10 Jan 10
1 edit
yes time is a property of the universe and not of God, Christ had a beginning, therefore he was a created entity, as colossians clearly shows. Can you think of any other instance when anything is born and it does not have a beginning, no neither can I. Its simply silly to assume other wise in the case of Christ.
Trinitarians do not claim that. The Nicene creed which is the foundation for Trinitarian theology, and which I have quoted to you several times, describes the Son as 'begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God.'
yes you are claiming that, quite clearly, whether you wish to use whatever terms are expedient, in essence, this is what you are claiming, whether its substance or type, this is what you are claiming.
you can believe what you want my friend, i see no scriptural evidence to change my point of view and i shall continue to assert , that to me, the trinity is neither inferred nor scripturally substantiated, was unknown to Christ and to Paul and is of a pagan and pre Christian origin.
However i am glad that you have taken the time to explain your beliefs to me, i am truly grateful for this and i have learned much. a mutual understanding is sometimes the best that one can hope for - kind regards Robbie.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes time is a property of the universe and not of God, Christ had a beginning, therefore he was a created entity, as colossians clearly shows. Can you think of any other instance when anything is born and it does not have a beginning, no neither can I. Its simply silly to assume other wise in the case of Christ.
yes time is a property of the universe and not of God, Christ had a beginning, therefore he was a created entity, as colossians clearly shows. Can you think of any other instance when anything is born and it does not have a beginning, no neither can I. Its simply silly to assume other wise in the case of Christ.
Trinitarians do not claim that. ch. a mutual understanding is sometimes the best that one can hope for - kind regards Robbie.
Firstly, Colossians does not refer to the Son as a 'created entity'. It clearly distinguishes him from creation saying, 'Through him all things came into being.' Secondly, the Son does have a beginning. But his beginning his coeternal with the Father. There is no time before creation so we cannot imagine a time when the Father existed and the Son did not.
yes you are claiming that, quite clearly, whether you wish to use whatever terms are expedient, in essence, this is what you are claiming, whether its substance or type, this is what you are claiming.
No. Trinitarians clearly believe that the Son is begotten. Some may deny that there is an act of begetting. They are at odds with tradition.
you can believe what you want my friend, i see no scriptural evidence to change my point of view and i shall continue to assert , that to me, the trinity is neither inferred nor scripturally substantiated, was unknown to Christ and to Paul and is of a pagan and pre Christian origin.
Yes, the supposed "pagan" origin which basically amounts to 'Christians used platonism'. Nonetheless, the majority of Christians accept the Trinity. It was believed before and after the Protestant reformation and no one until your sect emerged has ever considered the idea that Jesus is an archangel. In fact, such an idea is more pagan because Plato posited the idea that God did not create life and the world but rather created angels to do this work on his behalf.
10 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kfirst born of creation Conrau, the first born of creation, through whom all other things were created, as to time as to substance as to type, Christ is a created entity, the first born of creation, the only entity directly created by God, the only begotten, a created being.
[b]yes time is a property of the universe and not of God, Christ had a beginning, therefore he was a created entity, as colossians clearly shows. Can you think of any other instance when anything is born and it does not have a beginning, no neither can I. Its simply silly to assume other wise in the case of Christ.
Firstly, Colossians does not ref d not create life and the world but rather created angels to do this work on his behalf.[/b]
speaking of the Christ, Revelation states,
(Revelation 3:14) . . .“And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God
as for Pagan elements, do you really want to go there? (as he scuttles for his copy of the two Babalylons) 🙂
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefirst born of creation Conrau, the first born of creation, through whom all other things were created, as to time as to substance as to type, Christ is a created entity, the first born of creation, the only entity directly created by God, the only begotten, a created being.
first born of creation Conrau, the first born of creation, through whom all other things were created, as to time as to substance as to type, Christ is a created entity, the first born of creation, the only entity directly created by God, the only begotten, a created being.
speaking of the Christ, Revelation states,
(Revelation 3:14) . . .“An ...[text shortened]... lements, do you really want to go there? (as he scuttles for his copy of the two Babalylons) 🙂
Christ is the firstborn. That is the only statement in this paragraph that has any scriptural basis. It is clear that Scripture distinguishes Jesus from creation. It calls him the Word who was 'in the beginning'. Scripture states that 'through him all things were made''; it does not say 'through him all other things were made.' Show where it says Christ is a created entity.
(Revelation 3:14) . . .“And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, [b]the beginning of the creation by God[/b]
My bible reads 'the source of God's creation'. The Greek is:
He arche tes ktiseos tou theou
Here 'arche' can mean beginning, principle or origin or even rule or supremacy. Again, it clearly distinguishes the Son from creation but acknowledges the Son's eminent role in creation. The Son is the one 'through whom all things were made' so it is right to call him the 'arche' -- the source and beginning of creation -- because it is in him that creation begins.
as for Pagan elements, do you really want to go there? (as he scuttles for his copy of the two Babalylons)
Sure. Galveston tried and I remain completely unconvinced. Nothing pointed to a distinct trinity that resembled the Nicene formula. There were certainly triads and triumvirates but nothing of the sort 'three persons in one being'.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau KMy bible reads 'the source of God's creation'. The Greek is:
[b]first born of creation Conrau, the first born of creation, through whom all other things were created, as to time as to substance as to type, Christ is a created entity, the first born of creation, the only entity directly created by God, the only begotten, a created being.
Christ is the firstborn. That is the only statement in this paragraph tha ...[text shortened]... triads and triumvirates but nothing of the sort 'three persons in one being'.[/b]
He arche tes ktiseos tou theou
Here 'arche' can mean beginning, principle or origin or even rule or supremacy. Again, it clearly distinguishes the Son from creation but acknowledges the Son's eminent role in creation. The Son is the one 'through whom all things were made' so it is right to call him the 'arche' -- the source and beginning of creation -- because it is in him that creation begins.
well isn't that just quite dandy, for a Trinitarian, naturally you would translate it as such. Putting or should i say imposing our exegesis on scripture, well well, how revealing.
That this premise is quite unsubstantiated, the scriptures clearly indicate, for Christ is not the source of the creation, God is, that is why my dear Conrau, Colossians states that all things were 'made through him', indicating that the source was indeed God. He as you have already admitted, is not a co creator, but merely an entity which God chose to create through! Hard to reconcile isnt it, with this translation and its explanation that Christ is the source. A clearly erroneous and vain attempt to try to circumvent the scriptural fact, that Christ had a beginning, was not co eternal and therefore is a created and begotten entity, and ultimately not God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, arkhe] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of Gods creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of arkhe. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of Gods creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.&rdquo😉
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell isn't that just quite dandy, for a Trinitarian, naturally you would translate it as such. Putting or should i say imposing our exegesis on scripture, well well, how revealing.
My bible reads 'the source of God's creation'. The Greek is:
He arche tes ktiseos tou theou
Here 'arche' can mean beginning, principle or origin or even rule or supremacy. Again, it clearly distinguishes the Son from creation but acknowledges the Son's eminent role in creation. The Son is the one 'through whom all things were made' so it is rig fied. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.&rdquo😉
I am not imposing anything. This is really what the word 'arche' means. An archon is a ruler, archein means to rule, and so arche can mean ruler-ship. I am not, however, disagreeing with the translation you offered. What I am is questioning your interpretation. By 'beginning of creation', you interpret it to mean 'Christ was the first thing created'. This however is not in accord with other christological statements in the Scriptures, such as Christ is the logos 'through whom all things were made', nor does your interpretation capture the diverse meanings of 'arche'. What it means is that Christ is where creation begins. The Vulgate chooses the word 'principium' here which can mean beginning but also origin or principle. So my interpretation, which I think best matches the variety of meanings of arche, is that Christ is the blueprint of creation, not a created entity itself but the person in whom creation begins and the logos of creation.
That this premise is quite unsubstantiated, the scriptures clearly indicate, for Christ is not the source of the creation, God is, that is why my dear Conrau, Colossians states that all things were 'made through him', indicating that the source was indeed God. He as you have already admitted, is not a co creator, but merely an entity which God chose to create through! Hard to reconcile isnt it, with this translation and its explanation that Christ is the source. A clearly erroneous and vain attempt to try to circumvent the scriptural fact, that Christ had a beginning, was not co eternal and therefore is a created and begotten entity, and ultimately not God.
My preferred interpretation is that Christ is the beginning of creation, in the sense that he is the logos (the logic or principle) of the universe. Again, I do not think this verse is suggesting that Christ himself was created, rather that creation begins in him. I am not suggesting that Christ is the creator nor I am suggesting that Christ is a created entity.
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Knot only is it in complete harmony with the entire biblical cannon, from the oneness of God through to the Revelations of John, it corroborates the scriptures at Colossians and all all that i have been saying. I have provided references and sound reasoning, you have provided nothing but an interpretation, the basis of which is simply to substantiate your exegesis. Any impartial and objectively minded person on reading the scripture I think would conclude that yes, the reference is to Christ, yes he had a beginning, he has not always existed, therefore he is a created entity, its really as simple and as clear as that. Again it is evident that those who profess the trinity must hinge their beliefs on the duplicity of language and its shades of meaning, clearly it is not a biblical teaching.
[b]well isn't that just quite dandy, for a Trinitarian, naturally you would translate it as such. Putting or should i say imposing our exegesis on scripture, well well, how revealing.
I am not imposing anything. This is really what the word 'arche' means. An archon is a ruler, archein means to rule, and so arche can mean ruler-ship. I am not, howe g that Christ is the creator nor I am suggesting that Christ is a created entity.[/b]
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've been following your dialogue for a while.
not only is it in complete harmony with the entire biblical cannon, from the oneness of God through to the Revelations of John, it corroborates the scriptures at Colossians and all all that i have been saying. I have provided references and sound reasoning, you have provided nothing but an interpretation, the basis of which is simply to substantiate ...[text shortened]... not always existed, therefore he is a created entity, its really as simple and as clear as that.
I have a question for you both. Would you concede the possibility that multiple self consistent interpretations of the Bible are possible?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkYes. Scripture can have many senses. The crucifixion is both an example of Christian discipleship, total self-giving, but also a redemptive act. Both interpretations are correct but alone both are lacking.
I've been following your dialogue for a while.
I have a question for you both. Would you concede the possibility that multiple self consistent interpretations of the Bible are possible?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo; your interpretation runs counter to the Scriptures. It suggests that the Son was the first created being, which contradicts the fact that 'All things were made through him' and that 'nothing could come into being without him' and that he is the logos (the logic and principle) of all creation. Again, no where does it describe the Son as a 'created entity'; it says that the Son has a role in creation, as the logos through which all things were made and as the beginning of creation. But it never refers to the Son as something created, only begotten.
not only is it in complete harmony with the entire biblical cannon, from the oneness of God through to the Revelations of John, it corroborates the scriptures at Colossians and all all that i have been saying. I have provided references and sound reasoning, you have provided nothing but an interpretation, the basis of which is simply to substantiate ...[text shortened]... s on the duplicity of language and its shades of meaning, clearly it is not a biblical teaching.
You yourself have often said that people need to have some understanding of the original language in order to understand the bible fully -- in case the English translation has connotations not in the original language. Yet here when I clarify what 'arche' means, bizarrely, you think that I am imposing something on the Scriptures. A valid exegesis ought to take into consideration the nuances of the Greek which cannot all be represented in the English.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkyes it is possible, the discussion between Conrau and myself is perhaps a good example of that. what i have come to realise is that, all we can state, is that to us, our evaluation is more plausible. I can understand what Conrau is saying, i may even acknowledge its validity as a self consistent interpretation, however, if it fails to convince through the process of evaluation, i.e. if the arguments proffered are weak, dubious, contradictory, unsubstantiated, formed through the duplicity of language, have an agenda or a motive that is less than objective etc etc, then all i can state is that they are unconvincing to me, that does not mean of course that they are to everyone, for every one has his own mind and his own evaluations to make 🙂
I've been following your dialogue for a while.
I have a question for you both. Would you concede the possibility that multiple self consistent interpretations of the Bible are possible?
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kgive it up my friend, God is one, Christ is created, is not co equal, is not eternal, is not the source, is not a co creator, is not almighty, is not part of the trinity and had a chronological beginning. You have given your reasons as to why, I have in each and every instance , to the best of my ability given counter arguments which seem to me to cast enough doubt on the assertion as to warrant it untenable, i remain unconvinced as as before. You must believe as you shall, i remain unmoved and shall continue to assert the same things as i have done for the reasons given. If you like to think of the first born as a pre eminent position, then that is your evaluation, if you like to think of Christ as not the beginning, but the source of creation, then that is your evaluation, if you like to state that begotten does not mean begetting as in the sense of progeny, but is to be understood as in the sense of an unoriginated relationship, then so be it, they are unconvincing to me, and well, i am thankful that i have what i consider as a simple truth, for it makes all other things quite clear.
No; your interpretation runs counter to the Scriptures. It suggests that the Son was the first created being, which contradicts the fact that 'All things were made through him' and that 'nothing could come into being without him' and that he is the logos (the logic and principle) of all creation. Again, no where does it describe the Son as a 'created ...[text shortened]... o consideration the nuances of the Greek which cannot all be represented in the English.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegive it up my friend, God is one, Christ is created, is not co equal, is not eternal, is not the source, is not a co creator, is not almighty, is not part of the trinity and had a chronological beginning.
give it up my friend, God is one, Christ is created, is not co equal, is not eternal, is not the source, is not a co creator, is not almighty, is not part of the trinity and had a chronological beginning. You have given your reasons as to why, I have in each and every instance , to the best of my ability given counter arguments which seem to me to ...[text shortened]... ankful that i have what i consider as a simple truth, for it makes all other things quite clear.
Again, you are attributing beliefs to me which I do not hold. I do believe that God is one. I do not believe that Jesus is a co-creator nor that it is right to call him 'the almighty'.
Again, the Son cannot have a chronological beginning. The Son clearly comes before the creation of time. You do not seem to understand this. If he comes before time, there cannot be a time when the Father exists and the Son does not -- such a time cannot exist. He is eternal.
Again, the word used is 'arche' which does mean source, origin as well as beginning. It has a variety of meanings which includes sovereignty too. The idea of 'source' has a strong scriptural foundation because the Scripture clearly says that 'through him all things were created[/i]'. The idea of sovereignty also has a strong scriptural foundation because the Scripture also describes him as king by whose word 'all creation is sustained'. I do not see why you are so opposed to this -- this is what the word 'arche' means.
if you like to state that begotten does not mean begetting as in the sense of progeny, but is to be understood as in the sense of an unoriginated relationship, then so be it, they are unconvincing to me, and well, i am thankful that i have what i consider as a simple truth, for it makes all other things quite clear.
'Unoriginated relationship' is not a term I have used; I have explicitly rejected it. Clearly I do believe that the Son originates from the Father because I concede an act of begetting, as light begets from light. I do not see how this could at all be likened to progeny. God is not a biological entity who hits puberty and has sex with a mother goddess to bear a son. If you have such a concept of God, that is blasphemous.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kno, but he still begets, as in the case of Adam a created human, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? as in the case of the Angels, created beings, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? and yes, as in the case of Christ, a created entity. believe what you will, it really is perfectly clear in my mind.
[b]give it up my friend, God is one, Christ is created, is not co equal, is not eternal, is not the source, is not a co creator, is not almighty, is not part of the trinity and had a chronological beginning.
Again, you are attributing beliefs to me which I do not hold. I do believe that God is one. I do not believe that Jesus is a co-creator nor that ...[text shortened]... her goddess to bear a son. If you have such a concept of God, that is blasphemous.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno, but he still begets, as in the case of Adam a created human, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? as in the case of the Angels, created beings, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? and yes, as in the case of Christ, a created entity. believe what you will, it really is perfectly clear in my mind.
no, but he still begets, as in the case of Adam a created human, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? as in the case of the Angels, created beings, did he need to be a biological father, no, then what are you saying? and yes, as in the case of Christ, a created entity. believe what you will, it really is perfectly clear in my mind.
God is not the Father of angels or people except in an analogical sense. Scripture clearly understands Jesus Christ as the Son in a special and exclusive sense. He is the Son, not a son among many brothers. Again, no where does Scripture say "Christ is a created entity'. You fail by your own standards of doctrine.
As the Nicene fathers understood it, begetting refers to a unique act of generation in which a being gives being to another who shares in the same substance. The Father begets the Son in the sense that light begets light -- from one beam of light comes another which identical (it is still light) but different only in relation (one from the other.) This is different to an act of creation which produces a separate being of a different substance. So a man begets a son but creates an artwork; a man does not create a son and beget an artwork. There is no Scriptural evidence that 'begotten' means the same as 'created' and it would hardly make sense.