an Eusebius thread, but Jack thinks he is more in control if the thread has his name as starter. So he moved our discussion about Eusebius to this thread. Eusebius has EVERYTHING to do with the “preeminent” question.
mike
KJ, please move the Eusebius discussion to that topic.In the meantime I will delete my one.
I couldn't find your one mike.
Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,14:07) Is 1:18. For us there is one God the Father. You can't ignore that we believe the truth in this matter and no amount of special wording changes that fact. Truth is truth. Fight it and you will lose.
…and henotheism is not truthful. You lose.t8,
They are related. A letter from Eusebius proves that “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant “firstborn of every creature” to him in 325 A.D. This whole thread is about WJ, Jack and Paul avoiding the letter that disproves their “new trinity scholar findings” that it only meant “preeminent over mankind” in NT days.
mike
Hi MB,
The words of Eusebius carry no more weight than those of any carnal man.
Let the lost theologians debate his words and prefer the anointed ones.Hi Paul,
I spent an hour answering this already, then when I went to preview, I lost everything. So this is the slimmed-down “I'm angry” version.
You said:
Quote A question for you…
“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords (1 Corinthians 8:5)Why does Paul use the prase “so-called” in reference to gods here? If they were real gods (which is your contention) doesn't Paul's choice of phrase refute this? Seems to me it does.
Paul was clarifiying for those of YOU who might not understand, all “gods” besides God are only so-called “gods”. He knew the word loosely applied to men and angels and even Jesus and Satan. He goes on to say, “for us there is but ONE God, THE FATHER”. Jesus is not the Father, so he is also one of those “mighty ones” who can be called a god.
You said:
Quote Yeshua is called God with the definite article in John 20:28, Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8. Jesus isn't called THE God in John or Titus. In Hebrews, it is a case of someone directly quoting scripture. But if you think the writer thought Jesus was THE God Almighty, just read the next verse which makes clear that is was his God who set him above his companions.
You said:
Quote Are the terms “God” and “Son of God” antithetical? “Man” and “Son of Man” aren't. They are synonymous.
What's your point?
You said:
Quote I thought this was unprovable. You haven't proven it yet!
About the only begotten Son, you said:
Quote Yes, he is indeed unique. Yes. And according to Ignatius, the “un-unique” Father is the “unique-er” of the “unique” Son!
mike
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2010,14:30) Hi MB,
The words of Eusebius carry no more weight than those of any carnal man.
Let the lost theologians debate his words and prefer the anointed ones.
Hi Nick,No, but when stranded in Mexico and needing a translator, are you going to use the person who speaks Spanish and English, or the person who speaks French and Japanese to help you?
mike
Hi MB,
If you offer the words of a carnal man you cannot expect them to be respected but you can expect to be dragged further from truth by the experts in vain and useless theologyQuote (Ed J @ June 17 2010,23:59) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,13:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,12:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,05:50) Kathi said: Quote The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh.
It was by becoming flesh that Jesus became a Son. Paul said that he was “born according to the seed of David and decreed to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1).Jesus could not have neen God's Son before becoming flesh because ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD.
the Roo
I thought Dennison already schooled you on this. I guess it didn't take.
aghh……..no comment.
Hi SF,Here is more for you (as you have asked)…
The three promises to Abraham's seed were… God said that his seed would be as plenty as the…1) “Dust of the Earth”=170 (Gen. 3:16) Lord(49)+God(26)+Almighty(95) [49+26+95=170] (Rev. 4:8)
2) “Stars of Heaven”=153 (Gen. 26:4) “Sons of God” in Hebrew: בני ה אלהים=153 Beni Ha-Elohim.
3) “Sand of the Sea”=117 (Gen. 32:12) “God the Father”=117 (117=יהוה האלהים) (Rev.20:8)It's interesting to note here: The very same language is used in Rev. 20:8 where Satan goes about in battle…
to deceive the nations, He is going against God’s people (the people of 117=יהוה האלהים) to deceive,
whose NUMBER IS AS the “SAND OF THE SEA”=117. “JEHOVAH”=95 IS “ALMIGHTY”=95!God bless
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
hi ed J,What?
what are you referring to, thas kindof random….
explain this.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,14:41) Paul was clarifiying for those of YOU who might not understand, all “gods” besides God are only so-called “gods”. He knew the word loosely applied to men and angels and even Jesus and Satan. He goes on to say, “for us there is but ONE God, THE FATHER”. Jesus is not the Father, so he is also one of those “mighty ones” who can be called a god.
Interesting theory, but we both know that people use the phrase “so-called” in reference to something that's not the real article. For instance if I call you a so-called christian my inference is you are not a real christian. Following the context of Paul's passage this is the intended meaning.Quote Jesus is not the Father, so he is also one of those “mighty ones” who can be called a god.
Oh, you mean a mighty one like YHWH in Isaiah 10:13, 21 & 34? That kind of mighty one? Quote Jesus isn't called THE God in John or Titus.
Yes He is. Check any Greek-English interlinear.http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh20.pdf
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/tit2.pdfQuote In Hebrews, it is a case of someone directly quoting scripture.
Yes, and….?Quote But if you think the writer thought Jesus was THE God Almighty, just read the next verse which makes clear that is was his God who set him above his companions.
Hebrews 1:8 is certainly not out of place in the broader context of chapter one.Quote What's your point?
Where is you evidence that in the context of 1st century christianity the term “Son of God” denotes something less than “God”, especially considering “man” and “son of man” are synonyms.Quote You haven't proven it yet!
If, according to you, it's an unprovable assertion (Matt 16:13-16 refutes this), why do YOU use it as proof positive that Yeshua is the son of man??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
