• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by RevelationTestament, May 9, 2013.

  1. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +4,059
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    By quoting little snippets out-of-context one can prove almost anything.

    Tertullian Apology Chapter 21

    We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun — there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.

    Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8

    The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.” This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also [pg.1094] declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαι, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.​
     
  2. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    Pfff. By alleging ridiculousness, one can avoid a scholarly point too. I gave the link, and quoted a whole section of it where Tertullian is stating what he maintains rather than Hermogenes. I will let the reader judge whether I quoted Tertullian "out of context." Once again, I find you to be in denial.... This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect.
    Cheers.
     
  3. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +4,059
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You have found nothing and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong! And you never will. There is nothing to deny. That is correct you did quote in entire paragraph but that did not fully represent Tertullian's beliefs as I have shown by quoting from his other writings. That is what I meant out-of-context, in view of the fuller context of Tertullians writings. What scholarly point have you evaded by alleging ridiculousness?
     
  4. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son.
    K, mate. Just showing you and the reader the facts. Can't make you acknowledge them. But you do seem to be in serious denial...."you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong...." I am not trying to prove you wrong friend. Just showing the truth for those who care to see it. You may want to remember that YOU are the one that posted on my thread that I am wrong.
    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
  5. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    If you are catholic minded, true.

    Exodus 29
    Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.

    Acts 10
    38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

    If you see man anointed with oils, then you think the physical things anoint.

    Just as the water doesn't wash away the sins at baptism. How can physical water wash away spiritual sin?

    Oils were mostly used to anoint in healing (physical sickness).

    Christ didn't heal with oils, IMO, but with spirit. The spirit not available to the OT authors. But the catholic idea has us returning to the OT idea.

    1 John
    27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    While oils were used in physical healing, the anointing of the Spirit is for spiritual healing (through truth).

    Use oil if you think it has some mystical power. I don't believe it does. More rituals.
     
  6. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,670
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    So Jesus told the Apostles to perform "rituals" but those have no significance, impart no supernatural grace & lack meaning. I see. Kind of like our bosses today giving us busy work.

    So how many other things does one see Jesus saying that have no meaning?
     
  7. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    Did he say "anoint them with oil"?

    Mark 6
    7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
    8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

    Why didn't Jesus say "don't forget the oil"?

    Because it only took the power of spirit to accomplish (over unclean spirit).

    People sought Christs touch, and even the woman who touched his robe found it wasn't even that.

    Christ even told us to pray from within. I see no (physical) rituals Christ taught.
     
  8. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    Christ taught baptism, although He did not baptize but his disciples did.
    Christ washed the feet of the apostles.
    Acts also tells us that the apostles laid their hands on the convert to give the gift of the Holy Ghost.
     
  9. Der Alte

    Der Alte This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +4,059
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You seem to be in serious denial! Merely saying, "Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son." is meaningless. You must give some kind of evidence/discussion to show why they don't "abrogate his [Tertullian] view that the Son didn't always exist." You are not showing me truth, you are showing me your presuppositions. And I am acknowledging them for what the they are.

    You claim you are not trying to prove me wrong. This is what you said in post #422 "This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect." I said "you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong." You did in fact claim to have shown that some orthodox beliefs are incorrect or wrong. You have not done so.
     
  10. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    All he is doing is explaining his theory of the one substance of the Son and Father. He doesn't talk about how the Son was begotten.

    That is not my purpose. It was your purpose, and I responded with evidence you demanded, which did in fact show you to be wrong. You then equivocated as you do above. If you want to keep this futile exercise up, I will probably not respond just for the sake of keeping the thread on point.
    Cheers
     
  11. NYCGuy

    NYCGuy Newbie

    839
    +160
    Catholic
    Single
    I agree with your assessment, and it is quite clear that, when taking the totality of his teachings (i.e. reading the proof texts in context), he isn't teaching that the Son was created at all. Indeed, he disagreed with the Arian position completely, and argued against it. Thanks.
     
  12. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.]died before Arius was even born, and knew nothing of "the Arian position" and didn't argue against it. In fact there is no credible evidence that Arius clearly believed Christ to be created.
     
  13. NYCGuy

    NYCGuy Newbie

    839
    +160
    Catholic
    Single
    Sorry, I was thinking about Sabellianism.

    The fact remains however that, as we see in Tertullian's own writings, his believe in the one substance of the Father and the Son goes completely against the Arian position, and yes, historians do have a clear understanding of the Arian position vs the orthodox one. Indeed, the Council of Nicaea directly addressed the heresy of Arianism by reaffirming the revealed teaching that Jesus Christ has eternally existed as God, never with a beginning.
     
  14. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,670
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ah, backpedal to take a stand on/against oils to avoid the point being made about your earlier claim regarding meaningless rituals. Nice!

    So you are taking back the statement about meaningless rituals and qualifying it to only apply to oils. I see.

    Ok, since oils were brought up and apparently deemed meaningless, what does Scripture say?

    "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

    "My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."

    Apparently it was not meaningless ritual to Jesus or the Apostles.
     
  15. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,670
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Baptizing seems a physical ritual to me. Chastising for not honoring Him with oils on His head sounds like physical ritual to me. Anointing the sick sounds like physical ritual to me.

    So again, are these rituals meaningless or not?
     
  16. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    How is that?
    Tertullian theorized that the Son was one substance or essence with the Father which made them one God in his view. However, he also theorized he had a beginning as the Son, which is why your church has never sainted him even tho he is routinely known as the "father of Latin orthodoxy."
    Indeed, it is apparent he shared this view with Arius - that there was a time when the "Son was not." According to a letter of Arius, assuming authenticity, he believed there was a point in time when the Son was begotten - whether this was before all worlds, or was He was created, he did not seem to have a clear opinion on.
    "Revealed" by whom? The scriptures say He was begotten when the Father told him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." So who "revealed it?" Tertullian? I think not. He said the Son had a beginning. Athanasius three centuries after Christ? Is this kind of like the rest of the doctrine of the trinity? Being "one substance" was "revealed" to Tertullian. Being a "trinity" was "revealed" to Theophilus? The Lord's words of "Godhead" aren't good enough for man? Who was "co-equal" and "one being" revealed to? Or "eternally begotten?" Was it the twelve apostles of the Lord? Are these words the chosen words of God confirmed by scripture?
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2014
  17. NumberOneSon

    NumberOneSon The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

    +231
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok.

    What treaty are you referring to? Are you talking about the feodorati? The Alans were feodorati.



    All of the tribes I mentioned most definitely contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

    After what? When historians refer to the “Fall of Rome”, they’re usually referring to the division of the Western Empire by the barbarian kingdoms and the loss of Roman culture that was punctuated when the germanic troops serving the empire deposed Emperor Romulus Augustus and installed Odoacer in his place. The previous division of Roman territory by the Alans, Moors, Britons, etc. led to Rome’s “fall”. I’m not sure what you mean by “they just came in after the fact”…the spoilation of the Roman Empire by the Teutonic tribes precipitated the fall of Rome.

    None of the 5th or 6th Century Barbarian kingdoms comprise the present nations of Europe. At most, you could make an argument for France, but that’s about it.

    How in the world is modern Spain the equivalent of the Visigothic kingdom? You do realize the Visigothic kingdom was destroyed by the Moors in the 8th Century, and the Visigoths themselves disappeared from history after that time, right?

    All of the barbarian kingdoms (besides France) have been plucked up by the roots and have disappeared, and I doubt you would be able to connect any modern day Frenchman back to the Frankish bloodline. The Visigoths, Sueves, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Burgundians…all of those kingdoms were destroyed a long time ago.


    Really? Then provide examples of this pope encouraging Justinian to uproot the three tribes and providing information to facilitate those attacks. Which pope, by the way? I look forward to seeing your evidence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2014
  18. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    Not meaningless. Unnecessary for spiritual edification. A physical action showing concern. Jesus walked a lot. I'm sure baby oil would feel good on tired feet.
     
  19. Phantasman

    Phantasman Newbie

    +200
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    Only the spiritual acceptance, not the water.

    I would ask if you think water is holy, but I think I know the answer.
     
  20. RevelationTestament

    RevelationTestament Our God is a consuming fire.

    +30
    Mormon
    Married
    Part of the issue here is what constitutes a tribe. Sometimes several different names were given the same people by the Romans. Unfortunately, the Teutonic/Germanic tribes left us no or virtually no written history of themselves. Most of our history is given through Roman eyes, and they sometimes had multiple names for the same peoples due to geographic reasons, etc. My research indicated to me that the Angles and Jutes were Suebian tribes - that is essentially the same as the Seuvi, and from the same area of N. Germany. They in turn were a confederate tribe with the Alamanni or also the Alans. The Alani basically merged into the other tribes at the time of Attila the Hun. They all attacked the Roman kingdom as one in the area of S Gaul and Hispania. This group were and acted as one people or tribe and carved out an area in central and N. Spain and Portugal. Their descendants still live there.
    The Rugii did settle a small area in the very N edge of the Roman empire, named Rugiland, but were defeated by the Heruli at the time of the fall of Rome, and therefore did not take part in the fall of the Roman Empire to fulfill the prophecy.
    The other tribes you mentioned were, as you note, "native" tribes. That is, they were native peoples living under Roman rule who simply were able to re-establish their independence and were not conquerors. For instance the Moors had lived in the tip of Africa at the time they came under Roman rule, and simply reestablished their own kingdom when Rome began to crumble. However, the Vandals did defeat the Moors.
     
Loading...