Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen

If you don't agree with the creed, you are not an orthodox Christian.

I don't think that people had a choice to be orthodox or not, back when those creeds were put into place and enforced.
You couldn't just say, "No thanks, I have decided to not subscribe to the creed because I want to be an un-orthodox Christian."

Your "source" says,

Religious creeds are not intended to be comprehensive, but to be a summary of core beliefs.

Which is what I was saying.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I know precisely what the LXX is.

You didn't earlier today, when you wrote your post because you were surprised when I quoted the Greek.

It was formulated around 270-285 BC from 70 of the best Hebrew scholars of the day.

That's a myth about where the Septuagint came from and how it got its name. People use it but biblical scholars understand that it isn't really true.

The LXX, also used a word explicitly stating what the Hebrew original states.

"Aeon", which means age, and can be used to describe an undetermined amount of time.
I checked all the uses of the word aeon by Micah, and when he means eternity, he uses a combination of words including aeon and sometimes repeating it to mean the ages, that is translated in the English version as eternity. In the verse you were quoting, he is talking about a person who would be the ruler of Israel, who was from Bethlehem. In the Greek, it says "his exodus was taken as a part of the first days of the age" whatever that means but it doesn't mean from eternity.

That His origin was from eternity. Meaning before time was created the Son existed.

Not according to the Septuagint.

He was never created, He is the Creator of all ever created.

Ok, that is your opinion, but my point is that it doesn't come from the Bible but philosophy made up to try to understand what God is.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Huh? Why do you THINK people argue that? The context and subject of that portion of scripture is about Jesus. He is the Logos, it's a title.

Some people may believe that but it doesn't make it true.
That "portion" was about how John the Baptist came to be in the wilderness baptising people and talking about a coming of the Lord.
A divine force that causes things to happen, and in this case manifests itself as the spirit of prophecy. Jesus went on to later say that John was the greatest prophet, and there is the explanation, the Logos was there in a very real way and the evangelist says that it dwelt in them, meaning the writer of the Gospel was moved himself but in his case it was to believe.
As for a "title", people have made it that as applying to Jesus where the Gospel itself doesn't.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you don't agree with the creed, you are not an orthodox Christian.

I don't think that people had a choice to be orthodox or not, back when those creeds were put into place and enforced.
You couldn't just say, "No thanks, I have decided to not subscribe to the creed because I want to be an un-orthodox Christian."

Of course you could -- what do you think the Arians did? Prior to the Middle Ages, if you were declared heretical (as in, contrary to orthodox church teaching,) you were given the opportunity to recant and if you didn't, they kicked you out of the church and you often went off and started your own church, see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

Your "source" says,

Religious creeds are not intended to be comprehensive, but to be a summary of core beliefs.

Which is what I was saying.

I'm not sure that either you or I can recall what you were saying, but that's probably not it -- creeds aren't intended to relate every nook and cranny of a religion, for brevity, if nothing else (the Roman Catholic Catechism is over 1,000 pages, as an example,) but rather as an "executive summary" and one which is broad enough to hold widespread appeal within the faith -- it doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist or Baptist, if you're a Christian, the Nicene Creed is your "go to" document.

reply to post by adjensen

Of course you could -- what do you think the Arians did? Prior to the Middle Ages, if you were declared heretical (as in, contrary to orthodox church teaching,) you were given the opportunity to recant and if you didn't, they kicked you out of the church and you often went off and started your own church, see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

you forgot the hunted and executed part...

reply to post by adjensen

see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

That was before there was any creeds.

. . . you often went off and started your own church . . .

Seriously?
What churches do you think existed that were not officially recognized by the empire after the Nicene Creed was created?
There was a religious monolith that enforced their will on everyone within their reach.
You would have to be talking about an exile which would take years to carry out.
The Protestant reformation with the revolt of the German princes was the first successful establishment of un-orthodox churches.

I'm not sure that either you or I can recall what you were saying . . .

I was saying that it was you who was defining "orthodox views" as what is spelled out in the creeds. I was saying that it is more than just that.
The point that I was trying to make was that Athanasius was setting up a situation with this eternal generation that makes it so Jesus couldn't ever have been begotten. "Begotten" implies that something happened, which Athanasius refuses to accept, based on his laws of what God can and cannot do.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Of course you could -- what do you think the Arians did? Prior to the Middle Ages, if you were declared heretical (as in, contrary to orthodox church teaching,) you were given the opportunity to recant and if you didn't, they kicked you out of the church and you often went off and started your own church, see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

you forgot the hunted and executed part...

Not prior to the Middle Ages, as noted. Whether Arius was murdered or not is still a matter of speculation.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

That was before there was any creeds.

. . . you often went off and started your own church . . .

Seriously?
What churches do you think existed that were not officially recognized by the empire after the Nicene Creed was created?

Quite a number. The religion was simply legal at the time of the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't the state religion, and Rome was still officially polytheistic.

I was saying that it was you who was defining "orthodox views" as what is spelled out in the creeds.

And, as I noted, the very nature of what a creed is defines it as declaring orthodoxy.

Whether you agree with it or not is not relevant -- the creed is what defines orthodox Christianity.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Of course you could -- what do you think the Arians did? Prior to the Middle Ages, if you were declared heretical (as in, contrary to orthodox church teaching,) you were given the opportunity to recant and if you didn't, they kicked you out of the church and you often went off and started your own church, see Marcion or Valentinus for examples.

you forgot the hunted and executed part...

Not prior to the Middle Ages, as noted. Whether Arius was murdered or not is still a matter of speculation.

In constantines letter to arius he expresses a great need to have him at the end of a rope...

I think its a safe assumption

reply to post by jmdewey60

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.

There was a time when I was a Trinitarian, 1975, if memory serves me right. The number one verse I used to back up the doctrine in debates with Arians ( of which there were quite a number in SDA circles ) was from Post-exile Isaiah.

43: 10 “You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh,
“With my servant whom I have chosen;
that you may know and believe me,
and understand that I am he.

Before me there was no God formed,
neither will there be after me.

11 I myself am Yahweh;
and besides me there is no savior.

12 I have declared, I have saved, and I have shown;
and there was no strange god among you.

Therefore you are my witnesses,”
says Yahweh, “and I am God.
. . .
44:23 Sing, you heavens, for Yahweh has done it!
Shout, you lower parts of the earth!
Break out into singing, you mountains, O forest, all of your trees,
for Yahweh has redeemed Jacob,
and will glorify himself in Israel.

24 Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer,
and he who formed you from the womb:

“I am Yahweh, who makes all things;
who alone stretches out the heavens;
who spreads out the earth by myself;

- WEB -

So what it comes down to is that the Trinitarians accept post exile Isaiah as the final authority on God. They forbid anything in the New Testament from altering this version of God. Therefore they conclude that there is and always has been only one god in three persons.

The question is: Is Yahweh actually a singular god as his later prophets said?

If Jesus is god the son of God, then hasn't Yahweh pre-emptively excluded himself from being God the Father? The answer seems obvious to me.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well darn. I suppose you might need to formally file a complaint with Wiki. Seems they have the understanding of Aeon just as jacked as I do:

The word aeon /ˈiːɒn/, also spelled eon, originally means "life" or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon). In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam. A cognate Latin word aevum or aeuum (cf. αἰϝών) for "age" is present in words such as longevity and mediaeval.[1]

"Aeon" - Greek

reply to post by adjensen

Quite a number.

Tell me about those.

The religion was simply legal at the time of the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't the state religion, and Rome was still officially polytheistic.

This was why I was suggesting on the Trinity thread that people should read Pagel's book on Revelation because she gets into that history that through the machinations of Athanasius, the bishops were given the power to discipline the church, being effectively made a branch of the imperial government.

And, as I noted, the very nature of what a creed is defines it as declaring orthodoxy.

Whether you agree with it or not is not relevant -- the creed is what defines orthodox Christianity.

Maybe it defines an individual as fitting the proper official mold but it does not define orthodox thinking in the circles of orthodox theologians.

reply to post by pthena

Before me there was no God formed,
neither will there be after me.

Of course I had to see what word is used in the Greek Old Testament that corresponds with "formed" in the English translation. To me, it is saying in that version, that no other god came about, or ever will.
What I was thinking earlier today was that people read the OT where it talks about false gods being made, for example out of wood, and someone is basically creating a god by forming the wood into something, but really just a physical representation of the god.
I think the problem with people like Athanasius was getting hung up with what the craftsman was doing in the workshop as being what made a god false. That wasn't really what made a god false, it is that there was another god with a prior claim, and declaring anyone else making a similar claim as being false.
So to not make Jesus "false" all they have to do (according to this badly shifted emphasis) is have it so he is never "made".

. . . hasn't Yahweh pre-emptively excluded himself from being God the Father?

Seems like it.
I'm happy to be a polytheist and all this philosophical slight of hand to make a trinity not seem polytheistic was a waste of time and energy and killed an awful lot of Christians for no good reason.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Seems they have the understanding of Aeon just as jacked as I do:

Do you realize that the Greek of the Septuagint is a language of its own?
That is why to read the Septuagint, you need a lexicon specific to the Septuagint Greek.
Notice in the Wikipedia article how the meaning changed over time, using Homer as an example.
Septuagint Greek falls between Classical Greek and Koine Greek and is similar to Hellenistic Greek.
So its meaning in the Septuagint would be between "a lifetime" and "eternity". Probably "age", like I said.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You don't see a contradiction with Jesus claiming no man had ever seen the Father, yet in Genesis chapter 18 both Abraham and Sarah converse and commune with the LORD?

No, I do not. Abraham and Sarah saw a manifestation of the Father, not the Father.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I propose that Jesus is not a liar, and the Lord God Abraham saw, coversed with and ate meal with was God the Son, pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.

edit on 8-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

There is no "God the Son". The title appears nowhere in Scripture neither is the idea of the Son of God existing before His birth.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't what I said, stop lying.

I am not lying. You are the one saying Stephen saw two gods.

Show me where I said that, or admit that you're lying.

In this case... Separate entities equal separate gods.

By the theology that I subscribe to, no it does not, and the fact that you do not subscribe to that theology changes nothing. I did not say that Stephen saw two gods, so you are lying.

Then your theology is not logical. Logic says, if Stephan saw two separate beings who are gods, then he saw two gods. Based on logic, you said Stephen saw two gods.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Seems they have the understanding of Aeon just as jacked as I do:

Do you realize that the Greek of the Septuagint is a language of its own?
That is why to read the Septuagint, you need a lexicon specific to the Septuagint Greek.
Notice in the Wikipedia article how the meaning changed over time, using Homer as an example.
Septuagint Greek falls between Classical Greek and Koine Greek and is similar to Hellenistic Greek.
So its meaning in the Septuagint would be between "a lifetime" and "eternity". Probably "age", like I said.

edit on 9-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Okay, so what is the end result of your claim? That the Son of God was created at some point? That there was a point where He never existed, just the Father?

reply to post by truejew


So Jesus told a half-truth when He said "no man" had seen the Father? That He was playing semantics?

A half-truth is still a lie.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

That isn't what I said, stop lying.

I am not lying. You are the one saying Stephen saw two gods.

Show me where I said that, or admit that you're lying.

In this case... Separate entities equal separate gods.

By the theology that I subscribe to, no it does not, and the fact that you do not subscribe to that theology changes nothing. I did not say that Stephen saw two gods, so you are lying.

Then your theology is not logical. Logic says, if Stephan saw two separate beings who are gods, then he saw two gods. Based on logic, you said Stephen saw two gods.

No, you have no functioning understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

So Jesus told a half-truth when He said "no man" had seen the Father? That He was playing semantics?

A half-truth is still a lie.

No, it is the truth. No man has seen the invisible Father.