Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by truejew

 

What I said are facts. If someone is everywhere present, He cannot have a right hand side. If there is one god setting next to another god, there are two gods.

No, what you said were assumptions based on your understanding of the universe. If this deity exists, it's safe to assume that no one has a clue what its capable of. Like I said your claim that "he cannot" says that it has limitations. I'm going to assume you don't believe your god has any limitations (although I could be wrong) and if thats what you do actually believe then yes it can have a right hand side as well as sit next to itself. A bit off topic and really not a big deal but I often wonder why people believe god created the known and unknown yet constantly pick such insignificant things and say no god can't. Just odd to me.

If you want there to be two gods when God says there is only one, that is your business. However it is not Christian and those two gods won't save you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It doesn't matter WHEN Arius said Jesus was created, the problem is saying He was a created God, not eternally in existence with His Father. Jesus was not created.

It sounds like you should be saying something like, "It doesn't matter if you say begotten or created, the problem is saying that Jesus had any sort of beginning."
So apparently John was lying when he said that 'God gave his only begotten son' or is this just another of your so-called hebrewisms?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What does the verse say in the LXX?

It says:

και αι εξοδοι αυτου απ αρχης εξ ημερων αιωνος

I'm guessing that what you wanted was what it might mean in English.
It says, "from the earliest days of this age."
You probably think that it will say forever, and when Micah wants to say that, he will say, "this age and beyond".

You have a serious problem with the Hebrew of Micah 5:2


HERE

The word translated as "everlasting" implies an eternal, perpetual existence. Meaning, not created.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . Jesus's flesh and blood grew in Mary . . .

I would have read that if you would have put it into your post.
Instead you said, 'entered "reality".'

I actually said , "reality as we know it", meaning from a standpoint of quantum physics there is a greater reality and more dimensions than the three spacial dimensions and time. Or in other words, He entered what we would call the "physical" reality.

reply to post by truejew

If you want there to be two gods when God says there is only one, that is your business. However it is not Christian and those two gods won't save you.

I have said nothing of their being two gods. I only stated that if this all powerful being wanted to stand next to itself that by my understanding it should be able too. That statement in no ways goes against anything theologically. Perhaps you having trouble understanding the concept of limitless power. Perhaps your convinced that your god has limitations I honestly don't know.

I can stand next to myself. While I am not a god I can use a full length mirror. There technically isn't two of me but for appearances if you weren't aware of the mirror it would appear there were two of me. After reading the bible and what god does throughout it I don't see the issue with it having a right, left or standing next to itself if it wanted to. The god I read about doesn't appear to have any limitations.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Jesus said He shared glory with the Father before the world existed.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

John 17:5

That does not support your claim that I was asking scripture for:

The pre-existent, eternal Son of God took on flesh at the incarnation, He always existed with the Father in glory before the foundation of the world.

Where is the verse for "eternal Son", and where is the verse for "He always existed"?
I agree with part, which is the person who became Jesus existed before that, because Jesus claims that and Paul supports it in Philippians 2.
Where is the verse that says that Jesus "always existed?
If you say, John 1, then I don't accept that because it is talking about the Logos, which it says right at the beginning is God.
Now people argue that John is saying that it is Jesus, but it doesn't say that.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus was not created.

His flesh was created. His Spirit was the creator.

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

Good to see that you don't follow the devine flesh doctrine. Now if only you would reject the eternal "God the Son" doctrine and replace it with the eternal God the Father manifest in flesh as the Son of God doctrine that the Bible teaches.

The Bible doesn't teach that.

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:54-56 NIV)

Is God standing beside himself? And if that's just the flesh of a man standing next to the spirit God, then Jesus is not divine.

The right hand of God means that He has the authority and power of God. The only way God could have a literal right hand side is if He is not omnipresent and the only way a god can literally sit next to God would be if there is more than one God.

Stephen is having a vision, a vision of the manifestation of the Father, and the Son as a separate entity, so either Stephen was lying, or the Father and Son are manifest in two persons. He's not making some theological point, and as Stephen is simultaneously filled with the Holy Spirit, once again, we have the three persons of the Trinity present in the same scene, as at Jesus' baptism.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by truejew

 

If you want there to be two gods when God says there is only one, that is your business. However it is not Christian and those two gods won't save you.

I have said nothing of their being two gods. I only stated that if this all powerful being wanted to stand next to itself that by my understanding it should be able too. That statement in no ways goes against anything theologically. Perhaps you having trouble understanding the concept of limitless power. Perhaps your convinced that your god has limitations I honestly don't know.

I can stand next to myself. While I am not a god I can use a full length mirror. There technically isn't two of me but for appearances if you weren't aware of the mirror it would appear there were two of me. After reading the bible and what god does throughout it I don't see the issue with it having a right, left or standing next to itself if it wanted to. The god I read about doesn't appear to have any limitations.

That would make two gods and make God a liar.

reply to post by adjensen


There is one God, not three gods.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is one God, not three gods.

Is your inability to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity due to stupidity or stubbornness? Neither is an admirable trait.

You are welcome to disagree with it, you are not welcome to claim that it teaches that there are three gods, because it explicitly does not.

reply to post by adjensen

Read the creed, Dewey -- that's the litmus test, and that's not what it says.

Which creed are you talking about?

The Nicene creed says that you are not allowed to say 'He was not before he was made'.

In the Athanasian Creed it says ". . . in this Trinity none is before or after the other." and ". . . co-eternal together." and ". . . the Son uncreate, . . .".

Athanasius claimed that Arius made the Son out to be 'changeable' by turning something into the Son, when Arius made a point of saying that the Father made the Son out of nothing, so there was no 'changing' that ever took place.

Athanasius decides that the main difference between his explanation and Arius' is that there was a beginning, so he creates an 'eternal generation' where there wasn't a generation as in a fixed point, but the Son is constantly being generated. And so why you have this in the original creed which I quoted. You are not allowed to say there was ever not a Son.

It seems really weird to me, and my analysis on the whole thing was that Athanasius was a megalomaniac and was determined to keep taking things one step further in order to create a disagreement so he could claim some sort of intellectual superiority.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is one God, not three gods.

Is your inability to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity due to stupidity or stubbornness? Neither is an admirable trait.

You are welcome to disagree with it, you are not welcome to claim that it teaches that there are three gods, because it explicitly does not.

Then how many gods did Stephen see?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Correct, we know this. Arius taught differently, that there was some point in eternity past that His Spirit was not in existence.

How do you "know" this?
And how are there "points" in a pre-creation eternity before space and time?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

Read the creed, Dewey -- that's the litmus test, and that's not what it says.

Which creed are you talking about?

The Nicene creed says that you are not allowed to say 'He was not before he was made'.

You claimed that the orthodox belief is that Jesus was "unbegotten", and that's not what the creed says -- he was, specifically, "begotten, not made."

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is one God, not three gods.

Is your inability to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity due to stupidity or stubbornness? Neither is an admirable trait.

You are welcome to disagree with it, you are not welcome to claim that it teaches that there are three gods, because it explicitly does not.

Then how many gods did Stephen see?

One.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You have a serious problem with the Hebrew of Micah 5:2

No, I don't.
Maybe you have a serious problem by saying LXX without realizing that is the abbreviation for the Septuagint, which was written in Greek.
I quoted the Greek, like you would have been asking if you knew what you were talking about.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is one God, not three gods.

Is your inability to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity due to stupidity or stubbornness? Neither is an admirable trait.

You are welcome to disagree with it, you are not welcome to claim that it teaches that there are three gods, because it explicitly does not.

Then how many gods did Stephen see?

One.

Correct. Stephen saw Jesus Christ, one God, sitting in the authority and power of God. He did not see one god sitting to the physical right of another god as you originally said.

reply to post by adjensen

You claimed that the orthodox belief is that Jesus was "unbegotten", and that's not what the creed says -- he was, specifically, "begotten, not made."

It's you who is defining what orthodox belief is by saying it is in a creed.
The creed would have been a compromise, and later, at the First Council of Constantinople, it seems to have been further compromised.
In his writings, the inventor of what we now think of as the orthodox view of the Trinity, Athanasius, said that the Son was unbegotten.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is one God, not three gods.

Is your inability to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity due to stupidity or stubbornness? Neither is an admirable trait.

You are welcome to disagree with it, you are not welcome to claim that it teaches that there are three gods, because it explicitly does not.

Then how many gods did Stephen see?

One.

Correct. Stephen saw Jesus Christ, one God, sitting in the authority and power of God.

That is not what the text says. Stephen saw the manifestation of the Father, with the Son at his right hand, while filled with the Holy Spirit. He was describing what he saw, not making a theological point about authority.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

You claimed that the orthodox belief is that Jesus was "unbegotten", and that's not what the creed says -- he was, specifically, "begotten, not made."

It's you who is defining what orthodox belief is by saying it is in a creed.

Are you kidding me? The creed is what defines orthodox Christian beliefs, because it was formulated by the orthodox Christian church. I'm not defining anything.

If you don't agree with the creed, you are not an orthodox Christian. That's the way it has been since it was put in place.

One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It was based on Christian understanding of the Canonical Gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Affirmation of this creed, which describes the Trinity, is generally taken as a fundamental test of orthodoxy for most Christian denominations. (Source)