Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen

Yes, the Father caused the Son to exist, but not as a creature (a creation, made out of something other than the Father.) As a begotten being, the Son is of the same essence as the Father, which is what the creed teaches.

You are actually an Arian but just don't realize it.
You are making the exact same argument that Arius made that got him labeled a heretic by Athanasius.
Oops, the first part, you agree with Arius.
Where you diverge from Arius is when you say that the Father and the Son are made of the same substance.
To Arius, saying that they were the same substance was the same as saying that they were the same person, while Athanasius went around that complaint by saying that the substance was special and not like normal substance, so follows different rules where they can be individual persons.
This was something invented on the fly by Athanasius while at the Council itself.

reply to post by adjensen

No, what Arias claimed is that there was a time that reality existed, but Christ did not. As I said, that opens the door to all sorts of problems, so his heresy was rejected.

Arius was very clear that The Son of the trinity godhead was begotten before the creation of the material universe, before even time and space existed, in a pre-creation eternity.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If that is a true quote from Arius that would be blatant Christian heresy.

So, are you a heresiologist now? And are you now a Catholic all of a sudden? You are accepting the Council of the Roman Church as your supreme authority. I just thought you might want to know that.

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.

Feel free to quote some Bible verses to back that up, otherwise I just have to assume this is your closet catholicism acting out its cultish characteristic behavior.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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

Now you are exhibiting full-blown catholicism by accepting the eternal mother, Mary.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . His origin it says is from everlasting . . .

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
Micah 5:2
New International Version

Not a very good argument for your position but worked for Arius.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What does the verse say in the LXX?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

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

Now you are exhibiting full-blown catholicism by accepting the eternal mother, Mary.

What I said had nothing to do with that. Try reading. Jesus's flesh and blood grew in Mary as any baby has grown in a womb since the dawn of human history. I said nothing about Mary being eternal.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, what Arias claimed is that there was a time that reality existed, but Christ did not. As I said, that opens the door to all sorts of problems, so his heresy was rejected.

Arius was very clear that The Son of the trinity godhead was begotten before the creation of the material universe, before even time and space existed, in a pre-creation eternity.

It doesn't matter WHEN Arius said Jesus was created, the problem is saying He was a created God, not eternally in existence with His Father. Jesus was not created.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Feel free to quote some Bible verses to back that up, otherwise I just have to assume this is your closet catholicism acting out its cultish characteristic behavior.

Jesus said He shared glory with the Father before the world existed.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

John 17:5

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

No, as I told you earlier, my statement that I am an orthodox Christian is in regards to my theology being closest in line with what orthodox Christianity was prior to the Great Schism.

As anyone who is familiar with my beliefs will tell you, I am not an orthodox Catholic, and rely on God's mercy and my priests' patience for not having been kicked out of the church yet, lol.

The official "orthodox" opinion is that the "Son" part of the trinity godhead is unbegotten.

Read the creed, Dewey -- that's the litmus test, and that's not what it says.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

Good to see that you don't follow the devine flesh doctrine. Now if only you would reject the eternal "God the Son" doctrine and replace it with the eternal God the Father manifest in flesh as the Son of God doctrine that the Bible teaches.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

Good to see that you don't follow the devine flesh doctrine. Now if only you would reject the eternal "God the Son" doctrine and replace it with the eternal God the Father manifest in flesh as the Son of God doctrine that the Bible teaches.

The Bible doesn't teach that.

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:54-56 NIV)

Is God standing beside himself? And if that's just the flesh of a man standing next to the spirit God, then Jesus is not divine.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

Good to see that you don't follow the devine flesh doctrine. Now if only you would reject the eternal "God the Son" doctrine and replace it with the eternal God the Father manifest in flesh as the Son of God doctrine that the Bible teaches.

The Bible doesn't teach that.

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:54-56 NIV)

Is God standing beside himself? And if that's just the flesh of a man standing next to the spirit God, then Jesus is not divine.

The right hand of God means that He has the authority and power of God. The only way God could have a literal right hand side is if He is not omnipresent and the only way a god can literally sit next to God would be if there is more than one God.

reply to post by truejew

The right hand of God means that He has the authority and power of God. The only way God could have a literal right hand side is if He is not omnipresent and the only way a god can literally sit next to God would be if there is more than one God.

The only way you can make definitive statements about what or how god is would be if you had first hand knowledge by seeing and meeting this deity. Your making statements here based on your own personal conclusions based on your perceived reality. Imo one cannot say that god cannot do anything since to my knowledge there isn't anyone who can with all honestly say they know what god is. Assumptions about a deities ability to manifest itself with a physical hand or sit next to itself would be placing limitations on that deity which from my understanding of the biblical god is a fallacy in itself

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by truejew

 

The right hand of God means that He has the authority and power of God. The only way God could have a literal right hand side is if He is not omnipresent and the only way a god can literally sit next to God would be if there is more than one God.

The only way you can make definitive statements about what or how god is would be if you had first hand knowledge by seeing and meeting this deity. Your making statements here based on your own personal conclusions based on your perceived reality. Imo one cannot say that god cannot do anything since to my knowledge there isn't anyone who can with all honestly say they know what god is. Assumptions about a deities ability to manifest itself with a physical hand or sit next to itself would be placing limitations on that deity which from my understanding of the biblical god is a fallacy in itself

What I said are facts. If someone is everywhere present, He cannot have a right hand side. If there is one god setting next to another god, there are two gods.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What does the verse say in the LXX?

It says:

και αι εξοδοι αυτου απ αρχης εξ ημερων αιωνος

I'm guessing that what you wanted was what it might mean in English.
It says, "from the earliest days of this age."
You probably think that it will say forever, and when Micah wants to say that, he will say, "this age and beyond".

reply to post by truejew

What I said are facts. If someone is everywhere present, He cannot have a right hand side. If there is one god setting next to another god, there are two gods.

No, what you said were assumptions based on your understanding of the universe. If this deity exists, it's safe to assume that no one has a clue what its capable of. Like I said your claim that "he cannot" says that it has limitations. I'm going to assume you don't believe your god has any limitations (although I could be wrong) and if thats what you do actually believe then yes it can have a right hand side as well as sit next to itself. A bit off topic and really not a big deal but I often wonder why people believe god created the known and unknown yet constantly pick such insignificant things and say no god can't. Just odd to me.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . Jesus's flesh and blood grew in Mary . . .

I would have read that if you would have put it into your post.
Instead you said, 'entered "reality".'