John 1:1-18

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by RickC » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:21 pm

Quick Non-Topic Post

Thanks to dwilkins for the book links!

(Just the other day I was reading (on google books):
Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit
by Troels Engberg-Pedersen
(I bought it on Alibris.com today for $41, including shipping).

I also got Engberg-Pedersen's Paul and the Stoics for $12 on eBay (used).

I don't buy from Amazon any more.
Not since they announced they were pro-gay-marriage a year or so ago.

Alibris has some great deals!
(I also purchased Hans Conzelmann's 1 Corinthians Commentary for $12 from them).
Used, but real expensive new!
=============

All the above: related to a study of 'resurrection bodies' I've been doing.

Now back to your regular thread, :)

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Paidion » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:26 pm

You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
Paul, who are you addressing with this statement?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Pierac
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Pierac » Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:06 pm

Paidion wrote:
You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
Paul, who are you addressing with this statement?
Well? You to be exact... did you not post .... ?

Paidion wrote: He had divested Himself of ALL of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:6-8). The only thing He retained of His former existence was His identity as the Son of God.


You see... According to orthodox Christianity you can not be a Trinitarain or even a Christian by making that statement you just made that I took from your post.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


You posted "He had divested Himself of ALL of His divine attributes" Yet to be a orthodox Christian is to reject such a statement! As without division, without separation; ...

Webster: divest a : to deprive or dispossess especially of property, authority, or title : to take away from a person This puts you in the category of an cult or some fringe of Christianity. According to Christianity Jesus can not divested Himself of ALL of His divine attributes BECAUSE Jesus is without division, without separation; from God the father in Christianity's creed! You see God the Son and God the Father and 50 years Later God the Holy Spirit are all without division, without separation... one substance ! Your post rejected that presumption of all Christians faiths! That Jesus was with division, and with separation... divested!

Don't for get that with out change part either, Just saying....
Paul

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by morbo3000 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:35 pm

Paul said:
You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
The creeds are extra-biblical documents and not authoritative.

They were forged on the anvil of theological conflicts, which were often politicized. Their goal was to unify one group of people as "the true christians" on a difficult theological issue against another group of people. They tend to take things in the Bible that are mysterious, and difficult to understand and codify one position against another. The end result was to say "We are the orthodox. You are the heretics." Often ostracizing the heretic.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are inaccurate. But they are extra-biblical and not authoritative.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Paidion » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:19 pm

Paul wrote:You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
I asked who you were addressing, Paul, because I couldn't see how this statement applied to me since I don't have any "creeds", at least no formal ones. So what are these "creeds" of mine which I fail to understand?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Paidion » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:31 pm

However, if you are talking about church creeds, such as the COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD), part of which you quoted, I simply believe the framers of such creeds were in error.

I subscribe to the early Christian teachings such as we find in the New Testament and in the writers of the second century. I also subscribe to the ORIGINAL Nicene Creed (Not the Nicene Creed as revised by later Trinitarians) which reads as follows:

THE NICENE CREED
As set forth at Nicea, A.D. 325
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages,
Only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father;
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made;
Both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us people, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man;
He suffered, and was raised again the third day, and ascended into heaven and he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.
Note the words "begotten of the Father before all ages", exactly what I believe and teach. I didn't get this from some "cult" but from the early Christian writings. Even the first Trinitarians accepted this creed, until later when Trinitarians realized that "begotten of the Father before all ages" contradicted their Trinitarian views and changed the words to "eternally begotten of the Father".

No, I am not a Trinitarian. Neither was Justin Martyr and other early Christian writers. By what authority do you pronounce that one has to be a Trinitarian in order to be a Christian?

Whether or not I am orthodox depends entirely upon how "orthodoxy" is defined.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Pierac
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Pierac » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:12 pm

morbo3000 wrote:Paul said:
You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
The creeds are extra-biblical documents and not authoritative.

They were forged on the anvil of theological conflicts, which were often politicized. Their goal was to unify one group of people as "the true christians" on a difficult theological issue against another group of people. They tend to take things in the Bible that are mysterious, and difficult to understand and codify one position against another. The end result was to say "We are the orthodox. You are the heretics." Often ostracizing the heretic.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are inaccurate. But they are extra-biblical and not authoritative.
That's my point! However, if you are to be call a Christian by the orthodox world.... You must believe that creed or they will reject you!!! Whether It's Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist or many other Bible believing Churchs. If you reject that Creed like I and obviously Paidion does we are no longer considered a Christian... but some cult or fringe of Christianity.

Paul
Last edited by Pierac on Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pierac
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Pierac » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:19 pm

Paidion wrote:
Paul wrote:You failed to understand your own creeds when you made your post above...
I asked who you were addressing, Paul, because I couldn't see how this statement applied to me since I don't have any "creeds", at least no formal ones. So what are these "creeds" of mine which I fail to understand?
Traditions of men... my friend, Why do you think you believe what you believe? What... you think you were the first to have your views? That they came to you outside of men? :roll:

Really, how many men follow the heard that think they are leading the heard?

Paul

Pierac
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Pierac » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:45 pm

Paidion wrote:However, if you are talking about church creeds, such as the COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD), part of which you quoted, I simply believe the framers of such creeds were in error.

I subscribe to the early Christian teachings such as we find in the New Testament and in the writers of the second century. I also subscribe to the ORIGINAL Nicene Creed (Not the Nicene Creed as revised by later Trinitarians) which reads as follows:

THE NICENE CREED
As set forth at Nicea, A.D. 325

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages,
Only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father;
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made;
Both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us people, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man;
He suffered, and was raised again the third day, and ascended into heaven and he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.
Note the words "begotten of the Father before all ages", exactly what I believe and teach. I didn't get this from some "cult" but from the early Christian writings. Even the first Trinitarians accepted this creed, until later when Trinitarians realized that "begotten of the Father before all ages" contradicted their Trinitarian views and changed the words to "eternally begotten of the Father".

No, I am not a Trinitarian. Neither was Justin Martyr and other early Christian writers. By what authority do you pronounce that one has to be a Trinitarian in order to be a Christian?

Whether or not I am orthodox depends entirely upon how "orthodoxy" is defined.
You ask.... "By what authority do you pronounce that one has to be a Trinitarian in order to be a Christian?" What planet are you living on? You pick any Church on any corner of America and walk in and say... there is no Trinity... and you will find your authority!

So you want to get into creeds....

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., that you quoted... made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."
The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."
At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD- Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come.

Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.
Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states:

Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles.

Don't follow the heard... Many are called... but few are chosen
Paul

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Post by Homer » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:28 am

Paul,

I am curious what your position is regarding who is a Christian and the Trinitarian doctrine. Is it your position that the Trinitarians are not saved and that your position (or those that hold your position, whatever it is) is the only belief acceptable to God? Or, alternatively, do you consider the doctrine of the Trinity (a correct understanding of it) to be critical in regards to salvation? Myself, I do not foresee us facing an exam on judgment day regarding the Trinity. And I regard myself (lightly) as Trinitarian.

As an aside, in all this back and forth on the creed and Arius and Athanasius, where was the Pope? I thought he was in charge! :shock:

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”