Is it just me....

[~Anastasia~]

I have to admit, I'd really love to see some progress in my home ...

More than just one Sunday. But I'm glad we had one Sunday.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Right now (I need to catch up) I'm struggling to defend the Co-Equality of Christ Jesus (and probably the Holy Spirit) with God the Father.

It begins here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7844320-7/#post66407134

But there's been some back-and-forth.

well, 1st century Jews would have only known one God. so if they worship Christ (something that is only for God) and St Paul calls the Spirit eternal (an attribute of God alone), then both the Son and the Spirit are Divine with the same Divinity as the Father.

 

[~Anastasia~]

well, 1st century Jews would have only known one God. so if they worship Christ (something that is only for God) and St Paul calls the Spirit eternal (an attribute of God alone), then both the Son and the Spirit are Divine with the same Divinity as the Father.

That was basically where this guy's argument fell apart for me about 5 minutes after I agreed to look at it.

If the Holy Spirit, and Christ Jesus - are God ... then they are necessarily co-equal.

Unless you believe in some kind of pantheon of gods with a "head god" and subordinate ones - and that is NOT what we believe!

 

[ArmyMatt]

and that is why I don't venture there. it seems anything goes, and I usually found myself getting more irked than I needed

 

[Willie T]

I second this request. It would be great to hear more Orthodox voices in GT. There are a fair number of Catholics who post there regularly but Orthodox are sorely needed.

Yes, please feel free. I, for one won't ask a Mod to tell you to quit posting... as members of this little room of the forum have done to me about three times.
(And, "No", I was not smiling when I typed that.)

 

[Tzaousios]

Yes, please feel free. I, for one won't ask a Mod to tell you to quit posting... as members of this little room of the forum have done to me about three times.
(And, "No", I was not smiling when I typed that.)

Huh?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What are you talking about, Willie? By the way, my Dad's name is William T. also! LOL

Yes, please feel free. I, for one won't ask a Mod to tell you to quit posting... as members of this little room of the forum have done to me about three times.
(And, "No", I was not smiling when I typed that.)

 

[Willie T]

I'm fairly sure I didn't stutter.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm fairly sure I didn't stutter.

That may be, but the content was not any less cryptic. What are you talking about? Are you venting about something?

 

[~Anastasia~]

and that is why I don't venture there. it seems anything goes, and I usually found myself getting more irked than I needed

Yes, I can understand. It's frustrating when you want to have a decent conversation and people come in suggesting stuff WAY out in left field, or just plain want to argue.

I mean, I don't agree with Catholics on a number of things, but I can have a good conversation with them. For that matter, I can do so with people of many different churches who are willing to play by the rules.

But mocking, outright heresy, and people who can't stand anyone else disagreeing with them ... thousands of posts on the same topics that we just don't agree on gets old.


I probably need to bring up more theological topics in here, but there are some non-Orthodox posters that I would miss their viewpoint. I probably will anyway. Y'all can tell me if I get to talking too much.

 

[Willie T]

That may be, but the content was not any less cryptic. What are you talking about? Are you venting about something?

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I have been reported for daring to post here (three times, as I recall, it was quite a while ago.... I have usually stayed clear of this place since then.)

I am only risking posting here at this time because you now have a very reasonable and fair minded woman among your number, Kylissa.

 

[Tzaousios]

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I have been reported for daring to post here (three times, as I recall, it was quite a while ago.... I have usually stayed clear of this place since then.)

I am not Orthodox and I post here from time to time. From what I can recall I have never received a warning. Do you think it is based upon something you said? You cannot come into Congregation fora and start lobbing bombs everywhere.

I am only risking posting here at this time because you now have a very reasonable and fair minded woman among your number, Kylissa.

Yes, I have acknowledged this, even though I am not Orthodox. What is the point of all of this, in the end?

 

[Willie T]

I am not Orthodox and I post here from time to time. From what I can recall I have never received a warning. Do you think it is based upon something you said? You cannot come into Congregation fora and start lobbing bombs everywhere.



Yes, I have acknowledged this, even though I am not Orthodox. What is the point of all of this, in the end?

Quite simple. There was concern expressed at posting in GT. And I simply said that unlike the treatment I received here, I would welcome you guys to post at GT, and would not report you if you did not hold to some of the views there, and were open and honest about stating that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Quite simple. There was concern expressed at posting in GT. And I simply said that unlike the treatment I received here, I would welcome you guys to post at GT, and would not report you if you did not hold to some of the views there, and were open and honest about stating that.

folks only get reported here if they violate the forum rules, usually debating in places that are not St Justin's or dogmatically answering questions with unorthodox answers. I can say I am pretty sure I have never reported you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Quite simple. There was concern expressed at posting in GT. And I simply said that unlike the treatment I received here, I would welcome you guys to post at GT, and would not report you if you did not hold to some of the views there, and were open and honest about stating that.

I think maybe the concern expressed about posting in GT is not about being reported. Sometimes I feel ignored ... I've never received a warning or anything that I've been reported, LOL.

But it can be wearying to the soul to have people come against you mocking your faith, or to try to have discussions with posters who just want to disrupt causing problems.

I can't speak really for anyone else, but sometimes I avoid it for a few days for those reasons.

 

[buzuxi02]

Right now (I need to catch up) I'm struggling to defend the Co-Equality of Christ Jesus (and probably the Holy Spirit) with God .

Well I don't really go to GH. But let's be clear and give the Orthodox summation of the all-Holy Trinity as outlined in the Creed; The one God and Father begets eternally the Son (the Logos) and His Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father Alone. All equally possess the same divinity whose origins and source are from the unbegotten Father whose hypostasis proceeds from no one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well I don't really go to GH. But let's be clear and give the Orthodox summation of the all-Holy Trinity as outlined in the Creed; The one God and Father begets eternally the Son (the Logos) and His Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father Alone. All equally possess the same divinity whose origins and source are from the unbegotten Father whose hypostasis proceeds from no one.

Thank you so much - kind of (I say kind of because I'm still trying to completely understand what you said here).

But I think you answered a question I've had lately. I asked Fr. M. about the "begotten" Son and the "proceeding" of the Holy Spirit ... because from a simple human understanding, that SEEMS TO imply that God the Father is the source and that the Son and Holy Spirit have their origins in Him (actually I'm not positive if this might not be correct?) .... but I should say that the human understanding is that there would be some genesis point in time.

And that genesis point in time I was having trouble accepting, because if that's true, that would make the Son and the Holy Spirit essentially creatures.

Fr. M. assured me that the Creed does not mean a point of origin in time for either. (I wish it wasn't after class that I asked this, so time was limited to explain.)

So ... what does it mean to "eternally proceed" or to "eternally beget"? The Creed says that the Son was begotten "before all ages" - which sounds past tense. And your "eternally" sounds continuous?

Sorry, I have not sorted this part out yet.

Thank you so much!

 

[beardedone]

And that genesis point in time I was having trouble accepting, because if that's true, that would make the Son and the Holy Spirit essentially creatures.

Fr. M. assured me that the Creed does not mean a point of origin in time for either. (I wish it wasn't after class that I asked this, so time was limited to explain.)

So ... what does it mean to "eternally proceed" or to "eternally beget"? The Creed says that the Son was begotten "before all ages" - which sounds past tense. And your "eternally" sounds continuous?

Sorry, I have not sorted this part out yet.

You have nothing to say "sorry" about Kylissa. The doctrine of the Trinity is baffling for pretty much everyone.

With the issues of the origin of the Son and the Spirit, I can only tell you how I have come to understand it. Humanity is bound by time, God is not. So for us, it is difficult to really understand or describe the nature of God because he exists both inside and outside of time. In essence, in the act of creation God created time. It is outside of time, prior to what we think of as creation, that the origin of the Son and Spirit exists. However, we cannot place the bounds of time on the origin of the Son and Spirit--but we can only use terminology that is used within time to describe the origins of the Son and Spirit. So when we use the term "eternally" it implies time because we are bound by time. However, the use of "eternally" in reference to the origin of the Son and Spirit is meant to convey the notion that there has never, nor will there ever be, a time when the Son and Spirit did not exist. Their origin may be through begetting and procession from the Father, but they have and will always exist through begetting and procession from the Father, both in and outside of time. The other problem is the term origin; once again a term that is used in reference in time. We tend to default to terms conveying time because we are bound by time; however, in the instance of the origin of the Son and Spirit, origin needs to be seen outside of time. We speak of them as creatures, but if they have always existed as the begotten and processed of the Father, then they really have no "origin" in the sense of time.

What it boils down to is that we are using language/terminology that does not adequately portray the nature of God, but is the best we can do with our finite, time-restricted/bound language. I hope that helps a little, or in the least, didn't confuse you more.

 

[buzuxi02]

Thank you so much - kind of (I say kind of because I'm still trying to completely understand what you said here).

But I think you answered a question I've had lately. I asked Fr. M. about the "begotten" Son and the "proceeding" of the Holy Spirit ... because from a simple human understanding, that SEEMS TO imply that God the Father is the source and that the Son and Holy Spirit have their origins in Him (actually I'm not positive if this might not be correct?) .... but I should say that the human understanding is that there would be some genesis point in time.

And that genesis point in time I was having trouble accepting, because if that's true, that would make the Son and the Holy Spirit essentially creatures.

Fr. M. assured me that the Creed does not mean a point of origin in time for either. (I wish it wasn't after class that I asked this, so time was limited to explain.)

So ... what does it mean to "eternally proceed" or to "eternally beget"? The Creed says that the Son was begotten "before all ages" - which sounds past tense. And your "eternally" sounds continuous?

Sorry, I have not sorted this part out yet.

Thank you so much!

When we say "eternally begotten" and "eternally proceeds" we do not mean a "point in time"; as the one triune God trancends time, time and space is a creature of God. It denotes an expression which the three hypostasis are made known as distinct but inseperable

While the phrase "the Originate of the Unoriginate" is used in atleast one Orthodox prayer to describe the relation between the Logos and the Father, St. Athanasios did not like this terminology. Athanasios explaned that the title 'Father' is suffice to explain this eternal generation. He explained that Christ is beget from the Father proving that both are of the one and same divinity. That when speaking of God as unoriginate it is better to use scriptural expression which is 'Christ is in the Father' or that Christ is in the bossom of the Father.

 

[Chesterton]

So ... what does it mean to "eternally proceed" or to "eternally beget"? The Creed says that the Son was begotten "before all ages" - which sounds past tense. And your "eternally" sounds continuous?

"Before all ages" sounds past tense, but I think it means "before time itself", which is itself confusing because we can't understand eternity.

Ever read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"? The last section of the book has some decent analogies which are intended to be pretty simplistic. (I like him because I rarely understand real theologians. )