Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen


I asked NuT specifically one night... "when you get to heaven one day and you stand before God... Who do you believe you will see sitting on the preverbial throne?"

He said Jesus... Which technically means he IS the Father...

And he is a trinitarian

Lets also consider there are three passages in the gospels that say the father
Is greater then the son... While the only person that makes Jesus equal to the Father is Paul..

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I asked NuT specifically one night... "when you get to heaven one day and you stand before God... Who do you believe you will see sitting on the preverbial throne?"

He said Jesus... Which technically means he IS the Father...

And he is a trinitarian

I will let him respond, but there are a couple of instances where the throne of God is mentioned, and Christ is there, at the right hand of God. Jesus is also named as King and Lord, and those are roles that are associated with thrones, so I don't think the statement you cite means that Jesus is the Father (which is irrational, anyway.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I asked NuT specifically one night... "when you get to heaven one day and you stand before God... Who do you believe you will see sitting on the preverbial throne?"

He said Jesus... Which technically means he IS the Father...

And he is a trinitarian

I will let him respond, but there are a couple of instances where the throne of God is mentioned, and Christ is there, at the right hand of God. Jesus is also named as King and Lord, and those are roles that are associated with thrones, so I don't think the statement you cite means that Jesus is the Father (which is irrational, anyway.)

Yes... All of which are in revelation... Not the gospels

In them Jesus sits at the right hand... Not on Gods chair

Originally posted by Akragon
In them Jesus sits at the right hand... Not on Gods chair

Well, there is this, of course.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28 NIV)

That's a lotta chairs, but NuT may have been referring to that, the Final Judgement.

reply to post by Akragon

And he is a trinitarian

He seems to take that position when talking with truejew but he isn't in the orthodox sense of trinitarian.
He seems to be a modelist but of a different sort as promoted by Sebelius.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
In them Jesus sits at the right hand... Not on Gods chair

Well, there is this, of course.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28 NIV)

That's a lotta chairs, but NuT may have been referring to that, the Final Judgement.

Unfortunately him sitting in Gods place stands in direct contradiction with all three of the synoptics...

reply to post by adjensen

Arianism put Jesus on a less-equal footing from the Father, that was dismissed as heresy in the Fourth Century.

It was "dismissed" only by some people.
Arianism eventually lost out in a political way within an institutional hierarchy but only after a couple hundred years of going back and forth.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
In them Jesus sits at the right hand... Not on Gods chair

Well, there is this, of course.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28 NIV)

That's a lotta chairs, but NuT may have been referring to that, the Final Judgement.

Unfortunately him sitting in Gods place stands in direct contradiction with all three of the synoptics...

Setting aside the fact that he's God, he isn't "sitting in God's place" -- he's sitting in his own. From the creed:

He (Jesus) will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

If he's the King, he has a throne.

As exemplified by my earlier quote, there's no limit on thrones, so saying that Jesus has his own doesn't contradict anything.

(And, just guessing here, but NuT may subscribe to the belief in "soul sleep" -- he doesn't expect to see God until the Final Judgement, at which time Christ is on his throne of the Kingdom of God. I know of other Protestants than the SDAs who believe in the concept, though most, as well as the Catholics, do not.)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Arianism put Jesus on a less-equal footing from the Father, that was dismissed as heresy in the Fourth Century.

It was "dismissed" only by some people.

It was dismissed by the orthodox church.

Spoiler alert, Dewey, but I'm an orthodox Christian, so I'm going to generally side with that view. Arianism presents some very problematic issues, to the extent that much of Christian theology would collapse if Christ were a creature, was not eternal, and was not divine. The real question, in my mind, is why it made sense to anyone in the first place.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Arianism put Jesus on a less-equal footing from the Father, that was dismissed as heresy in the Fourth Century.

It was "dismissed" only by some people.

It was dismissed by the orthodox church.

Spoiler alert, Dewey, but I'm an orthodox Christian, so I'm going to generally side with that view. Arianism presents some very problematic issues, to the extent that much of Christian theology would collapse if Christ were a creature, was not eternal, and was not divine. The real question, in my mind, is why it made sense to anyone in the first place.

Perhaps because it mimics the words of John?

Specifically, Jesus was the Only begotten son of God... IF he was begotten, he was created... Though it seems the debate raged over calling Christ a "creature" which is silly... Clearly even though he was created, he was still divine in his own right... but less then the Father, not equal to... as he said numerous times

reply to post by Akragon


No. Going back to the creed:

Begotten, not made

Christ is not a creature (a created being.) He wasn't born, he wasn't created, he was begotten.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

No. Going back to the creed:

Begotten, not made

Christ is not a creature (a created being.) He wasn't born, he wasn't created, he was begotten.

Ok but you can't change the meaning of the word if it doesn't suit the needs of the discussion...

begotten past participle of be·get (Verb)

Verb

1.(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) Bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
2.Give rise to; bring about.

Synonyms

produce - originate - bring forth - bear

anything "begotten" has a creator... It does not mean "has always existed"...

Even Paul says he was the "first born" of all creation

reply to post by Akragon


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

reply to post by adjensen


If nothing else existed at the "time" when Jesus was created, he couldn't be created of anything but the Father... which still makes him a created being... Needing a creator to exist in any case...

Without the Father first creating him... he would not have existed

To quote Arius...

there was a time when he was Not...
Before he was born, he was not...
He was made out of nothing existing (which I don't agree with)
He was from another subsistence/substance (disagree)
Be is subject to alteration or change...

Im not really sure about that last one either... I don't recall any real inconsistanies, perhaps minor ones... Yet even he wouldn't even call himself "Good"... so the first two statements still stand

reply to post by Akragon


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

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

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

That's what I just said... I just quoted his own words saying that exact thing...

There must have been a time where Jesus did not exist if he was created... its only logical

From one came two... Or did God split himself?

Which sounds very gnostic... even docetic

Originally posted by Akragon
There must have been a time where Jesus did not exist if he was created... its illogical

Exactly. Christ was not created, he is not a creature.

Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

(previously: Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
There must have been a time where Jesus did not exist if he was created... its illogical

Exactly. Christ was not created, he is not a creature.

Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

(previously: Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.)

This is just a circular argument... Begotten means made/created... so does first born... meaning first created...

What bible passage says Jesus always existed?

Everything including Jesus was "Created' except the initial "creator"...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

And he is a trinitarian

He seems to take that position when talking with truejew but he isn't in the orthodox sense of trinitarian.
He seems to be a modelist but of a different sort as promoted by Sebelius.

Um, no.

reply to post by Akragon

Even Paul says he was the "first born" of all creation

Are you feeling okay? It appears you quoted Paul. Anyways..

I brought up to you before, (95% sure), that the term "firstborn" is a Hebraism meaning "greatest born/chief born", not necessarily first in numerical order. This is seen in the OT where David is also called the firstborn, yet he is the youngest son of Jesse. Christ was indeed born according to the flesh, however He pre-existed with God the Father in Spirit before the foundation of the world.