Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

As you are aware, there are no surviving original writings of Arius.

They do, and can be found in Athanasius' works, where he quotes Arius.

Okay, you're apparently new to the discipline of history.

Athanasius quoting Arius is evidence of Arius' writings, potentially, but it is not an original writing of Arius.

So really, what I am asking is, where does Athanasius quote Arius saying that Jesus was created.

Kindly reference Documents of the Early Arian Controversy

You might, specifically, look at this:

But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning.

in the Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Son has a beginning, God has no beginning?

Exactly what I spoke of earlier.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AQuestion

 

What do you make of this verse?

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

IF no man knows the Son except the Father... and no man knows the Father save the son...

Before Jesus came on the scene, no man knew the true God...

Logical?

edit on 30-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Dear Akragon,

The verse says that there is none all knowing except the father and the son, they know each other fully. We know as looking through a glass dimly, we see part and that part is true; but, it is not all. Your last statement I disagree with because Adam knew God, Moses knew God and one prophet knew him so well that he walked with him and he talked with him and then he was and he was not for he was raptured. As humans we can only know aspects of God, Jesus knew all of God. In my understanding.

Jesus also said no man has ever seen God... that fact combined with the other passage I used in on a previous page... that being "all that came before me are thieves and robbers"... tells a different story then what you can read in the OT

reply to post by adjensen

Okay, you're apparently new to the discipline of history.

I'm not a professional historian, if that is what you mean. I am not new to studying history since I have been doing it for fifty years and have read hundreds of history books.

Athanasius quoting Arius is evidence of Arius' writings, potentially, but it is not an original writing of Arius.

Hello, all this happened a long time ago and most of what we have in the way of writings from that period comes to us as quotes like that.
And I don't see what your point is anyway. What I was trying to do is to get at something more substantial than hearsay on web sites.

Son has a beginning, God has no beginning?

Exactly what I spoke of earlier.

That was not how I understood it. You seemed to be saying something else, that Arius claimed that Jesus was created like any other creature, like in Genesis 1, or something.
If you want to be critical because Arius does not go along with Catholic so-called orthodoxy, then, of course, that was the whole problem. Athanasius had this really great scheme about how to work out the Trinity so that they were all equal. Arius and a lot of other theologians disagreed.
Here is a poem or song that Athanasius published that he claims Arius wrote for fun (based on the metre, according to Athanasius).

God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men.
Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory.
And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by nature.
We praise Him as Unoriginate because of Him who has an origin.
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be.
The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated;
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption.
He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence;
For He is not equal, no, nor one in substance with Him.
Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom.
There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings,
Both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son is He invisible.
I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible;
By that power by which God sees, and in His own measure,
The Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful.
Thus there is a Three, not in equal glories.
Not intermingling with each other are their subsistences.
One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity.
Foreign from the Son in substance is the Father, for He is Unoriginate.
Understand that the One was; but the Two was not, before it was in existence.
It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God.
Hence the Son, not being, (for He existed at the will of the Father,)
Is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either.
Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions.
Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light.
One equal to the Son, the Supreme is able to generate.
But more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able.
At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever He is.
And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God.
He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior.
To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son.
For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable.
So that nothing which is called comprehensible
Does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him
To investigate the Father, who is by Himself.
For the Son does not know His own substance,
For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father.
What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father
Should know His own parent by comprehension?
For it is plain that, for That which hath origin
To conceive how the Unoriginate is,
Or to grasp the idea, is not possible.

The above was considered as utter blasphemy by Athanasius.
So, guess what, the books I have that I thought I was so smart having thirty years ago, are now available online, so anyone who wants to study up on it, have fun,
www.newmanreader.org...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Okay, you're apparently new to the discipline of history.

I'm not a professional historian, if that is what you mean. I am not new to studying history since I have been doing it for fifty years and have read hundreds of history books.

Athanasius quoting Arius is evidence of Arius' writings, potentially, but it is not an original writing of Arius.

Hello, all this happened a long time ago and most of what we have in the way of writings from that period comes to us as quotes like that.

Sad to say, even after all that effort, that doesn't make you a historian.

It is an actual discipline, which involves research and methodology.

Arius isn't granted some mystical authority, simply because you don't understand historical methodology and/or historical acceptance.

reply to post by adjensen

Sad to say, even after all that effort, that doesn't make you a historian.

I didn't say I was but I know about history and that civilization was basically destroyed in the Dark Ages and most writings were lost, and a lot of what we do have is what was quoted in other books. That's normal and I read that very description, over and over when I read history books of that era.

Arius isn't granted some mystical authority,

I think you lost track of the whole train of events on this thread.
Arius is an authority on Arianism, which is named after him, as the inventor.

simply because you don't understand historical methodology and/or historical acceptance.

What in the world are you talking about when you think random web sites that come up on a Google search is good evidence?

reply to post by Akragon


Dear Akragon,

Jesus also said no man has ever seen God... that fact combined with the other passage I used in on a previous page... that being "all that came before me are thieves and robbers"... tells a different story then what you can read in the OT

You do not have to see God to know God. Consider Hellen Keller, does the fact that she could not hear or see mean that mean she didn't know anyone? What is it to know someone, does it mean that you can say their name in a perfect manner or does it mean that you understand what their choices are? What their priorities are?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Oh, okay. I thought that since you agreed that you have had this conversation before that we were on the same page. Apparently not.

No, I just don't want to address red herrings.

reply to post by Akragon


That had nothing to do with doctrine. Paul felt John Mark wasn't cut out for the job because he got homesick and wanted to go home halfway through the last missionary journey.

Originally posted by adjensen
However, as an orthodox Christian apologist, I'd rather be accused by God of arguing matters that don't really matter (and thus, being a boor) than be accused by God of ignoring matters that really do matter (and thus, allowing others to fall into error.)

The error that non-Trinitarians make is believing that the doctrine is anything other than an effort to explain what the evidence shows. The only way that a non-Trinitarian belief works is if one either adopts polytheism, or they reject the evidence of the New Testament, because it makes Jesus out to have a multi-personality disorder.

I don't think apologist would be correct here. You're synopsis of Unitarian is deliberately false or a flagant misunderstanding. Either you are a very poor apologist to have such a complete lack of understanding on what is by most accounts a central issue, or you are a very subtle and calculating apologist who is intentionally lying to boost your case.

Unitarians don't say that Jesus is the Father and that He prays to Himself. If anything that would be Trinitarians who say that Jesus is God and the Father is God. Your stupid little triangle is the best demonstration of the lack of logicality in your doctrine but also shows the backbone of everything the rules of logic explicitly prohibit.



What Oneness Pentecostals believe is what results when you introduce any semblance of logic into the triangle and it is why I regard it as being a hyper-Trinitarian view. Trinitarianism reaching its final conclusion would make Christ God and eliminate the other two by reduction.

What Unitarians believe is very different from Oneness. Unitarians say that Yeshua was not God, that He was inferior and subject to God from eternity, and that the Holy Spirit is what dwells within us that empowers us with faith and strength to pursue God.

But the Holy Spirit and Christ are not God at all. Otherwise, we would say you enter idolatry, which is what you do when you make Yeshua God. There is none beside YHWH.

Originally posted by adjensenIf you wish to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity, at least take the time to understand it (even if you disagree with it.)

O apologist, let not yourself paint us with such broad strokes. Non-trinitarianism isn't an organized or cohesive unit. It is composed of several theories that compete with each other as well as Trinitarianism. You're being very unfair to equate Unitarianism with Oneness. I don't agree that Oneness is Unitarian, but even if it is, it makes only for a very small portion of us, I suspect.

Originally posted by adjensenYou said this:

if all Christians believe Jesus was god, they also believe he was the Father

which is an indication that you do not understand the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Christians do not believe that Jesus was the Father, and the Doctrine of the Trinity explicitly says that Jesus is not the Father.

Again, please take the time to understand what we teach, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Here I would add that condescension isn't nice either.

Please, if you are an apologist, you will have to do better than what I have seen from you so far.

Keep in mind when you draw these stupid little triangles that are offensive to any thinking person you're turning millions of people away from the faith you should be winning them to.

Oh and that one where you pretty much say if the Trinity is wrong, then that would prove Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, he would just be a decent guy who meant well but didn't really die for our sins...

Why do you feel you get to make that determination?



Isn't that kind of immature to say, "And if I'm wrong, then Jesus is just a liar!"

You seem really twisted and high on yourself.

reply to post by Witness123

Oh and that one where you pretty much say if the Trinity is wrong, then that would prove Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, he would just be a decent guy who meant well but didn't really die for our sins...

Why do you feel you get to make that determination?

adjensen was quoting a school paper that palg1 posted on page 7 of this thread, which was paraphrasing a passage by a key Catholic author on the human attempt at understanding God.
That determination was made by an expert and adjensen agreed with it and thought it was worth repeating in an appropriate application of that thought.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It's not germane. If he agrees with it, then my point stands. If he disagrees, that would be germane.

reply to post by Witness123

But the Holy Spirit and Christ are not God at all. Otherwise, we would say you enter idolatry, which is what you do when you make Yeshua God. There is none beside YHWH.

So your version of a Christology hinges on whether God the Father is Yahweh or not.
The logic of your argument is that Yahweh is by definition, a jealous god, so He would not allow another god beside Him.
If God the Father in fact was not Yahweh, the reason for existence of your Christ theory is eliminated, and then you can have a coexistence of two persons who are both generically "god".
So, is this your opinion, that all the descriptions of a god character in the Old Testament are correct, and that person exists to this day and was who Jesus was talking about whenever he referred to his Father?
My opinion is that someone who was in fact the God of the universe, would naturally have a person with Him who is like a son, or is in fact somehow a son, who would serve as a sort of interface between this supreme 'godness', and all things created.

reply to post by Witness123

. . . then my point stands.

And your "point" is your ability to ask the question of why he is allowed to have an opinion?
Do you believe that you are allowed to "make determinations"?

reply to post by Witness123


Oneness is not "hyper-trinitarianism" as you say. We teach Father and Holy Spirit are titles of the same God. The Son is the same God manifest in flesh and is not eternal and is not part of God.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You are absolutely right about the period in which it was written. Chapter 2 as a wholeis relevent, but more specifically "The Nicene Problem" touches on the key arguments of the time, and the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Witness123

 

Oh and that one where you pretty much say if the Trinity is wrong, then that would prove Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, he would just be a decent guy who meant well but didn't really die for our sins...

Why do you feel you get to make that determination?

adjensen was quoting a school paper that palg1 posted on page 7 of this thread, which was paraphrasing a passage by a key Catholic author on the human attempt at understanding God.
That determination was made by an expert and adjensen agreed with it and thought it was worth repeating in an appropriate application of that thought.

edit on 1-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Thank yo for clarrifying this for Witness123. I was going to respond but then I spotted yours.
Btw Witness123, It is actually a university paper not high school.

reply to post by palg1

You are absolutely right about the period in which it was written. The chapter 2 as a whole, but more specifically "The Nicene Problem" touches on the key arguments of the time, and the subject of this thread.

"The Nicene Problem" I think was created by Athanasius because he wasn't satisfied with the Trinity theory as it stood, having certain philosophical ideas about what God could and couldn't be.
What you have now is the Catholic Church defending what happened back then, and supporting the foundation for its even calling itself catholic, which is the theory, or dogma, in this case, of the Ecumenical Council being infallible.
The Nicaean Council being basically the test case of that theory, so they have to defend it to the death, whether the decision was right or wrong.

reply to post by palg1

It is actually a university paper not high school.

Oops, that sounded better for my argument.
It is not exactly a doctoral dissertation.
I was being a bit critical but what I meant was that you were reading opinions of people who studied the documents that surrounded the original event, rather than you studying them yourself.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by palg1

 

You are absolutely right about the period in which it was written. The chapter 2 as a whole, but more specifically "The Nicene Problem" touches on the key arguments of the time, and the subject of this thread.

"The Nicene Problem" I think was created by Athanasius because he wasn't satisfied with the Trinity theory as it stood, having certain philosophical ideas about what God could and couldn't be.
What you have now is the Catholic Church defending what happened back then, and supporting the foundation for its even calling itself catholic, which is the theory, or dogma, in this case, of the Ecumenical Council being infallible.
The Nicaean Council being basically the test case of that theory, so they have to defend it to the death, whether the decision was right or wrong.

Your theory may have stood some ground during and after Trent (1545–63), but today's contemporary Church has attempted to look at the understanding of who God is based on the works of the Church Fathers (a new fresh look). The rhetorical and philisophical arguments have been re-examined. The general conclusion is that the determinations made at Nicea and Constantinople still hold ground.

You may want to return to my original post in this thread and look up some of the other references as well.