Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

The Athanasian Creed originated in the sixth century. It is not part of the New Testament and it has never gained much acceptance in liturgy among Eastern Christians.

A significant statement in the creed: Christ Jesus is in homoousis with Mary.

[Gary]

The Athanasian Creed originated in the sixth century. It is not part of the New Testament and it has never gained much acceptance in liturgy among Eastern Christians.

Tabby, I am not saying that your Arian beliefs are wrong. In fact, I believe that your Arian beliefs are closer to what the early Christians believed: that Jesus was a divine being, the/a Son of God in some sense. Unfortunately for Arians, your side eventually lost the early Christian civil war on this issue. Here is more history on the Trinity:

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Church Puts Its Foot Down

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Debate Continues

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

Source: http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/trinity.htm

[tabibito]

WHAT?!? The Logos existed together with the Father before the creation of anything. Arius argued that the son was a created being.

[One Bad Pig]

WHAT?!? The Logos existed together with the Father before the creation of anything. Arius argued that the son was a created being.

Please note Gary's source. As usual, he's reaching for anything he agrees with, without critically evaluating its merit.

[psstein]

Few things:

1) There was a very, very early high Christology. Jesus was seen as God almost right off the bat. They were also argued to be the same thing, which is why adoptionism actually became a serious heresy. See Ehrman's Lost Christianities for a discussion of adoptionism.

2) The usual "parthenos" vs. "bethulah" vs. "almah" thing yet again raises its ugly head. What people should know is that "almah" refers to a young maiden, the implication of which is... guess what, a virgin.

3) The dating for some of the OT to Josiah has problems, and people love to ignore those problems. Josiah does have monotheistic reforms, but just claiming that the priestly class devised the entire thing very late on is simply wrong. There are clearly early traditions within it.

[tabibito]

Please note Gary's source. As usual, he's reaching for anything he agrees with, without critically evaluating its merit.

Acknowledged. I already told him that the site had discredited itself - but the claim that I am Arian needed to be refuted.

[Gary]

Acknowledged. I already told him that the site had discredited itself - but the claim that I am Arian needed to be refuted.

A subtype of Arian, if you believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Equal beings cannot be equal, subordinate, and one being at the same time. It is nonsense.

[Gary]

Few things:

1) There was a very, very early high Christology. Jesus was seen as God almost right off the bat. They were also argued to be the same thing, which is why adoptionism actually became a serious heresy. See Ehrman's Lost Christianities for a discussion of adoptionism.

2) The usual "parthenos" vs. "bethulah" vs. "almah" thing yet again raises its ugly head. What people should know is that "almah" refers to a young maiden, the implication of which is... guess what, a virgin.

3) The dating for some of the OT to Josiah has problems, and people love to ignore those problems. Josiah does have monotheistic reforms, but just claiming that the priestly class devised the entire thing very late on is simply wrong. There are clearly early traditions within it.

Do you have a source for your first statement?

[One Bad Pig]

Tabby, I am not saying that your Arian beliefs are wrong. In fact, I believe that your Arian beliefs are closer to what the early Christians believed: that Jesus was a divine being, the/a Son of God in some sense. Unfortunately for Arians, your side eventually lost the early Christian civil war on this issue. Here is more history on the Trinity:

Disagreement with your misrepresentation of the Trinity does not make someone an Arian.

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity,

This statement is false.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

Tertullian was not the first to use the word "Trinity." Our first extant use of the word is by Theophilus of Antioch from his treatise to Autolycus in the mid-second century.

A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

The controversy between Arius and Alexander had to do with the nature of the Son's relationship with the Father. The Holy Spirit didn't really figure into things (which is why the Messalians could claim to be faithful to Nicaea while denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit).

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

This is, shockingly, more or less correct.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This, however, is wrong in multiple ways, and is in contradiction to the article's own assertion that Tertullian had already defined the Trinity!

Learn a little discernment, Gary.

[tabibito]

pigeons (aka flying bundles of stupidity) much as I love them all, I have to admit that even the two geniuses in the flock, Tack and Doujou, are each as thick as a brick.

Late last week, I decided to move the eighty little darlings from home to a location where they - and the neighbours would be happier. First step was to get them from the back yard, and to a waypoint. I went to the lane behind the house, and started to toss small pieces of bread up to where they could see it, and into the lane.
First, they congregated on the side of the shed roof and watched me throwing the bread. Then they ran to the end of the shed and looked down into the yard where they were accustomed to being fed. I tossed another piece of bread - they ran back to the side of the shed roof and looked at me. Then they ran to the end of the shed roof again. (Corrugated Iron roof - you can imagine the clattering it made.) After they had repeated the procedure half a dozen times or more - they all took to the air and went straight to the old feeding area. After a couple of minutes the first of them came to me, and in short order, the rest followed.

All this messing around with Gary running off to sites with no food for thought and coming back here with nothing worthwhile ....

It kind of makes me wonder ...

[tabibito]

2) The usual "parthenos" vs. "bethulah" vs. "almah" thing yet again raises its ugly head. What people should know is that "almah" refers to a young maiden, the implication of which is... guess what, a virgin.

Not to mention that the people who produced the translation to parthenos were themselves highly educated native Jewish scholars - so we have modern Jewish scholars claiming that the ancient Jews who spoke the language as a mother tongue, and who were well acquainted with Koine ... didn't know what they were talking about.

Additionally - these modern Jewish scholars are claiming that a pregnancy arising in the normal way was somehow also a sign from God.

[Mikeenders]

Until you can be civil in our discussions, I intend to ignore your comments.

A) whats new? You ignore all points and posts you can't handle and have no answer for from every single poster in this thread
B) no one in this thread has a worse record than you on civility and you just confirmed yet again you intend to do nothing here but mock and address no counterpoint
C) I stated a FACT confirmed by 320 plus pages. You do not think for yourself . All you do is copy and past other peoples articles and dodge everything anyone else posts
D) I post for others just as you claim to so no loss

[Gary]

Not to mention that the people who produced the translation to parthenos were themselves highly educated native Jewish scholars - so we have modern Jewish scholars claiming that the ancient Jews who spoke the language as a mother tongue, and who were well acquainted with Koine ... didn't know what they were talking about.

Additionally - these modern Jewish scholars are claiming that a pregnancy arising in the normal way was somehow also a sign from God.

Matthew the tax collector was a highly educated native Jewish scholar???

Source please.

[tabibito]

The author of Matthew did not translate the book of Isaiah.

[Gary]

Few things:

1) There was a very, very early high Christology. Jesus was seen as God almost right off the bat. They were also argued to be the same thing, which is why adoptionism actually became a serious heresy. See Ehrman's Lost Christianities for a discussion of adoptionism.

2) The usual "parthenos" vs. "bethulah" vs. "almah" thing yet again raises its ugly head. What people should know is that "almah" refers to a young maiden, the implication of which is... guess what, a virgin.

3) The dating for some of the OT to Josiah has problems, and people love to ignore those problems. Josiah does have monotheistic reforms, but just claiming that the priestly class devised the entire thing very late on is simply wrong. There are clearly early traditions within it.

What was the average age of marriage and subsequent first childbirth in Iron Age Palestine? I will bet it was in the teens. Therefore for the prophet to prophesy that a young woman would conceive does not automatically confer the young woman was a virgin. Only if women in Iron Age Palestine were waiting to marry and give birth to their first child in the late twenties could your logic apply here.

In addition, if you read the entire chapter, it is very obvious from the context that the prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of King Ahaz, seven hundred years before Jesus. Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew went on a desparate scavenger hunt through the Hebrew Bible to shoehorn Jesus into passages that could be contorted to prophesy his future birth, life, and death. It is really shameful and pathetic. It would be like Muslims trying to shoehorn Mohammad into the New Testament (which they do!).