The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

You should read my posts .. I gave you the example of Pope Dionysius who declared that those who claimed Jesus was the same substance as the father were heretics.

The doctrine is not Biblically sound. How can you say it is sound when Jesus never states, nor implies that he is God.

What Jesus does do is refer to God as separate from himself on numerous occasions.

Athanasius was not even born until 298 AD and the situation as described was as if the entire Church was against him.

You have not presented any information to the Contrary. Even Eusebius was exiled for not signing on. After some time Eusebius recanted to get back into the good graces of the Emperor.

You have provided no evidence in support of your claim ...

 

You tried to claim that the freezing point of water was arbitrary/subjective for more than 10 posts an when your claim was refuted you switched sides and started blaming the other for claiming that thefrezing point of water was arbitrary.

And now you want to debate "what is right" ?

 

"Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. "

You might want to read the rest of that chapter just to keep things in context.

 

Note that Jesus is asking something of "the Father" .. not of himself.

Jesus says in "thine own name" not "in my name"

Jesus states that God has given Jesus .. "those whome thou hast given me"

After all this .. which clearly shows Jesus distinguishing himself from God .. you focus on an ambiguous statment to which you add meaning and then try and claim that this supports your theory.

Show .. through some Biblical scholarship are reputable folks out there who support your claim por favor.

 

And in the context of the asking, there is also the acknowledgment of the oneness of Him and God.

 

Sorry not to answer this at the right time - first of all I mislaid the book I got it from, then the computer wouldn't work, then I couldn't find the thread to check wheteher we were discussing Nicea or somewhere else. Rushed now - will be back with quotations.

 

I don't know why you posted my quote to your comments. I agree, Athanasius was certainly orthodox in his Christian beliefs and instrumental in defeating Arianism in the Church.

Quantrill

 

Well, that can be true. And the first affect of that desire to please men instead of God, is turning away from what the Bible says. Turning away from sound doctrine.

Quantrill

 

No, the understanding that Jesus was God, of the same essence as God, was always believed by the Church. It would take 'Arius' who brought with him the heresy of Arianism, to define this belief, which is where the fuller understanding to the Trinity comes from.

But, the Trinity, though not fully taught or explained in the Old Testament, was there. And with the coming of Christ, and further revelation from God, then it is only natural that a fuller understanding of the Trinity would result.

In other words, it is because the Church did believe that Jesus was God, that Arianism is denounced as heresy.

Quantrill

 

Sorry, you need to carify your use of 'Dionysius'. The one at Alexandria, or the bishop at Rome. I don't see either being against the Trinity.

The Trintiy is Biblical. Else it would not exist. Jesus referred to the Father distinctly as separate from Him. That doesn't mean the Son is not God.

Constantius, the son of Constantine, and an Arian, put an Arian in as Pope. Thus there was the vengeful acts against Athanasius and others who were otrthodox, and fought against Arianism.

Quantrill

 

No problem. I also wasn't able to log in on the forum most of the day yesterday.

Quantrill

 

No, I do not expect him or other atheists to concede the point. And indeed the Gospel or the belief in Christ, is foolishness to the world, as God tells us in the Bible.

Perhaps those who preach or spread the Gospel should reflect on that. Is what I am presenting appearing as foolishness to the world, or is it a Gospel that is palatible and acceptable to the world. For the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ will be foolishness to the world.

Quantrill

 

What is acknowledged is that the Father is separate. This is done numerous times in that passage and the meaning is clear.

What is ambiguous is your claim of oneness, and its meaning in context.

You have provided no rational and certainly no Biblical scholorship in support of your claim.

 

Maybe you should read up on what the Trinity is kiddo?

Three aspects, separate and dinstinct, yet of the same.

There is no Biblical scholarship, so the entire seminary process of several Christian denominations have it all wrong?

Once again, you demonstrate only that you do not understand, and, even when several posters present you with evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you just go right on as if your opinion is gospel. Again.

 

This is just wrong Quantrill. To the Greek philosophers (and everybody understood the Greek philosophy at the time) there were two kinds of substances. That which was of God and that which everything else was made of.

The early church did not claim that Jesus and God were of the same substance.

I have given you plenty of evidence (Eusebius, Athanasius, Pope Dionysius, Origin, Clement, references to books on early Christianity). All of these support my claim

You have provided nothing in support of your claim.

 

The scripture I quoted says it all:
""Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. "

You seem to have overlooked that one little clause ("as we are") in your futile attempt to make a rebuttal.

 

Quit making stuff up. There has been zero evidence posted that contradicts what I am saying.

On the contrary .. I have posted solid Evidence:

Eusebius was exiled because he did not agree with Constantine
Pope Dionysius in rebuking heresy said that to claim Jesus and God were the same substance was Heresy.
Origin said that Jesus was lesser than the Father
Tertullian - the first to tout the Trinity doctrine as we know it - was called a heritic for the idea that Jesus was the same as God.

You have provided no valid support/evidence for your claim and certainly ther has been nothing presented that contradicts what I have stated.

 

Quint, Inc, and myself have all presented yo with countering evidence.

Indeed, for the fourth time now, I am asking you why you think one side of a long debate in the church is automatically correct? Particularly, as Quint points out with evidence and explanation as to why, the side that lost the debate centuries ago?

Now, too boot, the Trinity is something I am just making up?

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You read an article and now you think you should tweak the noses of Christians in petulence.

But the only one ignoring evidence kiddo - is you.

 

I did not overlook that at all. There is many ways to interpret "we are one"

one in mind .. one in spirit .. and so on. Humans use this praseology all the time and they do not mean that the "we" are the same individual.

That phrase your refer to is very ambiguous.

What you seem to be overlooking/ignoring .. is the unambiguous parts of the same passage where Jesus clearly and unambiguously speaks of himself as separate from the Father ..

Either you make Jesus out to be a liar .. or the ambiguous language does not refer to Jesus and God being the same.

 

Well ding dong. If the phrase is so ambiguous, then you must be using your own private interpretation which cannot be proven to be correct. To remove the ambiguity, simply accept the phrase literally and guess what... it means that Jesus and God are the "we" spoken of in the text. Otherwise, you have just defeated your entire argument because of ambiguity.

 

The phrase can have many "literal" interpretations. To accept your interpretation makes Jesus a liar.

Note that Jesus is asking something of "the Father" .. not of himself.

Jesus says in "thine own name" not "in my name"

Jesus states that God has given Jesus .. "those whome thou hast given me"
(Jesus does not say .. I took these people for myself)

What other possible interpretation is there.

When one says .. My Father gave me something .. it does not mean, and in no way can be taken to mean, that Jesus and his Father are one.

Clearly Jesus is referring, in all three places, to someone other than himself.

 

I hate the paedohile priests of the RC Church and the founder of the Muslim religion who indulged in sex with an underage girl.

A pox on both their houses (with apologies to Shakespeare)!

 

Nope. You made claims about people (perhaps a single person) telling lies. I responded to the portion which I thought needed clarification. You gave that clarification by stating that you were not talking about me but instead was calling Neutral a liar. I then asked if your were admitting to calling someone a liar and you confirmed that assertion that you made. The remainder of your posting provided nothing of interest to me, as that remainder did not provide any substantive evidence that neutral or anyone else was telling a lie. Just your opinions.

 

You did not respond to post 400.

 

As I stated.. I am only posting to those things that I find interesting and those things that IMHO need to be addressed.