J
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
F
Fulton Sheen's Warrior
Guest
+JMJ+
Ya know what? You are absolutley right. I apologize. I wrote that quickly without even thinking.
Peace
Ya know what? You are absolutley right. I apologize. I wrote that quickly without even thinking.
Peace
Thess & FSW
I knew exactly what you were getting at and that is the reason I answered the way I did. I thought you would have got the message. I am part of the body of Christ which is THE church. I stand on (the foundation) and uphold (as a pillar) the truth. And you cannot deny that either.
I knew exactly what you were getting at and that is the reason I answered the way I did. I thought you would have got the message. I am part of the body of Christ which is THE church. I stand on (the foundation) and uphold (as a pillar) the truth. And you cannot deny that either.
G
gingercat
Guest
Fulton Sheen's Warrior said:
Because they are in harmony with everything they do. They are cooperating in everything. They never work against each other. It is so simple.
G
gingercat
Guest
mutzrein said:
Vic did not answer to my post and you did instead. you are a jewel mutz :D
G
gingercat
Guest
Imagican said:
I thought something was wrong about his comments. :-?
In regards to John 1:1, A.T. Robertson exegetes:
"In the beginning (en arxhi).
Arxh is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (hn).
Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (genestai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (o logov).
Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikov logov for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logov, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logov is applied to Christ only in John 1:1,14; Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Hebrews 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (prov ton teon).
Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhteiav, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai teov hn o logov).
By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o teov hn o logov. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logov and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logov) and the predicate without it (teov) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o teov can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o teov agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logov sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality."
Bibliography Information
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on John 1:1". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament".
"In the beginning (en arxhi).
Arxh is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (hn).
Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (genestai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (o logov).
Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikov logov for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logov, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logov is applied to Christ only in John 1:1,14; Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Hebrews 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (prov ton teon).
Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhteiav, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai teov hn o logov).
By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o teov hn o logov. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logov and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logov) and the predicate without it (teov) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o teov can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o teov agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logov sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality."
Bibliography Information
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on John 1:1". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament".
J
John the Baptist
Guest
mutzrein said:
*******
?? I believe that some of us are accountable with the Doctrine of Christ as seen in 2 John 1:6-11. Not all perhaps, yet, when we understand something, we are to not back away.
I also think that in todays 'last day' with every Wind of doctrine blowing as in Jude 1:9-12, we have some posts around continually that are the devils hobby horse of hateful (ignorant?) deception. Hateful of the Godhead! All of the [three] Immortal Everlasting Gospel Family are being attacked by him. Each individual in one way or another. On another site one poster, posts under.. unholy ghost even.
Anyhow: As I see it, I believe that all of these ones are bordering on the mature dangerous sin against the Holy Ghost. The subject as you say, perhaps best be left alone. At least until one surrenders their evil self will to Christ in the first place, and then they can do some following of the one that is Conditionally given to them that OBEY HIM, as in Acts 5:32. Perhaps then they can WORSHIP THE SON OF GOD. :fadein: Exodus 20:3-5 is the Eternal Covenant that God Christ Himself WROTE in tables of stone! And is the New Birth of the Born Again one ! Hebrews 10:15-16.
More on WORSHIP?? Christ states about Himself in Matthew 15:9 & Mark 7:7 what VAIN WORSHIP IS! "In VAIN do they [WORSHIP ME] , teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." (Doctrine of Christ! ='s sun worship also, huh
: ) Isaiah 66:23 find ALL FLESH will WORSHIP before Christ! But who of todays ones believe the Eternal Covenant that tells what 'sin is', huh? 1 John 3:4 Hebrews 13:20. No, Christ is God of the Godhead, ETERNALLY!!
Personally, for me, until one gets the Eternal Epistle of Christ in their heart, with the fruite of obedience, (2 Corrinthians 3:3) I just do not see any spiritual point of reading the devil's stuff! 1 John 4:6 For what is there different than being about yoked with the ones of Revelation 17:5?? It seems that they are 'nearly all' united on perhaps sun worship only.
--John
T
thessalonian
Guest
Imagican said:
By Constantine? he was in authority over the Church? You expect me to accept that explanation by you as meaning anything? Looks like you distort history. Constantine tried to get the Church to reinstate him at the request of his sister. But it didn't happen.
"A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman) "
Did the discovery channel teach you that Arius was reinstated? I sure hope not. Perhaps it's just your bias showing through. Constantine at least recognized the authority of the Church in the matter.
Actually as I recall some Arians were accepted back in to the Church. They declared that their statements were in line with Church teaching which placted one of the Popes. But they lied and denied the trinity. Isn't that on the up and up now. You talk about early church history and how in the first few centuries nobody believed the trinity. Well Nicea, Athanasius and Arius was what was happening. You claim to have all this history from the discovery channel. It is only apparent that you do not. People who think like you did forced communion. They held people down and forced them to eat their Lord's Supper. They imprisoned and persecuted those who disagreed with them. Popes were exiled and imprisoned for believing the trinity and proclaiming it. Your only giving half the story with regard to persecution. People who thought like you persecuted as well.
Blessings
T
thessalonian
Guest
Imigican,
What you don't understand with your threats of proof is that I agree there were persecutions. Stop threating me. There were persecutions on both sides. That is why I said you would be a hypocrit. Are you going to acknowledge that the persecutions were on both sides. Probably not because part of your arguement is these persecutions prove where the truth is. They do not.
I will say that SOME of the punishment that these people recieved by the state was justifiable. Romans 13 says that governments act within the will of God "by the sword". Church leaders should not have been involved in torture and some were. Though you like to broad brush all the Church leaders as evil. That is a huge strech. Tell me imigican, what percentage of all the Catholic bishops at the time of Arius do you have evidence of there being actual abusive acts toward another person? There were I believe 800 bishops at one council so you can use this to calculate your percentage. So present your evidence of atrocities and let's put a number on it. Let's get some sort of a total for the first 1500 years of Christianity for all the Bishops that existed and then all the ones who actually persecuted someone. My guess is the number would be less than 1% that actually persecuted. But it's like anything else. The vast majority of priests have not abused children buy according to people on these message boards all priests are child molesters. No you are prejudiced Imigican. You can't help it.
Blessings
What you don't understand with your threats of proof is that I agree there were persecutions. Stop threating me. There were persecutions on both sides. That is why I said you would be a hypocrit. Are you going to acknowledge that the persecutions were on both sides. Probably not because part of your arguement is these persecutions prove where the truth is. They do not.
I will say that SOME of the punishment that these people recieved by the state was justifiable. Romans 13 says that governments act within the will of God "by the sword". Church leaders should not have been involved in torture and some were. Though you like to broad brush all the Church leaders as evil. That is a huge strech. Tell me imigican, what percentage of all the Catholic bishops at the time of Arius do you have evidence of there being actual abusive acts toward another person? There were I believe 800 bishops at one council so you can use this to calculate your percentage. So present your evidence of atrocities and let's put a number on it. Let's get some sort of a total for the first 1500 years of Christianity for all the Bishops that existed and then all the ones who actually persecuted someone. My guess is the number would be less than 1% that actually persecuted. But it's like anything else. The vast majority of priests have not abused children buy according to people on these message boards all priests are child molesters. No you are prejudiced Imigican. You can't help it.
Blessings
Mutzrein states,
In regards to Titus 2:13 and John 1:1, what scholars can you quote of any repute that will support your views or the church you attend? Modern day Arians, the Jehovah Witnesses have already gone down that road and have been found wanting.
In Christ love, Bubba
If one is going to say a verse doesn’t say Jesus is God, he should be able to support his views. The scholars of the languages did not broad stroke their conclusions when translating. If language is to have meaning, we need ascertain what the author’s intent was and the rules associated with the language and if the words used are appropriately translated to keep that intent, especially, if we are trying to insert a doctrinal position.
In regards to Titus 2:13 and John 1:1, what scholars can you quote of any repute that will support your views or the church you attend? Modern day Arians, the Jehovah Witnesses have already gone down that road and have been found wanting.
In Christ love, Bubba
I
Imagican
Guest
Thess, Thess, Thess, I'm not threatening you. i simply stated that I was going to offer what you keep insisting that I do. I only mentioned that when I do, much of your ability to refute what I offer as opinion will be deminished.
Constantine was the EMPEROR of Rome. His authority was ULTIMATE as far as Roman law was concerned INCLUDING dominion over the CHURCH. CONSTANTINE was the one that DECIDED that 'trinity' WOULD become part of the Catholic doctrine. HE was the ultimate decisioin maker. HE brought the church leaders together to debate the issue and once everyone had their say, HE decided that there 'would' be a 'trinity'. The church would have had NO power had Constantine not given it to them to start with.
And Constantine was NOT even a Christian himself. Supposedly he was read his 'last rights' upon his death bed, but throughout his life he worshiped Mithra. This is a man that when he first became Emperor was having Christians fed to lions and hacked to death by gladiators.
Constantine was the EMPEROR of Rome. His authority was ULTIMATE as far as Roman law was concerned INCLUDING dominion over the CHURCH. CONSTANTINE was the one that DECIDED that 'trinity' WOULD become part of the Catholic doctrine. HE was the ultimate decisioin maker. HE brought the church leaders together to debate the issue and once everyone had their say, HE decided that there 'would' be a 'trinity'. The church would have had NO power had Constantine not given it to them to start with.
And Constantine was NOT even a Christian himself. Supposedly he was read his 'last rights' upon his death bed, but throughout his life he worshiped Mithra. This is a man that when he first became Emperor was having Christians fed to lions and hacked to death by gladiators.
I
Imagican
Guest
For those that may be intersested in who has a 'better' grasp of their history, you may find this information interesting. Thess, please note the blue highlighted area.
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
Arius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the theologian. For the river known in Latin as the Arius, see Hari Rud.
Arius (AD/CE 256 - 336, poss. in North Africa) was an early Christian theologian, who taught that the Son of God was not eternal, and was subordinate to God the Father (a view known generally as Arianism). Although he attracted considerable support at the time (and since), Arius's views were voted into heresy at the Council of Nicaea, leading to the formation of the Nicene Creed. Arius is also known as Arius of Alexandria.
He was possibly of Libyan and Berber descent. His father's name is given as Ammonius. He was made presbyter of the district of Baucalis in Alexandria in 313.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical sources
2 Early life
3 Arius's Concept of Christ
4 The Council of Nicaea
5 After the Council of Nicaea
6 Notes
7 See also
8 External links
[edit]
Historical sources
Information regarding the life and teachings of Arius is limited; most of Arius' writings, deemed heretical by the Council of Nicea, were consequently destroyed. Among the few supposed (we can not guarantee authenticity) remaining works of his include his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, his letter to Eusebius, and Thalia, a popularized work combining prose and verse. Most of the available records of his teaching are found in writings of those who opposed him and denounced him as a heretic.
[edit]
Early life
Arius was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was both a celebrated Christian teacher and a martyr for the faith. In a letter to bishop Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria wrote that Arius derived his heresy from Lucian.
The historian Socrates Scholasticus reports that under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria Arius made the following syllogism: "‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.’"
Arius is reported to have written popular songs, Thaleia which helped spread his doctrine. We are aware that there was a widespread debate then between Christians regarding the divine nature of Christ.
Alexander called a council of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. Once they voted against Arius, Alexander deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters. Then he wrote a letter (see link) to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger he presented to the Christian church. It is clear, from Arius' own letter (also extant, see link) to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Alexander's main charges against Arius were in no way unfair:
"That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’â€â€the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us."
He states something similar in Thalia:
“This is what I have learned from those endowed with wisdom, prominent men, taught by God and skillful in all things. It is in their footsteps I myself walk, I walk like them, I who am so much spoken against, and who have suffered so many things for the glory of God, I who have received from God the wisdom and the knowledge which I possess… God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.
[edit]
Arius's Concept of Christ
This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son, a part of Christology, had been raised before Arius, for example, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in AD 269 for his agreement with those who had used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at that time thought to have a Sabellian tendency, though, as events showed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed, Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria responded with an explanation, which posterity has been inclined to interpret as vacillating. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favor of the opinions later championed by Arius. But this settlement was so unsatisfactory that the question would have been reopened sooner or later, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, and Patriarch Alexander undertook its defense in another.
Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:
that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a "time" [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as chronos or aeon] when He did not exist.
The subsequent controversy shows that Arius' avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning and that, to use Dorner's words (Person of Christ, ii. 115), "the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act" - or in other words, the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. However, Arius seems to have further support in his view as his is purely intellectual, whereas those claiming the eternity of the "begotten" (i.e. created, made, or produced) Son need textual revelation to back their belief, which they have not been able to gather.
Arius was obviously perplexed by this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself, had studied under Lucian. It is to be regretted that so much stress should have been laid in the controversy on words, but this is understood under the influence of Greek philosophical thought, with concepts such as "substance" that are alien to the Jewish religious experience of the Divine. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language on a subject which Athanasius seems to have admitted that it was beyond his power thoroughly to comprehend - he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism. Bishop Macedonius, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same way that the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Arius undoubtedly drew some support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But the speculations of Origen were then, as well as currently, considered as pioneer work in theology, often hazarded to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why in this, as well as other controversies, the authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.
[edit]
The Council of Nicaea
Constantine sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba--the one who instructed him in the faith just before his march to Rome--to investigate and, if possible, put an end to the controversy. Hosius carried with him an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as it continued to rage, Constantine called a council of delegates, summoned from parts of the empire, to resolve this issue, probably at the recommendation of Hosius of Cordoba.[1]
All of the secular dioceses into which the empire had been divided, Roman Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council, the majority of the bishops coming from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. It is possible that Hosius came as a representative of the Pope as well.[2] The object of the council, it must be remembered, was not to pronounce what the church ought to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible what had been taught from the beginning. It was indeed a remarkable gathering: there was not only as good a representation of race and nationality as was possible under the circumstances, but the ability and intellect of the church were also well represented. There was the already mentioned Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria. There was also Eusebius of Caesarea, the renowned historian, as well as the young Athanasius, who was to eventually spend most of his life battling against Arianism. And beside these there were other men present, the brave "confessors," as they were called, whose faces and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings they had undergone for their faith. The emperor did his best to secure an honest selection and an honest decision.
This was the First Council of Nicaea, which met in 325, near Constantinople, under the patronage of the emperor Constantine. “Some twenty-two of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passeges from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.â€Â[3] The assembled bishops agreed upon a creed to be used at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. This creed has came to be known as the Nicene creed. One particular word in the creed, homoousios--“consubstantial,†or “one in being,â€Â--was incompatible with the beliefs of Arius.[4] The creed was presented for signature on June 19, 325. “All the bishops signed it but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.†[5] These two were Theonas and Secundus. They and Arius were exiled to Illyricum. Three other bishops, who had been supportive of Arius, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, were unwilling signatories of the document, but affixed their signatures in deference to the emperor. However, Constantine found some reason to suspect the sincerity of Eusebius of Nicomedia, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea defended himself in a letter as having objected to the changes in the creed which he had originally presented, but finally accepted them in the interests of peace. (Theod. H. E. i. 12).
[edit]
After the Council of Nicaea
That the public unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissenters) masked a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts over the use of a term which had been previously denounced as Sabellian weighed on the minds of many. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having embraced Arianism. But his moderate attitude throughout the following period suggests that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, owed more to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. And his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shows that his apprehensions were not altogether unreasonable. For he remarks how the final consensus emerged after considerable discussion that the term homoousion was not intended to indicate that the Son formed an actual portion of the Father - which would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, a fear which fed much of the dissension to the adoption of the creed. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced that unless the essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons.
The homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, Athanasius was elected to replace him. Soon after, Eusebius of Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after having written a diplomatic letter to the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after reformulating his Christology in an effort to mute the ideas his opponents found most objectionable. It was not long before the Nicomedian Eusebius regained his influence with the emperor, which led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the staunchest supporters of Athanasius, was deposed. If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of his accusers, when seized by a serious illness, retracted her accusation in a sensational manner. But Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen are reticent about the nature of the charges, and only tell us that Eustathius had been unfortunate enough to get involved in a controversy with Eusebius of Caesarea. Marcellus of Ancyra was the next victim, a friend and champion of Athanasius, found it impossible to defend the Nicene decisions without falling into Sabellianism; he was deposed in 336. In the meantime, Eusebius of Nicomedia turned against obdurate Athanasius. Following Arius' restoration to the emperor's favor, the emperor commanded Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion. Athanasius refused - leading to accusations of treason against the emperor.
Athanasius was exiled to Trier, and Alexander of Constantinople was ordered to receive Arius back into communion. Alexander was conflicted. He dared not disobey the command, but he was opposed to Arius' reinstatement. He requested the prayers of his fellow Nicene Christians that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The prayer was, Henry Wace notes, a strange one. Meanwhile, Arius was summoned before the emperor and found to be suitably compliant. And yet, the very day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius died suddenly. Socrates describes his death thus:
It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
Whether Arius' death was miraculous, as many Nicene Christians believed, or he was the victim of poisoning by his enemies, is a matter of supposition, but the extraordinary death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
Arius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the theologian. For the river known in Latin as the Arius, see Hari Rud.
Arius (AD/CE 256 - 336, poss. in North Africa) was an early Christian theologian, who taught that the Son of God was not eternal, and was subordinate to God the Father (a view known generally as Arianism). Although he attracted considerable support at the time (and since), Arius's views were voted into heresy at the Council of Nicaea, leading to the formation of the Nicene Creed. Arius is also known as Arius of Alexandria.
He was possibly of Libyan and Berber descent. His father's name is given as Ammonius. He was made presbyter of the district of Baucalis in Alexandria in 313.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical sources
2 Early life
3 Arius's Concept of Christ
4 The Council of Nicaea
5 After the Council of Nicaea
6 Notes
7 See also
8 External links
[edit]
Historical sources
Information regarding the life and teachings of Arius is limited; most of Arius' writings, deemed heretical by the Council of Nicea, were consequently destroyed. Among the few supposed (we can not guarantee authenticity) remaining works of his include his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, his letter to Eusebius, and Thalia, a popularized work combining prose and verse. Most of the available records of his teaching are found in writings of those who opposed him and denounced him as a heretic.
[edit]
Early life
Arius was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was both a celebrated Christian teacher and a martyr for the faith. In a letter to bishop Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria wrote that Arius derived his heresy from Lucian.
The historian Socrates Scholasticus reports that under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria Arius made the following syllogism: "‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.’"
Arius is reported to have written popular songs, Thaleia which helped spread his doctrine. We are aware that there was a widespread debate then between Christians regarding the divine nature of Christ.
Alexander called a council of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. Once they voted against Arius, Alexander deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters. Then he wrote a letter (see link) to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger he presented to the Christian church. It is clear, from Arius' own letter (also extant, see link) to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Alexander's main charges against Arius were in no way unfair:
"That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’â€â€the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us."
He states something similar in Thalia:
“This is what I have learned from those endowed with wisdom, prominent men, taught by God and skillful in all things. It is in their footsteps I myself walk, I walk like them, I who am so much spoken against, and who have suffered so many things for the glory of God, I who have received from God the wisdom and the knowledge which I possess… God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.
[edit]
Arius's Concept of Christ
This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son, a part of Christology, had been raised before Arius, for example, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in AD 269 for his agreement with those who had used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at that time thought to have a Sabellian tendency, though, as events showed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed, Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria responded with an explanation, which posterity has been inclined to interpret as vacillating. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favor of the opinions later championed by Arius. But this settlement was so unsatisfactory that the question would have been reopened sooner or later, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, and Patriarch Alexander undertook its defense in another.
Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:
that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a "time" [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as chronos or aeon] when He did not exist.
The subsequent controversy shows that Arius' avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning and that, to use Dorner's words (Person of Christ, ii. 115), "the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act" - or in other words, the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. However, Arius seems to have further support in his view as his is purely intellectual, whereas those claiming the eternity of the "begotten" (i.e. created, made, or produced) Son need textual revelation to back their belief, which they have not been able to gather.
Arius was obviously perplexed by this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself, had studied under Lucian. It is to be regretted that so much stress should have been laid in the controversy on words, but this is understood under the influence of Greek philosophical thought, with concepts such as "substance" that are alien to the Jewish religious experience of the Divine. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language on a subject which Athanasius seems to have admitted that it was beyond his power thoroughly to comprehend - he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism. Bishop Macedonius, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same way that the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Arius undoubtedly drew some support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But the speculations of Origen were then, as well as currently, considered as pioneer work in theology, often hazarded to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why in this, as well as other controversies, the authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.
[edit]
The Council of Nicaea
Constantine sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba--the one who instructed him in the faith just before his march to Rome--to investigate and, if possible, put an end to the controversy. Hosius carried with him an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as it continued to rage, Constantine called a council of delegates, summoned from parts of the empire, to resolve this issue, probably at the recommendation of Hosius of Cordoba.[1]
All of the secular dioceses into which the empire had been divided, Roman Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council, the majority of the bishops coming from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. It is possible that Hosius came as a representative of the Pope as well.[2] The object of the council, it must be remembered, was not to pronounce what the church ought to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible what had been taught from the beginning. It was indeed a remarkable gathering: there was not only as good a representation of race and nationality as was possible under the circumstances, but the ability and intellect of the church were also well represented. There was the already mentioned Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria. There was also Eusebius of Caesarea, the renowned historian, as well as the young Athanasius, who was to eventually spend most of his life battling against Arianism. And beside these there were other men present, the brave "confessors," as they were called, whose faces and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings they had undergone for their faith. The emperor did his best to secure an honest selection and an honest decision.
This was the First Council of Nicaea, which met in 325, near Constantinople, under the patronage of the emperor Constantine. “Some twenty-two of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passeges from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.â€Â[3] The assembled bishops agreed upon a creed to be used at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. This creed has came to be known as the Nicene creed. One particular word in the creed, homoousios--“consubstantial,†or “one in being,â€Â--was incompatible with the beliefs of Arius.[4] The creed was presented for signature on June 19, 325. “All the bishops signed it but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.†[5] These two were Theonas and Secundus. They and Arius were exiled to Illyricum. Three other bishops, who had been supportive of Arius, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, were unwilling signatories of the document, but affixed their signatures in deference to the emperor. However, Constantine found some reason to suspect the sincerity of Eusebius of Nicomedia, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea defended himself in a letter as having objected to the changes in the creed which he had originally presented, but finally accepted them in the interests of peace. (Theod. H. E. i. 12).
[edit]
After the Council of Nicaea
That the public unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissenters) masked a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts over the use of a term which had been previously denounced as Sabellian weighed on the minds of many. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having embraced Arianism. But his moderate attitude throughout the following period suggests that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, owed more to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. And his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shows that his apprehensions were not altogether unreasonable. For he remarks how the final consensus emerged after considerable discussion that the term homoousion was not intended to indicate that the Son formed an actual portion of the Father - which would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, a fear which fed much of the dissension to the adoption of the creed. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced that unless the essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons.
The homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, Athanasius was elected to replace him. Soon after, Eusebius of Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after having written a diplomatic letter to the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after reformulating his Christology in an effort to mute the ideas his opponents found most objectionable. It was not long before the Nicomedian Eusebius regained his influence with the emperor, which led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the staunchest supporters of Athanasius, was deposed. If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of his accusers, when seized by a serious illness, retracted her accusation in a sensational manner. But Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen are reticent about the nature of the charges, and only tell us that Eustathius had been unfortunate enough to get involved in a controversy with Eusebius of Caesarea. Marcellus of Ancyra was the next victim, a friend and champion of Athanasius, found it impossible to defend the Nicene decisions without falling into Sabellianism; he was deposed in 336. In the meantime, Eusebius of Nicomedia turned against obdurate Athanasius. Following Arius' restoration to the emperor's favor, the emperor commanded Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion. Athanasius refused - leading to accusations of treason against the emperor.
Athanasius was exiled to Trier, and Alexander of Constantinople was ordered to receive Arius back into communion. Alexander was conflicted. He dared not disobey the command, but he was opposed to Arius' reinstatement. He requested the prayers of his fellow Nicene Christians that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The prayer was, Henry Wace notes, a strange one. Meanwhile, Arius was summoned before the emperor and found to be suitably compliant. And yet, the very day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius died suddenly. Socrates describes his death thus:
It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
Whether Arius' death was miraculous, as many Nicene Christians believed, or he was the victim of poisoning by his enemies, is a matter of supposition, but the extraordinary death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy
T
thessalonian
Guest
Mag,
You making up history again? No Constantine did not decide the trinity doctrine. That is nonsense. Constantine was interested in bringing about order and so he called the council but the Bishops discused and voted. I do hope that in this persecution discussion you will also talk about the persecution that those who preached that Christ was not God, like you, do. No we don't want to expose that do we. People who don't believe Jesus is God are peace loving people. You believe wives tales and Dan Brown stories. I suppose you believe Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has covered this up as well.
You may post 10 stories about bishops persecuting around this time of Constantine's alledged control of the Church. I doudt it will be many more. Let's see 10 out of 800? That means a little over 1% were doing this evil you speak of.
You making up history again? No Constantine did not decide the trinity doctrine. That is nonsense. Constantine was interested in bringing about order and so he called the council but the Bishops discused and voted. I do hope that in this persecution discussion you will also talk about the persecution that those who preached that Christ was not God, like you, do. No we don't want to expose that do we. People who don't believe Jesus is God are peace loving people. You believe wives tales and Dan Brown stories. I suppose you believe Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has covered this up as well.
You may post 10 stories about bishops persecuting around this time of Constantine's alledged control of the Church. I doudt it will be many more. Let's see 10 out of 800? That means a little over 1% were doing this evil you speak of.
I
Imagican
Guest
Oh, and let me add Thess, these sources that I offer are NOT where I 'learned' this information from. These are just the easiest ones to find and produce. I will NOT contend that EVERY word from the sites that I offer is FACT, for it is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to insure this. But, for the MOST PART, these sources are relatively accurate.
I
Imagican
Guest
And though my views may 'seem' Arian in nature, I assure you that my understanding concerning 'trinity' and the nature of the relationship of Father and Son were formed LONG before I had ever even heard the name Arius. My studies of this person and the Nicene Creed were conducted years after coming to the Lord. I had read the Bible no less than half a dozen times before I felt compelled to start studying the 'history' of Christianity. So, please do not accuse me of relying on these simple web sites as being the ONLY sources of information that I base my understanding on.
I chose 'Constantine' as an essay subject in college, (I picked second to last and the choice was limited to Constantine and the beginning of Christianity or something about Mohammed). It was a five thousand word essay, (which by the way I received the ONLY A+ in the class), and I spent about 40 hours of research on this paper. This was years ago before I really even understood ANYTHING about Christianity, (this was before cable internet connections too so about ninety percent of my research was done in the public and school library).
So Thess, these things that I speak of are NOT NEW to me. I have accumulated knowledge on this subject for about five to seven years now. And it is through the study of history and my understanding of the Word that I offer what I offer.
I am a firm believer that a 'puzzle' is a PERFECT analogy of the Word. Some choose to look at tiny pieces of the puzzle and form opinions based on individual lines of scripture. This would be like finding a red piece of a puzzle and deciding before being able to actually determine it's nature, that it MUST be a cherry. Only to find out later after many pieces had been placed together that it was really a firetruck.
The pieces need be fit together BEFORE one decides what they mean. Much of the confusion concerning the Word are for this exact reason. Many will read a 'line of scripture' and decide what it means without being able to understand that it takes the ENTIRE Word to understand what the individual lines mean. it's much deeper than most realize and for this cause there is much confusion.
Example: Thou shall not kill. We know that this CAN NOT be taken literal. If so, there are MANY MANY contradictions to it throughout the Word. What would be a much better translation of this would be something along the lines of: Thou shalt not kill for thine own pride or purpose. But we know that for the collective God himself has empowered persons to kill. And actually outright ORDERED the murder of those dwelling in the promised land by the Hebrews that he promised it to.
So, please believe that I do not 'lightly' make my statements concerning the RCC. I know that there are those that often do. But I have spent much time in study, both in the Bible and in books and information on history WELL BEFORE I ever formulated my understanding that I offer now.
I chose 'Constantine' as an essay subject in college, (I picked second to last and the choice was limited to Constantine and the beginning of Christianity or something about Mohammed). It was a five thousand word essay, (which by the way I received the ONLY A+ in the class), and I spent about 40 hours of research on this paper. This was years ago before I really even understood ANYTHING about Christianity, (this was before cable internet connections too so about ninety percent of my research was done in the public and school library).
So Thess, these things that I speak of are NOT NEW to me. I have accumulated knowledge on this subject for about five to seven years now. And it is through the study of history and my understanding of the Word that I offer what I offer.
I am a firm believer that a 'puzzle' is a PERFECT analogy of the Word. Some choose to look at tiny pieces of the puzzle and form opinions based on individual lines of scripture. This would be like finding a red piece of a puzzle and deciding before being able to actually determine it's nature, that it MUST be a cherry. Only to find out later after many pieces had been placed together that it was really a firetruck.
The pieces need be fit together BEFORE one decides what they mean. Much of the confusion concerning the Word are for this exact reason. Many will read a 'line of scripture' and decide what it means without being able to understand that it takes the ENTIRE Word to understand what the individual lines mean. it's much deeper than most realize and for this cause there is much confusion.
Example: Thou shall not kill. We know that this CAN NOT be taken literal. If so, there are MANY MANY contradictions to it throughout the Word. What would be a much better translation of this would be something along the lines of: Thou shalt not kill for thine own pride or purpose. But we know that for the collective God himself has empowered persons to kill. And actually outright ORDERED the murder of those dwelling in the promised land by the Hebrews that he promised it to.
So, please believe that I do not 'lightly' make my statements concerning the RCC. I know that there are those that often do. But I have spent much time in study, both in the Bible and in books and information on history WELL BEFORE I ever formulated my understanding that I offer now.
T
thessalonian
Guest
Imig,
I am not impressed. Sorry. You are ill equiped for Bible exegesis as you went it alone quite apparently. You made up your own story regarding scripture. It's not to hard to figure out why you can't accept Christ as divine. That is the thinking of the flesh. But the Word became FLESH and dwelt among us. The word was God. This you deny.
I am not impressed. Sorry. You are ill equiped for Bible exegesis as you went it alone quite apparently. You made up your own story regarding scripture. It's not to hard to figure out why you can't accept Christ as divine. That is the thinking of the flesh. But the Word became FLESH and dwelt among us. The word was God. This you deny.
From Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
If Jesus is not God, then explain...
1.Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)
2.Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8?
3.Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14)?
4.Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?
5.Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was , "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)?
6.What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God.
7.How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)?
8.How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30)?
9.How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)?
10.How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)?
11.How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God (Heb. 1:3)?
12.How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2)?
13.How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)?
14.How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)?
15.How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)?
16.How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21?
17.How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21)?
18.How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)?
19.How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people (Rev. 2:23)?
20.Why was Jesus worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (same Greek word for worship is used in each place.)
21.In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? See John 8:58.
22.Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM", for Himself in John 8:58? see Exodus 3:14.
23.Then why did Jesus say you must honor him even as you honor the Father (John 5:23)?
24.Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life (John 5:21)?
25.Then why did Jesus bear witness of Himself (John 8:18; 14:6)?
If Jesus is not God, then explain...
1.Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)
2.Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8?
3.Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14)?
4.Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?
5.Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was , "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)?
6.What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God.
7.How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)?
8.How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30)?
9.How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)?
10.How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)?
11.How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God (Heb. 1:3)?
12.How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2)?
13.How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)?
14.How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)?
15.How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)?
16.How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21?
17.How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21)?
18.How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)?
19.How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people (Rev. 2:23)?
20.Why was Jesus worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (same Greek word for worship is used in each place.)
21.In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? See John 8:58.
22.Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM", for Himself in John 8:58? see Exodus 3:14.
23.Then why did Jesus say you must honor him even as you honor the Father (John 5:23)?
24.Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life (John 5:21)?
25.Then why did Jesus bear witness of Himself (John 8:18; 14:6)?