12 Jan 10
1 edit
ou will, it really is perfectly clear i tural evidence that 'begotten' means the same as 'created' and it would hardly make sense.[/b]he is father in ever sense of the word exception of biological, of Angels, of Adam and yes of Christ, for he is the life giver, the creator! have you never read,
(Acts 17:28-29) . . .For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among you have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’ “Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.
yes it is not in a biological sense, for God is a spirit, we are flesh and blood, but its as a life giver, as in the case of him 'giving life', to angels, to Adam and to Christ.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
12 Jan 10
Thanks to both of you for replying.
I have a slightly more radical proposal now. What if both your accounts are self consistent such that neither line of reasoning can be said to be better? If so, your differences are not to do with which of you has done a better job of interpreting the Bible, rather they result from your accounts being underdetermined by the available evidence.
The question then arises, if the above is true, why do you each find your own reasoning to be superior to the other's? Could the answer be that what we find convincing has an emotional component which in turn is affected by our commitment to the belief system that we are post-rationalising about?
And/or is there an incommensurability?
12 Jan 10
2 edits
better? If so, your differences are not to do with which of you has done a better job of interpreting the Bible, rather they result from your accounts being underdetermi e belief system that we are post-rationalising about?yes there is undoubtedly an emotional element, however, this is not 'driven', through an adherence to a particular belief system (although i must admit that i have seen it do so in many christians that i have met, one girl in particular i was trying to reason with, all she would say is, yes but i have my faith, yes dear but if your faith is not based on reason it is blind, was like talking to Dee Dee), but as an evaluation of the available data.
And/or is there an incommensurability?
For example Conrau states that, Christ being the 'first born', has to do with pre eminence and a superior position. i on the other hand stated that in every other instance of Biblical usage up until this point that it is used with regard to progeny, and what seems to me is that Conrau reasoning is an attempt to impose his exegesis on scripture. He provides and obscure reference in the Psalms, i show that it has a prophetic significance, he states that is rubbish, and so it goes on. Thus it is the evaluation of the available data that gives birth to the emotional element, not vice versa.
i admit that i have never heard of incommensurability, i will need to see what it means before i can comment 🙂
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo Christ, the angels and the apostles were equally sons of God?
he is father in ever sense of the word exception of biological, of Angels, of Adam and yes of Christ, for he is the life giver, the creator! have you never read,
(Acts 17:28-29) . . .For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among you have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’ “Seeing, therefore, that [b]we a ...[text shortened]... ts as a life giver, as in the case of him 'giving life', to angels, to Adam and to Christ.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain, however, the Scripture says 'He is the logos' and that 'through him all things were made'. You cannot seem to offer an intellectually honest interpretation of these lines.
yes there is undoubtedly an emotional element, however, this is not 'driven', through an adherence to a particular belief system (although i must admit that i have seen it do so in many christians that i have met, one girl in particular i was trying to reason with, all she would say is, yes but i have my faith, yes dear but if your faith is not based never heard of incommensurability, i will need to see what it means before i can comment 🙂
Again, 'firstborn' does have different meanings, as I have shown in the psalms. Yet, even though God explicitly says in this psalm 'O David', you interpret this psalm to refer to Jesus. How can you claim to have any intellectual honesty?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
12 Jan 10
Hmm, you see, on the one hand, Robbie you have implied that Conrau's arguments are 'weak, dubious, contradictory, unsubstantiated' and Conrau you have made the suggestion that Robbie 'cannot seem to offer an intellectually honest interpretation'.
But I put it to you both that, in the final analysis, when generalised in the context of capable reasoners in each tradition and the underdetermination of the tenets of each tradition, neither of the above contentions is credible.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kof course all other things were made through him, he was the very first thing directly created by God, that is why he is termed the only begotten, and i have already given you the proper and accurate rendering, in that naturally , based on the biblical evidence that Christ is never termed as God the Almighty, is never equal, is never co eternal, had a beginning etc etc etc, that it is self evident that all other things were made through him!
Again, however, the Scripture says 'He is the logos' and that 'through him all things were made'. You cannot seem to offer an intellectually honest interpretation of these lines.
Again, 'firstborn' does have different meanings, as I have shown in the psalms. Yet, even though God explicitly says in this psalm 'O David', you interpret this psalm to refer to Jesus. How can you claim to have any intellectual honesty?
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Sharkmines is credible Conraus is mince 😛
Hmm, you see, on the one hand, Robbie you have implied that Conrau's arguments are 'weak, dubious, contradictory, unsubstantiated' and Conrau you have made the suggestion that Robbie 'cannot seem to offer an intellectually honest interpretation'.
But I put it to you both that, in the final analysis, when generalised in the context of capable reasoners ...[text shortened]... tion of the tenets of each tradition, [b]neither of the above contentions is credible.[/b]1
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe discussion at hand is whether Christ is a created entity. Now, no where in the Scripture is the Son ever called a 'created entity'. He is called the only begotten, the knowledge of God, the image and word of the Father, the logos, the footprint of God and the beginning of creation. These titles clearly distinguish the Son from creation. Knowledge is not created nor is an image or word a creation. Scripture clearly states 'through him all things came to be' and 'without him nothing could come into being'. It says 'Through his word, he sustains all things, visible and invisible'. Robbie basically has to fiddle with the words to make it read 'all other things'. It is intellectually dishonest.
Hmm, you see, on the one hand, Robbie you have implied that Conrau's arguments are 'weak, dubious, contradictory, unsubstantiated' and Conrau you have made the suggestion that Robbie 'cannot seem to offer an intellectually honest interpretation'.
But I put it to you both that, in the final analysis, when generalised in the context of capable reasoners ...[text shortened]... ation of the tenets of each tradition, [b]neither of the above contentions is credible.[/b]
The Nicene fathers clearly wanted to distinguish begetting from creating. Robbie's response is basically 'it is the same. it is it is it is'. He has no interest in trying to discuss how they are the same, what distinguishes an act of creation from an act of begetting. The Nicene fathers wrote copious volumes on this very discussion but Robbie is not interested. Even when confronted with undeniable evidence that the early Christians celebrated the Lord's supper on Sundays and that the only dispute was about the feast day, he refuses to admit error. This is what makes him intellectually dishonest.
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwe have come a long way in our understanding since the Nicene fathers, one would hope.
The discussion at hand is whether Christ is a created entity. Now, no where in the Scripture is the Son ever called a 'created entity'. He is called the only begotten, the knowledge of God, the image and word of the Father, the logos, the footprint of God and the beginning of creation. These titles clearly distinguish the Son from creation. Knowledge is not t day, he refuses to admit error. This is what makes him intellectually dishonest.
please you may attack the reasoning, but please leave the character assassination out of it, i have really enjoyed our discussions due to its rather refreshing absence.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is ridiculous and Scripture clearly refutes it:
yes, isn't it obvious? Surely you are not dismissing Christ's words when he gave the model prayer, ' Our father. . . . . . . .
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8:23
He destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will
Ephesians 1:5
We are sons of God by adoption; Christ is son in a special and exclusive way. The Scriptures talk of Christ as the Son of God, not a Son:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
John 3:36
The apostles and early church clearly regarded his sonship as distinctive:
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
Acts 9:20
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThese were very intelligent men versed in multiple languages. They clearly made a distinction between creation and begetting, a distinction which is apparent in Scripture since the Son is never called a created entity. You are imposing your own notional prejudices on the bible.
we have come a long way in our understanding since the Nicene fathers, one would hope.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes they were sons through adoption , but sons never the less! Why did Christ state,
This is ridiculous and Scripture clearly refutes it:
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8:23
He destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will
Ephesians 1:5
We are son ...[text shortened]... Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
Acts 9:20
(Matthew 6:9-13) . . .Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’