Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Odsolo said:The WTBS has been corrupting scripture for about 150 years. They have scores of wanna be, never was, never will be Bible scholars rewriting the Bible to fit their false doctrine. They have been flip-flopping on what they teach for the same length of time. All those so-called leaders and scholars with all the latest electronic research tools and they can't get it right.
And this same bunch of Bartimaeuses send their slaves out to criticize the early church because these Christian men, only a few years out of pagansim, who faced death every day for their faith, probably did not have a complete copy of the O.T. they certainly did not travel from town to down, country to country, with 40-50 pounds of scrolls, the N.T. had not been written, but this 'society" expects them to have a completely formulated, completely articulated doctrine, when NONE of them can do it.
And if you are going to claim to be quoting ECF, cite the specific writing, "Tertullian said. . ." ain't gonna get it.
Odsolo said:LINK TO THE POST. You do understand English don't you.
The "Trinity" does not say anything. You have not correctly stated the "doctrine" of the Triune nature of God, i.e. Trinity. You haven't read your Bible. All I see is is parroting empty piece meal arguments from your religion. How many thrones in heaven, how many on the throne, where is Jesus sitting, how many on the throne?
hybrid said:
[*]200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
- 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).
- 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural Let us make man in our image] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)
- 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
- 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
- 200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God; and the two are one . In his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21)
Balthasar quotes:
Isn't this what I tried explaining to you last post, that the term used to designate the "Word" is Theos(God), as opposed to Ho Theos(The God) when it refers to God Almighty in the context of John 1:1? You're missing the point because you're relying on the trinitarianEnglish translation which does not distinguish between Theos and Ho Theos in John 1:1. It's very clear in the Greek.
But not by him.
Col 1:16 Everything was created by him, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God's Son, and everything was made for him. CEV
Because Jesus was the perfect image of the Father. If you want to take this literally it's a case for Modalism, not Trinitarianism.
Because Jesus was the perfect image of the Father...
No, Logos is what I had in mind, the divine expression.
ok.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are ...KJV
Could'nt be modalism, as there are numerous places found in Scripure that would prohibit such.
What do you mean by "divine expression"? If you mean image of God instead of actually God Almighty you're on the right track.
Origen says A. John usage two words for God(Theos vs. Ho Theos) in John 1:1 . Whereelse Logos as God is referred to by him as Theos, just as human judges are also called Theos in John 10:34 etc., God Almighty as God is referred to by him as Ho Theos in John 1:1. Are you with me?
Nice try. You're taking my intented usage of the word 'by" in my last post out of context. In that post I was using the word "by" in the sense of it's application to the prime mover. The intent of the word "by" in Col. 1:16 is as I would say to you , "By me this house was built" (although it was actually my father who built the house since he provided the finances and the carpenters. I can say the house was built by me because, as my father's delegated representative, I passed down his instructions to the carpenters and directed them what to do.)
If you read back immediately to Col. 1:15 it says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". It was "by" this "firstborn of all creation" that everything was created, although God was ultimately responsible for the creation. That's why Christ said,"On my own I can do nothing." John 1:3 captures puts it in another way, "Through him all things were made."
Here's your problem: Standing on it's own the following scripture ,"He who has seen me has seen the Father" makes sense only two ways.
(a) Christ was the perfect image of the Father.
(b) Christ was the Father.
Pick one.
hybrid said:
Yes and you havent heard OPRAH yet!
From what I read from revelation, all sorts of beings shout for joy in heaven on a 24 hour basis. Its noisy in heaven sis.
Yes Virginia, there is no santa claus.
Because I prefer to believe in ONE god in three persons than to believe in One Greater god and one lesser god, and I thought you hate paganism
Then let me tell you what God is
God is spirit
God is love
God is light
God is all powerful
God is all knowing
God is eternal
God transcends creation, nature and personalities
These are the essences of god.
peace
Image and essence of God Almighty as revealed to man by the word of God. In all things and ways. The very heart of God, especially.
I find theos is used in every instance for God.
Thank you. Your intended usage of the word 'by' can be carried further. You could have designed the house yourself, and built it with your hands in its entirety.
But we're talking about God and the creation of all things. Unless angels have that ability, I'm left with God as the creator.
The KJV renders it "creature" and not "creation". Regardless, before the foundations of the world, He was.
Neither. Me thinks you're looking at it literal.
Jesus once said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him. But the things that come from the man are what defiles him. And these things come from the heart.
The opposite is also true.
Try looking deeper.
So, going back to your question above, the answer is...
c) Christ is the very heart of God
I never said Jesus was inferior to God. Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?.........ABSOLUTELY NOT........
"You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:23)
The Bible is very clear on this point,
Paul states that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, this can only be true if Jesus is equal with God.
Jesus is the creator, something that only God can do.
Only God can give life.
Balthasar said:Hi hybrid,
Tertullian is saying there was a time when the Son was not a distinct person from the Father, which is problametic for the trinitatian conception, no matter how you try to parcel his words.
I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that Tertullian is saying the Son was always co-existing with the Father .
Tertullian clearly says the opposite:"There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son;". Even if we accept your read , it's still problametic from the Trinitarian point of view. It would mean the Son was "co-existing" with the Father but not as the Son. What was he "co-existing" with God as before he became the Son? The Trinity doctrine demands that the Son as always existing with the Father as the Son, unchangeable, and as a separate person from the Father. Tertullian says the complete opposite.This is certainly not trinitarianism as the Niceans would later see it.
He's saying God's "Reason" was an effluence from the Father at a point in time after the creation act and becoming the Son.
Here Tertullian is speaking of a time prior to the emergence of the Son. Or are you suggesting God's "Reason" was a separate "person" with Him before He became a Father? Problametic.
the momment you guys can differentiate the word BEGOTTEN from CREATED, maybei believe you.Even Arias believed in a Trinity, hybrid.
Christ is a Divine affluence of God, Tertullian would say, as a spark is of the fire but not the fire, as the rays of the Sun are not the Sun. Christ was not always the Son of God, but existed in God as God's "reason", and not as a separate person before the creation. You could accuse him of Modalism and Deism, but not really of Nicean trinitarianism.
best wishes,
I think she said Jesus is god but he cant possibly be the only way. The lady is a new ager I suppose.harlin said:Hi Hybrid, God bless you, I appreciate your humour with the OPRAH thing. It would not surprise me in the slightest if she did have an explaination!!.
In essential, unity :In diversity, liberty :In all things, charityI agree with you heaven would be noisy, but, I am not convinced that it will be the same kinds of noise on earth. True worship is definitely something I pray to be able to participate in.
ooops....I never said Jesus was inferior to God.
amen and amen and amen.Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?.........ABSOLUTELY NOT........any doctrine that takes away the deity of Christ is erroneous in my opinion.
i also thought of the son as literally the son of god therefore also god because he has the dna of god. can you agree with this?Harlin said:My understanding is that the only difference between the Father and the Son is age, the Son has every other aspect of divinity, all these things He obtained by virtue of His birth.
LOL and god bless.Still am opposed to paganism too by the way, just for the record.. Honestly do they have no Santa Claus in Virginia?
Balthasar said:By the way Odsolo,
How does the above have any bearing on Tertullian's belief that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son" or that God has not always been a Father?
Odsolo said:What I said was not in response to your unsupported assertions about Tertullian. However if you cannot see the relevance you should not be participating in this topic.
Balthasar said:. . .Isn't this what I tried explaining to you last post, that the term used to designate the "Word" is Theos(God), as opposed to Ho Theos(The God) when it refers to God Almighty in the context of John 1:1? You're missing the point because you're relying on the trinitarianEnglish translation which does not distinguish between Theos and Ho Theos in John 1:1. It's very clear in the Greek.
That's what Origen is saying:
We next notice Johns usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply The God but rather god . . . The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.
Commentary on Johns Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2
Balthasar said:Jesus was the first person to remain alive after the resurrection, hence he's the first born from the dead.. That's the reason he's called the Alpha and Omega. Get it?
This is another example of a "cut and paste" from you which serves no purpose , in my opinion.
tertullian also said that what god brought forth was at once god. and also god at once was the father, the son, the spirit.
in this context i think it is fair to say that he meant ..
there was a time when god was not the father
there was a time when god was not the son and
there was a time when god was not the holy spirit..
but when god decided to be triune under his divine economy,
he was at once the father, the son and the holy spirit.
i see no contradiction to trinitarianism here.
even john calvin said it is ridiculous to think that once upon a time there are three persons in a divine race (family)
then there were instances they share the same title.
How can you explain or clarify anything in the Greek or Hebrew when you don't know anything about either language? There is NOT one single recognized Greek scholar in the world who agrees with this nonsense.
Before trying to argue with this, please look up the definition of "archtypal?" And carefully read and throughly understand the context of this paragraph
Another unsupported assertion. Please show me from any lexical, grammatical, historical source that in Biblical Greek "resurrection" was equated with "birth."
I give a flip about your opinion of anything. All I have to do to know what your opinion is, is read JW literature.
Balthasar said:Hi Odsolo,
Is that the extent of your refutation? All Greek scholars have taken note that the article Ho is missing in John 1:1 when referring to the Word as God.
I don't know how much clearer Origen could have gotten Odsolo. He says when A. John refers to the Word(Logos) the article Ho is missing from Theos in John 1:1.
good luck,
Do you have references for 'all greek scholars' that say 'Ho' is missing?
I'm trusting in the validity of my bible being correctly translated. I don't know who you refer to as all scholars....and primary sources please.
Also, for the Origen quote?
While I've not yet studied Origen, I did run across something interesting about him which I'll give a link to later. In effect, Origen does need to be excused from some of the things he put forth......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?