The Bible. A problem with interpretation.

You make up falsehood after falsehood and attribute that falsehood to me - classic Strawman fallacy. Create a false Demon so you have something to attack.

I didn't say that Constantine created the idea of "homoousios" - and anyone who had read a book - or two on religion - should have figured out that the nature of God and the nature of the divinity of Jesus has been pondered long before Constantine.

To the Greeks there were two kinds of Substances - A: that which God is made of and B: what everything else is made of.

Anyone with good Seminary Training - the 7-8 yr kind - where you learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew - having read the history of the Church.
Every such person knows that Eusebius stated that "homoousios was by sole order of Constantine.

Not sure which training center you attended - but, if you didn't know that - it wasn't great training.

You claim: Constantine's conversion to Christianity was a "political move"

It would be preposterous nonsense to claim otherwise - but, what I claimed was that his insertion of "homoousios" into the creed was a political move.

The idea that politics and religion were not connected - in 300 AD - is beyond an absurdity. They were connected for thousands of years prior and over 1000 years later.

Prior to Constantine's decree - the nature of the divinity of Jesus was in flux - was he fully man, fully God or somewhere in between??

the early Church Father's were mostly subordinatists - believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father - not co-equal.

The disciples did not believe that Jesus was " The Father" - and nor did Jesus - who always referred to the Father as someone other than himself in the first two Gospels.

Heresy the Trinity is.

 

There you go with the projection and name calling again. I'd ask you where you got your education but it's clear you don't have one. Tell me, Mr. Internet tough guy, if Jesus was not God, how are we saved? Where in the OT does it say anyone but God can save you?

Some "gift" you have there, "giftedone".

 

One more thing: I am often amused that people who don't know the first thing about a seminary education are always trying to tell me what a seminary education is. If you had one or knew anything about it you might not want to throw what little chance of salvation you have away. You argue with me over minutiae so you can deny the deity of the One who came to save you, he who declared himself God in no uncertain terms.

Have it your way. Throw yourself off the cliff, you'll get no more of my time.

 

You are the one playing the internet tough guy. Projecting your issues on to others and name calling. Calling you out on this is not name calling - it is simply holding a mirror up to your bad behavior. If you don't like what you see - change your behavior.

We are discussing Constantine and his insertion of the term Homoousios into the Nicene Creed - and I posted content from the Journal of Church History - so you know where my education comes from in this instance. You on the other hand do not give anything to support your claim - a claim which turned out to false.

Now - in a desperate attempt to avoid the topic and all of the facts stated in my post - you move the goal post to a completely new topic - asking "How are we saved".

How about first admitting that you were wrong - and apologizing for calling me a liar - prior to switching to a new topic.

 

I have relatives who attended the Missouri Synod Seminary - and who are now practicing ministers in the Lutheran Church. These people are well educated - and know Church History.

I don't know what Seminary you attended but, if you did not study Church History - it is tough to claim that it was a good one. These days there are on-line courses one can take to become a Pastor - Is that where you got your training ?

You have been the one arguing over minutiae - I simply stated a historical fact - That it was Constantine who inserted the word "homoousios" into the Nicene creed

That sent you off into a name calling and demonize the messenger rant - even after my claim was proven correct.

Jesus said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Matt 15: 24

Jesus, in the first two Gospels, always refers to God as someone other than himself. He does not declare himself to be "The Father"

Would you like some examples ?

 

If your examples come from your Missouri Synod Lutheran relatives then they are the ones with the bad education. Even the Missouri Synod believes in Trinitarian theology, but it's obvious their education didn't rub off on you.

Tell me why is it that everytime I get into an argument with a HERETIC they talk about MY education as if they are the ones who are in the know when if they did know, they wouldn't be heretics.

Don't bother with more projection and name calling. It's obvious you haven't read the Bible or studied Church history.

 

You are the one that was proven wrong with respect to Church History - upon which you went into a demonization and name calling rant.

Accusing others of your actions - is classic Projection.

The modern Trinity doctrine went against the beliefs of the early Church Fathers who believed Jesus was divine, but subordinate to the Father.

To this audience the claim that Jesus was "co-equal" with the Father or was one in the same with the Father -was heresy.

You can believe what ever you like. My only comment is that you should do so on an informed basis - and not go into a rage every time you come across information that conflicts with your dogma.

 

An "informed basis" - like you?

No, I have read the Church Fathers, too.

Read the book Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly if you can keep from projecting your heresies for a while. After that, read The Apostasy That Wasn't by Rod Bennett, about the Nicene Council.

Or are you going to stay here and project your ignorance onto me?

 

You are rambling incessantly - coupled with name calling.

Fact - you were proven wrong. I stated the historical fact that Constantine was responsible for insertion of "homoousios" into the creed. You then went into a tizzy - calling me a liar and all kinds of other demonization tactics.

As it turned out - as per the Journal of Church History - I was right and you were wrong.

Rather than respond to my factual comments on the early Church fathers - you say "I have read the Church Fathers too".

Good for you - then you should know that most believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father - and on this basis would view the claim that Jesus was "The Father" as heretical.

 

Yes, I have read the Church fathers, that's how I know you are full of it. Give the names of the ones who thought Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

But you won't, you will just go on claiming I was wrong and projecting your psychological problems onto me.

 

Once again you can't make a post without name calling and projection. I have been the one supporting my claims - support which has proven your claims false.

Your claim that early church Fathers did not belief Jesus was subordinate to the Father is false.

Ignatius of Antioch - "Jesus Christ ... is the expressed purpose of the Father, just as the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world exist by the purpose of Jesus Christ."[12] "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual - Letter to the Magnesians

Clement of Rome echo's the belief of Ignatius
1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

So once again you say "I know you are full if it" - when it turns out that you are full of it. Yet another example of you projection your failings on to others.

 

Number one, the quote from Clement is about Apostolic succession, not the Godhead, which you'd know if you had actually read Clement instead of quote mining. Likewise, if you had actually read Ignatius you'd know that in the course of his seven letters he explicitly calls Jesus "God" a total of 16 times.

Give it up. You know nothing about this topic, you are just spouting off and projecting your insecurity on me.

 

That Jesus was referred to as "divine" - a God, does not mean that he was God- The Father. Clement makes this clear when he states

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order"

It is not debated in serious circles - that Clement believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father - just as the apostles were subordinate to Jesus. Both Jesus and the Apostles came about due to the will of God.

As stated by Ignatius - who was around at the same time as Clement (which is why I put them together as they held the same views) "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father,"

Ignatius states plainly Jesus was subject to the Father - again not something that is debated in serious circles.

Obviously - If Jesus is the Father - and co-equal to the Father - he can not be subject to the Father.

Perhaps the problem here is that simple logic eludes you.

It is obvious that the Jesus of Mark/Matt does not believe he is "The Father" Jesus at one point claims that his God (the Father) has forsaken him.

In another place Jesus asks his God to spare him from his destiny saying "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done"

Obviously, there are two different entities being referred to here. Jesus is not asking himself to take the cup from his hand. Jesus is asking his God to take the cup from his hand.

Obviously - there is the will of two different entities involved - the will of Jesus - and the will of God.

 

No, it's not debated in serious circles because nobody, not even your Lutheran relatives, would take you seriously.

About Jesus saying "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" - Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, which points to other prophetic verses to show that the prophecies had been fulfilled.

In the "take this cup from me" quote, Jesus was sweating blood and may have known that his human side could pass away before the atonement could be made. He was fully God but also fully man. Afterward, an angel came and ministered to him.

Now, I've put up with your simple minded claims for a couple of days. Claiming to have ministers in your family tree gives you no standing as a theologian or an apologist. Like most people who post in places like this you have a story you are trying to prove without letting the truth take you where it will. That doesn't recommend you much.

 

Once again you speak of things you do not know - as if you do You need to break this bad habit. You were wrong about the fact that Constantine was responsible for insertion of the term "homoousios" into the creed - and you are wrong in your denial of the obvious fact that early Church Fathers believed Jesus to be subordinate to the the Father.

Jesus quoting Psalm 22 shows that Jesus and God are not one
.
From Psalm 22

Unfortunately - God did not deliver Jesus from his torment - hence why Jesus cries out "My God My God - why have you forsaken me"

That Jesus cried tears of blood - is a well known interpolation ( added after the fact). Something that is taught Seminaries such as the Missouri Synod. That you do not realize this - and various other things - makes one question the legitimacy of the Seminary that you attended.

Regardless - you completely failed to explain away the fact that Jesus is referring God to someone other than himself. "Let not my will be done but yours"

 

Irenaeus and Origen. Plus the NT scriptures clearly teach that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

 

Unless you are literate in Ancient Hebrew & Aramaic
interpretation suffers with each translation and editing.


Moi has a collection of Bibles.
Favorites are direct translation from the ancient languages
direct to Modern English and compare them to the English
Catholic and New Translations of the Protestant Bible.


Most notable difference in translation -
The Commandment is NOT; You Will Not Kill.
The Commandment is; You Will Not Murder.

One kills the enemy and murders ones neighbor.


Don't Be A Victim Of Translation



Moi

Is It True
s Have No Souls?​

 

*For certain quantities of murder.

Certain scriptures are, for example, are okay with slaughtering children or killing people for offending religious beliefs, which any sane person would realize is murder.

 

I see you are from the "giftedone" school of scripture butchery.

 

Do YOU speak of scripture with Book, Chapter and Verse?


And I am dumb to what " certain quantities of murder "
translates to English as
Please elaborate.

 

Oh, I do speak of things I know about, you would not be taken seriously in a theological conversation, regardless of how many relatives you claim to have in the ministry.

Every now and then I will run across an internet troll who actually knows what he's talking about. You're not one of them.

 

I see you prefer childish swipes to discussing the facts.

In the very, very least, the NT scriptures teach the Son is of subordinate authority to the Father. Surely any remotely honest, scripturally literate person can admit this. If you are willing to discuss those scriptures, rather than just dodging with personal attacks, I'll happily produce them.

 

Sour Grapes ? I have been right on every claim thus far. You on the other hand - have been dead wrong. This is despite you claiming to be a Priest.

What was this school of non-theology that you graduated from ?

 

Oh, I apologize. Sometimes in English we use "for certain quantities . . . " as a disclaimer.What it means is that the speaker makes a statement, but them limits the meaning of that statement.

For example: I'm the best athlete* in my small town.
*Athleticism in this context applies only to darts.

"For certain quantities . . ." is a similar disclaimer. It means that the Bible is against "murder" in some cases, but promotes it in others. 1 Samuel 15 involves God ordering people to kill children. Leviticus 24 assigns the death penalty for blasphemy.

 

In my experience he refuses to discuss his education, even when attacking the education of others, and refuses to discuss what organization he served as priest for, though it seems to not be the Roman Catholic Church. He won't answer what church it was for. I suspect he's simply referring to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, but I'm open to correction if he's willing to provide it.