ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
*
I have read you to say countless times that you are still seeking the truth even unto grey hairs, when do you suppose then to find it?
Totton, I will seek all his truth till I take my last breath. For we never know enough about our God and his son. Your problem is you quit learning, I assume you think you know it all. I every you if you do.
Peace Totton
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
Tertullian did NOT believe that there was a time when the Word did not exist. He believed that the Word became Son for our salvation. Tertullian and the Apologists believed in a "two stages" existence of the Word.
I will be able to provide documentation when I return from vacation.
First off, most of the church fathers didn't distinguish between the Logos/Word and the Son of God. Rather, they maintained that since the moment that he was first begotten, before all else, he was the Son of God. He became the Son of Man when he was born a man. This two-fold birth is a common theme amongst church fathers - if you take a look at my paper under the section on Justin Martyr you'll find an interesting quote by the later theologian Lactantius on the matter.
Second off, you falsely assume that all of the Apologists believed the same model. They had similar ideas, but not equivalent ones. Tertullian explicitly states in multiple locations that there was a time when the Son did not exist, when God was not the Father. One such quote is in the paper. Here is another relevant passage from his Against Praxaes ch. V
[God] existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call Logos by which term we also designate word or discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to there mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
First off, most of the church fathers didn't distinguish between the Logos/Word and the Son of God. Rather, they maintained that since the moment that he was first begotten, before all else, he was the Son of God. He became the Son of Man when he was born a man. This two-fold birth is a common theme amongst church fathers - if you take a look at my paper under the section on Justin Martyr you'll find an interesting quote by the later theologian Lactantius on the matter.
Second off, you falsely assume that all of the Apologists believed the same model. They had similar ideas, but not equivalent ones. Tertullian explicitly states in multiple locations that there was a time when the Son did not exist, when God was not the Father. One such quote is in the paper. Here is another relevant passage from his Against Praxaes ch. V
[God] existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call Logos by which term we also designate word or discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to there mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance
For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself
I do not see you as an honest scholar. I give you these and you simply white-wash and 'so what?' You do not represent the fathers but only a purposeful misleading portion of them.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
If you had credentials you would know about Tertullian's "two stages" of the Word doctrine. Just Google it before you embarrass yourself further.
The dangers of relying on those "scholarly" commentaries is manifesting itself. They mostly seem to adopt the western orthodox view, and can't see the truth through these clouded spectacles. Nevertheless, there are plenty of scholars who realize that Tertullian believed there was a time when the son did not exist. I shouldn't, but somehow I seem to quite enjoy the dismay people feel when they are faced with the fact that the "father" of the trinity would be anesthmatized from the church under the Nicean creed. May the intellectually honest who read this be willing to learn more about how the trinity doctrines were made by man, and are not from the scriptures, because when they accept this, they are finally free to be one with God through Jesus - to realize their true godly potential. This is coming from a man who was raised trinitarian.
csuguy I spent 2 years and hundreds of hours researching early church history among other things in one of the best theological libraries in the country. Your paper is intellectually honest, and you are to be commended for seeking after the truth. Unlike you however, I did not find the trinity too hard to let go of, when I realized the truth that we are actually promised something much better in the scriptures than trinitarians believe. I find it really very amusing that Lon has paid good money to be indoctrinated, and then accuses you of being indoctrinated. Pffff. By who? The spirit of God? Y'know, out of all those books I read, I can not think of one that I could say was anti-trinitarian. They were not written for the purpose of slamming the trinity. Most that trinitarians would have a problem with were just historians writing histories. The fact that they were not written through the eyes of the same people who burnt and destroyed all materials that they viewed as being against church teachings, does not mean they were anti-trinitarian. Between the two groups I think it is obvious who the indoctrinators are.
Last edited by RevTestament; May 19th, 2012 at 10:26 PM.
I find it really very amusing that Lon has paid good money to be indoctrinated, and then accuses you of being indoctrinated. Pffff. By who? The spirit of God? Y'know, out of all those books I read, I can not think of one that I could say was anti-trinitarian. They were not written for the purpose of slamming the trinity. Most that trinitarians would have a problem with were just historians writing histories. The fact that they were not written through the eyes of the same people who burnt and destroyed all materials that they viewed as being against church teachings, does not mean they were anti-trinitarian. Between the two groups I think it is obvious who the indoctrinators are.
Obviously you didn't read just above...
I'm not too overtly concerned with knee-jerk reactions, but substantial and thoughtful replies. You can just keep those initial thoughts to yourself.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The dangers of relying on those "scholarly" commentaries is manifesting itself. They mostly seem to adopt the western orthodox view, and can't see the truth through these clouded spectacles. Nevertheless, there are plenty of scholars who realize that Tertullian believed there was a time when the son did not exist.
Blowing smoke in the wind... commentaries and secondary sources...
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Tertullian concludes Chp 5 with:
I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.
In Against Hermogenes chp 3 he says: "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him."
csugay, your paper is excellent. I found it informative. It seems to fit what i have already learned about our early church fathers. There are some on here who will not admit that you did good. You know who they are. in my humble opinion, you are on the right road friend, and you have a gift.
God Bless
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
csugay, your paper is excellent. I found it informative. It seems to fit what i have already learned about our early church fathers. There are some on here who will not admit that you did good. You know who they are. in my humble opinion, you are on the right road friend, and you have a gift.
God Bless
Thank you - means a lot
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Tertullian concludes Chp 5 with:
I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.
In Against Hermogenes chp 3 he says: "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him."
Yep! It is truly unfortunate the Lon and others choose to blind themselves from the obvious facts of the matter. I suppose its true what they say - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
I own the Ante-Nicene Father Series, thanks though.
Quote:
I do not see you as an honest scholar.
You would only see someone as an honest scholar if they parroted your views. You are the dishonest one here - completely ignoring the overwhelming abundance of objective evidence that conflicts with your views and relying upon personal attacks.
Quote:
I give you these and you simply white-wash and 'so what?' You do not represent the fathers but only a purposeful misleading portion of them.
I've addressed all of the excerpts presented from the Fathers here - you're the one who ignores the excerpts I provide.
That single line you provide here doesn't show anything to support your position, and most certainly doesn't do away with what he said immediately prior or what he says immediately after. Your are being purposefully ignorant - ignoring that he says multiple times, in one way or another, that there was a time when the Son didn't exist.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
sword of the Spirit....... -
May 20th, 2012, 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Don't talk as if you know me Lon. For your information I was once upon a time a devote Trinitarian and actively promoted it. It was about my Senior year of High School that I truly started to question it, and I have spent the past six years going back and reading the writings of the early Church Fathers - the entire Ante-Nicene Father Series and then some - to reach my current view points. The views I express aren't like yours - I didn't simply inherit them or blindly accept what the preacher said- I put forth lots of effort, studying, debate, and prayer to reach where I am today. And to tell you the truth - I had a hard time letting go of the Trinity, because that is what I was raised to believe.
You misunderstand the nature of this paper if you think I should be addressing the "arguments" of random people online. First off, your "arguments" usually lack substance and amount to "just accept what I say cause I have a degree." Secondly, this paper doesn't put forth a particular Christology as being superior to any of the others. It merely objectively goes through and shows that there were several conflicting Christologies in the early church and thus that what ultimately became the orthodox view of the Trinity was not always the common belief among Christians.
You would only accept a work that parroted your views. You are anything but objective. If anything this a work of anti-indoctrination and is based upon years of research of the early church.
Both those excerpts are completely relevant to the section of the paper in which they appear: explaining the Trinity and its importance. Those quotes reflect the traditional approach to dealing with the difficulty in trying to understand the Trinity: it is beyond our comprehension.
Yes - Athanasius' ideas are very much present in the doctrine, which is why it was originally accredited to him. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed amongst scholars that it is actually a 6th century work - not a fourth century work - and we have no clue who truly wrote it. So yes: it is of dubious origin.
Just so you know, here are synonyms of dubious: equivocal, ambiguous, obscure, unclear. undecided, uncertain, hesitant, fluctuating. see dictionary.com
I was purposefully trying to get more secondary sources into this paper. Using primary sources is important, and I did plenty of it, but so is using secondary sources.
Your whole criticism is simply a misguided personal attack and has nothing to do with the quality of what has been presented.
Not at all, I have demonstrated three major conflicting Christologies in the early church. Even the early Trinitarians like Tertullian aren't compatible with what became orthodoxy - and he points out that his position was in the minority. In order for such major conflicting Christologies to exist, it necessarily follows that what is now considered the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity was not considered orthodox back then.
Excellent treatise upon the subject, and it agrees with my own research and findings. We could even branch out more on other schools of 'Christology' but the 3 earlier views of 'God' and his relationship to 'Christ' you touch on are primary ones to which all others relate in one way, shape or form.
Some think that the Trinity doctrine was somehow already extant and formulated by the early followers of Jesus from the get-go, but such was not the case, as it became a more definitive doctrine formulated and 'honed' as it were in time, thru centuries of doctrinal debate, heresy-hunting, and the mission to officialize a standard 'orthodox' doctrine by the reigning church-state. Do your own research folks and think for yourself. Not to sound cliche, but you are responsible for what you believe.
A great book for starters on a history of 'doctrinal developments' which I just recently read is ' The Christian Conspiracy ' by David Moore.
This is a wonderful subject to me, in my christian studies of course
Like I say, its all cosmetics. Of course not all, but you get my point. There is only One God essence, divinity and love,....and this singular substance is related by differentiation, division, distinction of personalities, communion, fellowship. The One naturally and logically distributes itself out of its original substance into many forms for the creative purpose and will to relate, expand, grow, develop, experience. This is what Life is about: creative unfoldment, the actualizing of divine potential, the engagement of personalities, relationship.
While the meaning of 'orthodox' holds its own right, it became more of a term qualified towards particular doctrine that a certain group itself bestowed. Of course those in a position of power chose for themselves what was to be 'orthodox'....and so it was.
The truth of the matter however is a spiritual dynamic and living reality that transcends dogma or creed, but is the heart of the Christ-experience that all those joined with Jesus experience as a 'new birth'. The fruit of such communion is the experience of 'sonship', where God's Fatherhood is realized, so that the unbegotten substance of Deity is shared by all those begotten.
I would indeed like to branch out and discuss even more Christologies, but due to time constraints this is where I will leave it for now. I do want to expand it later tho - potentially into a book even?
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
I would indeed like to branch out and discuss even more Christologies, but due to time constraints this is where I will leave it for now. I do want to expand it later tho - potentially into a book even?
You're welcome. If your vision includes a book project, wonderful. I gather today in Christendom, a versatility of views on Christology still exists in one form or another from Unitarian to Trinitarian and all variations therein. Such is natural given the predisposition of character and philosophical proclivities. The fundamental of Jesus as the Agent of God remains.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
sword of the Spirit....... -
May 20th, 2012, 01:53 AM
Linear Mode
