Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural
- Thread starter Wgw
- Start date
- Status
cgaviria
Well-Known Member
- Nov 23, 2015
- 1,854
- 184
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I know you don't have it either because you wouldn't be on here and saying that things that you're saying. Having the Spirit comes with POWER. And signs that you have it. And you begin to do the work of the Lord outside in the field. Not in an internet forum.
Upvote
0
Well the first shows the reference to the Holy Spirit and the 2nd is God saying the word US who then is he referring but for his son. The first reference to the 3 parts of the God head.
Upvote
0
I like your answer but remember the the Bible is the infallible word of God. If there are things in Scripture that seem hard to understand or just to follow, pray for help and the Lord will help you understand the best way. Remember it is all his will not ours and what we want.
Upvote
0
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
On the contrary, I received it through sacramental chrismation. This is not a boast, rather, whereas you deny having received the spirit, the Orthodox believe doctrinally that it is conferred through "annointing with the seal of the Holy Spirit" in chrismation (confirmation) performed immediately after baptism.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No those that are in Christ are not one with Him. Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.
What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:16, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but "highly exalted Him and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] to the glory of God the Father.
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] to the glory of God the Father.
In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 65:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.
‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
Upvote
0
Here is how it proves the Trinity (sorry unable to get question marks formatted properly) :
Is the Father God and is He included YES
Is the Son God and is He also included YES
Is the Holy Spirit included YES
Therefore the Holy Spirit is God
Therefore there are three Divine Persons
Therefore the *Name* implied is *God*.
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
He will not because according to his previous post he believes that God has many sons in the form of angels and that The Living Word happens to be the first of many, but somehow a little different than others.
Read his post link below
<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-is-unscriptural.7918869/page-7#post-68911211">Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural</a>
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
The author is using an ancient language by saying the earth and the sea was without form, meaning it was yet to be formed. It is a reverse language to the way we speak today.
The terms earth means creation and the sea means time and space. The author says it was a void without form, meaning nothingness and without any material.
The words Let there be Light is the initiation of the flash or as the scientists call the Big Bang that God initiated by his literal presence to instantly bring into being our material universe.
Notice the following verse
Darkness and void of the deep is not talking about our literal oceans. It is talking about the spance of the cosmos and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, which is the cosmos and he stretched it to allow time and space to exist so that our world can be within a habitable zone.
The first light is the Big Bang and not the light from our Sun. Notice the firmament that God creates, he then separates the light particles from the dark particles, that is called darkness by the author.
My understanding of the light particles and the dark particles is the balance of visable matter and invisible dark matter which scientists today all agree upon as a ratio that determines whether life is permitting.
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
As soon as the apostle says THE (definite article) NAME he is alluding to the one and only name in the Hebrew Kha-Shim, I AM. This name was etched on the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament times, so the name that encompasses the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is pointing to the one God, THE NAME.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
It amuses me you object to the idea of our Lord being uncreated, you object to the idea of the Holy Spirit being uncreated, despite John 1:3, and yet in spite of that same verse, and indeed John 1:18, you go on to insist that the Earth and waters are uncreated!
And yet we are the ones accused falsely of polytheism, tritheism and indeed of ignoring Scripture!
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
We are not X-Men for we are Christ's Men. We cannot proclaim to speak on behalf of the Lord as witnesses unless we are counselled and guided by the Holy Ghost for it is written, greater is he who is in me than the one who is in the world.
In your previous post you said that you do not have the Holy Ghost dwelling in you otherwise you would not be on the internet, especially in this Christian Forum. By this statement alone you have just single handedly destroyed your own credibility. If you say that you don't have the Holy Ghost within your heart, dwelling in you, then what you are saying is that you are not the temple of God and that God doesn't dwell in you. You are disassociating yourself from the family of God, why?
Upvote
0
- Apr 15, 2012
- 2,119
- 572
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Adam was created without having been born of a woman.
I just suggesting that perhaps the second Adam was formed in a similar manner but in the embryo stage and placed within Mary.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Imagican
old dude
- Jan 14, 2006
- 3,027
- 428
- 63
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And if Christ WERE God, as defined in 'trinity', isn't it strange that He prays, not to the NAME of the Father, but to GOD? You know, like, "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" And offers that ALL is to be done for the GLORY OF GOD. That the things He did were things He had seen of "His Father". And the words He offered were NOT His own, but GIVEN Him by His Father. This in an of itself OUGHT to plainly illustrate that if the words were GIVEN to Him, there was a TIME BEFORE He possessed them. A time BEFORE the words were given to Him. This would indicate that Christ LEANED from His Father: GOD. Indicative of one being 'born', (begotten), and then 'growing up', LEARNING.
For surely if Christ has ALWAYS been a 'third part of God', He would have ALWAYS possessed God's Word? He would have ALWAYS been CO eternal. Yet scripture paints a completely DIFFERENT picture. Christ Himself makes way too many statements that contradict the possibility of 'trinity'.
And let us not forget this: The Bible STATES that Our God is also THE God of Christ as well. Not 'the God that IS Christ'.
And how about the 'let us' part of creation. Five days the Bible states that 'God created..........". Then, ONLY one the SIXTH day are we offered, "Let US create..............". Why is that? What is the SIGNIFICANCE of offering that 'God created.........." for five days, then, out of the blue, "Let US create............". Surely this wasn't a translation error? So it MUST have significance. Since ALL scripture is offered for our edification, what are we to GAIN in understanding from this?
Blessings,
MEC
For surely if Christ has ALWAYS been a 'third part of God', He would have ALWAYS possessed God's Word? He would have ALWAYS been CO eternal. Yet scripture paints a completely DIFFERENT picture. Christ Himself makes way too many statements that contradict the possibility of 'trinity'.
And let us not forget this: The Bible STATES that Our God is also THE God of Christ as well. Not 'the God that IS Christ'.
And how about the 'let us' part of creation. Five days the Bible states that 'God created..........". Then, ONLY one the SIXTH day are we offered, "Let US create..............". Why is that? What is the SIGNIFICANCE of offering that 'God created.........." for five days, then, out of the blue, "Let US create............". Surely this wasn't a translation error? So it MUST have significance. Since ALL scripture is offered for our edification, what are we to GAIN in understanding from this?
Blessings,
MEC
Upvote
0
Imagican
old dude
- Jan 14, 2006
- 3,027
- 428
- 63
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It's kind of amusing, the main REASON that the Jews refuse to accept Christ as Savior is the IDEA that He is God. It would seem that they were JUST as confused as to the MEANING of 'Son' as those that profess 'trinity'. They TOO believed that to be 'Son' was to be of the SAME essence as God. Yet they assumed this without any evidence other than their OWN interpretation.
Christ plainly stated that He was SENT by God. And didn't they treat Him pretty much the same way they treated MOST of the messengers of God? Looking for ANY reason, no matter how inane, to discredit Him so that they could IGNORE the message?
Question: IF Christ TRULY died, who raised Him back to life? Who brought Him BACK from the dead?
Blessings,
MEC
Christ plainly stated that He was SENT by God. And didn't they treat Him pretty much the same way they treated MOST of the messengers of God? Looking for ANY reason, no matter how inane, to discredit Him so that they could IGNORE the message?
Question: IF Christ TRULY died, who raised Him back to life? Who brought Him BACK from the dead?
Blessings,
MEC
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Well the Lord gives the answer to that question.
The Living Word when being incarnated as Jesus Christ of Nazareth, he fulfilled the old testament prophesies of the suffering servant of Yahweh.
Sure he would pray to Yahweh. He would say that the Father is greater than him and that he came to preach what the Father who sent him told him to say.
But at the end of the day he was worshipped and allowed it, whereas messengers of God were not worshipped nor did they accept to be worshipped.
So what happened when the Living Word became flesh?
No servant has refered to himself as the Light, the Life, the truth and the way. No servant has called himself I Am .
As far as Jews are concerned it is about the name (Kha Shim) that was etched on the arc of the Covenant and Jesus claims that name and even the Father proclaims that all knees shall bow before Christ's name.
It would break with the Shem-Makh (the name) which is tied to the first commandment, if a created being was to be worshipped and that his name was placed above all names.
It has to be concluded that the Christ is the Angel of Yahweh's presence in the Old Testament and in this regard in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the author writes Yahweh sent fire down from Yahweh.
To me personally I see one God who is the visible Yahweh and the invisible Yahweh at the same time being of same substance ehich implies being/existence and having two personas/roles within his one infinite being.
The being is Holy, Holy Holy Spirit which implies three persona's of the Father (invisible Yahweh) the Son (visible Yahweh) and the one Holy Spirit that proceeds from both the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit has his own role to report on what he hears between the Father and the Son
In one particukar thread I mentioned that the one infinite being plays three persons where he reveals a love story between the Father and the Son whilst his Holy Spirit is the independent narrator of the epic love story that eventually adopts the human family into it.
You see the trinity came and dwelled in the hearts of the believers and our adoption by the one Spirit of God adopts us as sons of God.
We cannot have a love story and no narrator to report on it, if the one infinite being had only one persona or role.
In fact the Father depends on the Son an2s vice versa. The Holy Spirit who is the one infinite being also takes the role as narrator of the love story.
As scripture states
The love story between the Father and the Son is explained in the above versus.
The narrator is the Spirit and this statement is evidence
it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth/narrator
Notice the Spirit or invisible Yahweh is counted as two roles as the Father and his Holy Ghost. The third is the Son who came by blood and water. Automatically we see the visible Yahweh in the Son.
So in this epic love story there are three persona's within the same infinite God who is Spirit (John 4:24).
This is why scripture states
So the Living Word is the visible Yahweh of the invisible Yahweh. Same being who is the one God being/substance.
Nicene Creed states that the Father and the Son are the one in the same substance/Godbeing.
Again you have two personas or two roles of the same being as visible and invisible and so when you see Yahweh visible who is the Living Word, there is no difference as far as the God being is concerned compared to Yahweh invisible who is Spirit.
As old testament scriptures write Yahweh sent down fire from Yahweh.
The Son is visible Yahweh and his persona is different to the Father Yahweh but being one in the same Godbeing/substance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Berean777
Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
God is Love and why God has created life is to extend his love that he has between the characters of the Father and the Son to the human family.
The narrative of the story of the Bible csn be summarised by the epoc love between the Father and the Son.
So when you have two characters playing this role, you also have the third as the witness narrator who is the one in the same Spirit/Godbeing.
To understand the trinity one must establish the narrative behind what was before creation in Genesis.
When I read the communication between the Father and the Son when the words Let Us make man in our own image are uttered, I see the eternal love between these two characters being extended to the created beings.
Why does the one God have three persona's within his one Godbeing/substance is now understood. How the one God has three persona's within his one being is frankly none of our business.
The narrative of the story of the Bible csn be summarised by the epoc love between the Father and the Son.
So when you have two characters playing this role, you also have the third as the witness narrator who is the one in the same Spirit/Godbeing.
To understand the trinity one must establish the narrative behind what was before creation in Genesis.
When I read the communication between the Father and the Son when the words Let Us make man in our own image are uttered, I see the eternal love between these two characters being extended to the created beings.
Why does the one God have three persona's within his one Godbeing/substance is now understood. How the one God has three persona's within his one being is frankly none of our business.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7. What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:16, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] to the glory of God the Father.
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 65:23] to the glory of God the Father.
In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 65:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.
‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
