1. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    10 Jan '06 21:542 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    As an orthodox Jew, Saul would have credited only God with creation. When Saul became Paul, that was never repudiated.

    That's right. And St Paul also says that Jesus was the first-born of all creation, which
    suggests a second-tier status for Jesus (although higher than any other created entity).
    St Paul also never says that 'Jesus is God,' but that Jesus is the image of God. St Paul
    was a pretty careful writer, so I'm inclined to read his words with a critical eye, rather
    than anachronistically applying later dogmas to them.

    The fact that we have the entire Scripture with which to now flesh out the thinking of God, changes nothing on the degree in which it was revealed.

    What you call Scripture was not viewed as Scripture in the time it was written. They were
    just letters or records that came to be regarded as representations of what God thought. The
    formation of the canon was a late 2nd-century notion in response to Marcion's canon. That
    canon is similar but not identical with the one that was ratified in the 4th century. For example,
    Early Church Fathers quibbled about whether 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was or was not
    Scripture, or the letters from St Clement, or Revelation. So, the idea that New Testament
    literature which came to be regarded as Scriptured presented a unified whole to early 2nd-
    century Christians is fallacious. There was quite a bit of division on that topic, as there was
    on whether Jesus was Divine.

    The Trinity consists of three distinct Persons. This is Scriptural, not contructed after the fact, as you allude to in your post.

    The term 'Trinity' is not Scriptural. It is a second-century construct based on how they
    came to understand who they thought Jesus was and how that figured in with God. Early
    Christian history demonstrates that this concept was not universal, given the so-called
    heresies about whether Jesus was God, adopted by God, chosen by God but not God,
    whether He was man or appeared to be man, and so forth.

    Because so much of your post is as stated, there is no need to offer any counter-balancing argument. Some people cannot handle the truth.

    Uh-huh. More posturing. Of the two of us, only one is fooled, and it's not me.

    Nemesio

    P.S., someone with your high grammatical standards might want to review the clumsiness
    with which this sentence was written:

    The fact that we have the entire Scripture with which to now flesh out the thinking of God, changes nothing on the degree in which it was revealed.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Jan '06 22:34
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    St Paul was a pretty careful writer
    I concur.
    Speaking of Jesus, Paul said in his letter to the Colossians:

    For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
    And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
    For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
    and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    The date of the final canon is inconsequential.


    The term 'Trinity' is not Scriptural.
    No one said the term is Scriptural. But, neither is omniscience; however, the concepts of both are Scriptural. Most complex doctrines are not 'lettered out,' but instead, are woven together via multiple passages of Scripture, line upon line, item by item.

    The Council of Nicea of 325, and the later Council of Constantinople 381, merely agreed to what had already been revealed in the Scripture, as well as put to rest the heretical vestiges.

    Among others, are the many references to God which are both singular and plural, throughout the Old and New Testament, which point to the unique nature of God.

    might want to review the clumsiness with which this sentence was written
    What the hell was I thinking? I don't think I could purpose to make a more convoluted sentence.
  3. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    10 Jan '06 22:551 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    For by him all things were created: ... all things were created by him and for him.

    My translation reads: For in him all things were created...all things were created
    through him and in him.

    If I recall correctly, it is an ablative formation, one that indicates 'instrument.' This
    indicates that Jesus, being the first creation, was a catalyst rather than the person
    effecting the creation itself.

    I could be remembering incorrectly, however.

    For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
    and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


    Again, this passage is concordant with the idea that Jesus was a reflection of Divinity,
    rather than Divinity itself.

    The date of the final canon is inconsequential.

    Of course it's not! It was the process by which some texts became regarded as being
    higher in authority than other texts that led to the codification of specific dogmas over
    time. The debate that ensued amongst people who called themselves 'Christian' is
    critical to an understanding how dogma developed.

    No one said the term is Scriptural. But, neither is omniscience; however, the concepts of both are Scriptural. Most complex doctrines are not 'lettered out,' but instead, are woven together via multiple passages of Scripture, line upon line, item by item.

    Of course. But when things 'lettered out' conflict with subsequent doctrines, one has to
    be very suspicious. St Paul was very careful and uses language which doesn't support the
    idea that 'Jesus was God.' I think it is important to understand how St Paul
    understands what he thought Jesus was.

    The interweaving of disparate lines of Scripture, as you well know, can lead to all sorts of
    conclusions. This has been done to justify all sorts of things. Reading entire passages by
    single authors as wholes in and of themselves makes much more sense from a linguistic
    point of view.

    The Council of Nicea of 325, and the later Council of Constantinople 381, merely agreed to what had already been revealed in the Scripture, as well as put to rest the heretical vestiges.

    Did these two councils agree on the contents of the NT? Do you agree with their conclusions
    on the OT and their ratification of the contents of the Jerome Vulgate?

    Among others, are the many references to God which are both singular and plural, throughout the Old and New Testament, which point to the unique nature of God.

    I don't recall references to God in the plural in the NT (I'm not saying they aren't there, but
    that I simply don't remember any). Could you cite one or two?

    Nemesio
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Jan '06 23:53
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    My translation reads
    You are reading the Amercian Standard Version, I assume. Read the original language, and you will get the gist of the entire passage. Other English translations approximate the same as quoted.

    Again, this passage is concordant with the idea that Jesus was a reflection of Divinity, rather than Divinity itself.
    If you are content with such a tortured interpretation, there's not a damn thing I can do about changing your mind.

    Reading entire passages by single authors as wholes in and of themselves makes much more sense from a linguistic point of view.
    We're not talking about a linguistic point of view, we are speaking of complex doctrines. Passages such as these, coupled with the rest of Scripture lead to one conclusion, relative to this discussion.

    Did these two councils agree on the contents of the NT? Do you agree with their conclusions
    on the OT and their ratification of the contents of the Jerome Vulgate?

    Are you asking because you don't know? Or are you attempting to have me chase you down a path for a reason? Let's leave the pettiness behind, and stick to the subject, please.
  5. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    11 Jan '06 03:53
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]My translation reads
    You are reading the Amercian Standard Version, I assume. Read the original language, and you will get the gist of the entire passage. Other English translations approximate the same as quoted.

    Again, this passage is concordant with the idea that Jesus was a reflection of Divinity, rather than Divinity itself.
    If yo ...[text shortened]... wn a path for a reason? Let's leave the pettiness behind, and stick to the subject, please.[/b]
    I was going to reply to your message, but all you are bent on doing is insulting a position
    rather than arguing for your own. I've provided supporting information for my point of
    view and all you've done is claim that it is flawed without providing substantiation for
    your counterclaim.

    If you wish to address the substance of my claims -- the views explicit in throughout
    the various books by various authors in the Bible, the genesis of dogma, the debate amongst
    the early Christians, and the formation of creeds and canons within their historical context --
    I will be happy to resume.

    If you just want to keep asserting your anachronistic belief repeatedly, posturing for an
    audience of one (you), then feel free.

    Nemesio
  6. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Jan '06 05:372 edits
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I was going to reply to your message
    all you've done is claim that it is flawed without providing substantiation for your counterclaim.
    Counterclaim: Paul claimed Jesus was God in the flesh.
    Support: one passage of Scripture (more available).
    Your retort: the word 'in' which is found in about one English translation, and yet even that occurence does not change the meaning of the sentence, let alone the rest of the passage.

    As far as the rest of early church history, completion of the canon, councils and etc., I'm not all that concerned, as the claims of the Bible far out-strip any gains realized in those ancillary businesses. Why work with aluminum when platinum is available?

    Anachronistic? Yeah, I'm just a throw back, and your view is so thoroughly modern. Since (surprisingly) the mid- to late 1800's, critics of the Bible have railed against the same, sniffing their disapproval, citing unreliable redactions, ad nauseam, to no avail. That scholarly posturing is just plain silly, and the more forward-thinking minds have seen it for what it is, and given up the same.
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    11 Jan '06 07:02
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Your retort: the word 'in' which is found in about one English translation, and yet even that occurence does not change the meaning of the sentence, let alone the rest of the passage.
    Let me tell you what I mean by posturing. Posturing is when you assert something
    with the guise of knowledge.

    The Greek reads 'in.'

    Col 1:15-16
    Os estin eikon tou Thoeu tou aoratou, prototokos pases kriseos,
    [He]who is [the] image of the God invisible, [the]firstborn of all creation,

    oti en auto ektisthe ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tes ges...
    because in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth...

    panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai.
    all things through him and for him have been created.

    It is (rightly) found in several English translations, additionally but not all.

    Nemesio
  8. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    34824
    11 Jan '06 07:072 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    As far as the rest of early church history, completion of the canon, councils and etc., I'm not all that concerned, as the claims of the Bible far out-strip any gains realized in those ancillary businesses. Why work with aluminum when platinum is available?

    LOL! Then you would agree with me, because my reading attends to the words of the
    Bible, not post facto conclusions such as the Dogma of the Trinity. LOL! St Paul
    never states that Jesus is God, but carefully states that He is the image of God,
    a perfect reflection of all that God is.

    That He was created by God should be a key indicator for the careful reader of Scripture
    without filtering it through later theological developments.

    Edit:
    Anyway, there is no meaning behind talking about 'THE BIBLE' without understanding that
    that which came to be known as 'THE BIBLE' was the product of an evolution of theological
    stances. Under different circumstances, you might have been arguing that the Shepherd
    of Hermas was 'God's Word' and that Revelation was apocryphal. I mean, you probably
    already do that with the Book of Wisdom (the mighty Church Councils notwithstanding).

    Anachronistic? Yeah, I'm just a throw back, and your view is so thoroughly modern.

    Your anachornism is applying the conventions of a later theological stance to the
    writers of Scripture. You are the one taking the modern tack; ironically, I am being the
    fundamentalist here.

    That scholarly posturing is just plain silly, and the more forward-thinking minds have seen it for what it is, and given up the same.

    Thou protesteth too much.

    Nemesio
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree