Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by Akragon

there was a time when he was Not...
Before he was born, he was not...
He was made out of nothing existing (which I don't agree with)
He was from another subsistence/substance (disagree)
Be is subject to alteration or change...

If that is a true quote from Arius that would be blatant Christian heresy. The pre-existent, eternal Son of God took on flesh at the incarnation, He always existed with the Father in glory before the foundation of the world.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Are you feeling okay? It appears you quoted Paul. Anyways

Been tired lately... and ya, I felt a bit dirty after that

I brought up to you before, (95% sure), that the term "firstborn" is a Hebraism meaning "greatest born/chief born", not necessarily first in numerical order. This is seen in the OT where David is also called the firstborn, yet he is the youngest son of Jesse. Christ was indeed born according to the flesh, however He pre-existed with God the Father in Spirit before the foundation of the world.

First born according to the flesh is a little different then first born over all creation... and still the word "BORN" is used... that is still a creation of its creator... be it mother and Father or God...

Even if he pre existed this world, it doesn't make him God... or co creator for that matter...

Im feelin a thread coming on about this topic... its starting to erk me...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

there was a time when he was Not...
Before he was born, he was not...
He was made out of nothing existing (which I don't agree with)
He was from another subsistence/substance (disagree)
Be is subject to alteration or change...

If that is a true quote from Arius that would be blatant Christian heresy. The pre-existent, eternal Son of God took on flesh at the incarnation, He always existed with the Father in glory before the foundation of the world.

edit on 7-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Arius said that at Nicaea... apparently one of the few things he actually did say as well... I've read he was rather quiet through the whole of the ordeal...

And i'll ask you the same thing... where does it say Jesus always existed?

or that he was co creator...

reply to post by Akragon


Yes, in the essence that He gestated in a womb and entered "reality" as we understand reality He was born, correct. But Him, His person, who He is as an entity in existence is the eternal Son of God. That was never created. His origin it says is from everlasting. (Eternal existence)

reply to post by Akragon

Dear Akragon (AKA Doll ),

I know you're familiar with it, so I'll just ask for your interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Yes, in the essence that He gestated in a womb and entered "reality" as we understand reality He was born, correct.

Paul said first born of all creation... Not just born in the flesh... still using the word which means a creation of something else...

But Him, His person, who He is as an entity in existence is the eternal Son of God. That was never created. His origin it says is from everlasting.

And again where does it say he has always existed?

reply to post by Akragon

And i'll ask you the same thing... where does it say Jesus always existed?

Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2

or that he was co creator...

John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Romans 11:36

reply to post by charles1952

Dear Akragon (AKA Doll ),

Look here chucky...

I know you're familiar with it, so I'll just ask for your interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John:

Usually I simply say Jesus didn't say that...

but in this case... "the word" had to come from somewhere.... It was also created... from its creator...

In technical terms a word is a sound.... even a wave... and something had to initiate that wave...

reply to post by Akragon


To a Jew to say "firstborn of all creation" it literally means "of anything in existence He is the greatest/chief".

As said before, "firstborn" is a Hebraism. David is called firstborn as well, but he was Jesse's youngest son.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Isaiah 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Names given by mean aren't always correct... he was also called a drunkard... does it mean he was a drunk?

Micah 5:2


2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

From everlasting... or he came from what was before him

John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Romans 11:36

I just replied about Johns quote... and who really cares what paul said honestly....

I only quoted him to as a reference to Christian beliefs... In that he was "created" according to one of the founders of the religion...

Born... Begotten... all mean created... Something had to exist beforehand for said being to exist

To a Jew to say "firstborn of all creation" it literally means "of anything in existence He is the greatest/chief"

which would make him equal or greater then who he himself said he was lesser then... Or is God not in existence?

reply to post by Akragon


Hey man, you asked for verses.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Hey man, you asked for verses.

I know I know...

Its hard to argue because Jesus didn't say much about his origins... He did say he pre-existed... but that hardly makes him God, and it also precludes the possibility of existence of life before us...

Personally I think the appocryphon of John has the answer to the big debate... Yet it still says hes co creator which kinda shoots me in the foot...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Well it is. The Father didn't die on the cross, the Son did. Just as Abraham didn't try to sacrifice himself, but Issac.

But the quote above has nothing to do with that doctrine.

Patripassianism teaches that God suffered on the cross, not died. Only Jesus' humanity died. His Holy Spirit did not.

Yes, the quote does teach the doctrine that God suffered.

reply to post by adjensen

What's wrong with that? Yes, God existed in the flesh, that's called the Incarnation. Yes, God the Son suffered and died on the Cross. No, God the Father did not suffer and die, and Ignatius doesn't say that he did.

Patripassianism teaches that God suffered on the cross, not died. Only Jesus' humanity died. His Holy Spirit did not.

The quote does say God suffered.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Actually, that would be TrueJew's non-Trinitarian theory -- Jesus is his own father, all those conversations between the two notwithstanding.

That is a misunderstanding of what Modalists teach. We believe that the Father is the father of the Son of God. In other words, the Father is the father of the human man Jesus Christ. He was not the Father of His own Spirit as you claim we teach. The prayers of Jesus are the prayers of a man to God, not of God to God.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes... All of which are in revelation... Not the gospels

In them Jesus sits at the right hand... Not on Gods chair

The right hand of God means He has the power of God, not that He physically sits to the right of the Father.

In other words, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has the power and authority of God.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
There must have been a time where Jesus did not exist if he was created... its illogical

Exactly. Christ was not created, he is not a creature.

Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

(previously: Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.)

This is just a circular argument... Begotten means made/created... so does first born... meaning first created...

What bible passage says Jesus always existed?

Everything including Jesus was "Created' except the initial "creator"...

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born. It was only His Spirit, the Father, who was not.

reply to post by adjensen

Spoiler alert, Dewey, but I'm an orthodox Christian, so I'm going to generally side with that view.

"Orthodox" Catholic, that is.
I understand that you are going to side with "orthodox" trinitarianism, which is OK, that's your opinion, but you should at least, and especially since you claim to be an historian, side with an accurate historical portrayal of what went on during the so-called Arian controversy.

Arianism presents some very problematic issues, to the extent that much of Christian theology would collapse if Christ were a creature, was not eternal, and was not divine. The real question, in my mind, is why it made sense to anyone in the first place.

The only "collapse" would be under the crushing weight of those believing they are "orthodox" while everyone else are so many heretics.

reply to post by Akragon

Perhaps because it mimics the words of John?

The church officialdom under Constantine took on the regementational structure of the Roman military. These were the guys who could assassinate an emperor and install a new one of their choice, so the supreme authority was the council of the generals or whatever and the same idea went across to the church where the supreme authority was the ecumenacle council, which overrides the Bible itself.

Specifically, Jesus was the Only begotten son of God... IF he was begotten, he was created... Though it seems the debate raged over calling Christ a "creature" which is silly... Clearly even though he was created, he was still divine in his own right... but less then the Father, not equal to... as he said numerous times

A creation, in the normal sense of the word would be a creation which is formed from existing components in the material world.
Arius never described Jesus in those terms but saw it as something before there ever was a material world, so it was something that involved a pre-creation coming into existence, which is how you would have to see a son being begotten, if the son was truly a god. That happens to be the main criticism that sticks from the Athanasius camp, that the description by Arius makes two gods, to be polytheism. So the whole "creature" argument is unsubstantiated additional criticism in case some listeners were not appropriately offended by the idea of a polytheistic godhead.

reply to post by adjensen

Christ is not a creature (a created being.) He wasn't born, he wasn't created, he was begotten.

So much for your self-proclaimed orthodoxy.
The official "orthodox" opinion is that the "Son" part of the trinity godhead is unbegotten.
Read the fine print: coeternal, as long as there was a Father, there was a Son, that the Father was never not the Father. To say that He was would be to say that God changed, which of course we know cannot be. (according to Athanasius who apparently thought he knew the rules for what a God can and cannot be)