That's a relief!
Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
He and his heresies were tossed out the proverbial window when the Church anathemized his writings. So I'm not stuck with him at all!
Have a go at Athanasius' writings. He almost singlehandedly saved the Church from fully going over to Arianism. There are several others that I implicitly trust because they have never preached anything against the Bible.
Matthias
Well-known member
“It is noticeable that in each case [Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8] the object of the verb, the one who is (to be) served / worshipped, is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship, the reference is always to the cultic service / worship of God. In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship (latreuein) to Jesus.”
(James D.G. Dunn, Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? : The New Testament Evidence, p. 13)
(James D.G. Dunn, Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? : The New Testament Evidence, p. 13)
Diserner
Well-known member
Although he had many strange beliefs, he used to encourage many martyrs. ( https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11707a.htm )
I think that shows a lot of character and devotion to Christ.
Matthias
Well-known member
”Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the views of the Apologists and Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliance produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”
(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 108)
Bold is mine.
I’m very familiar with Athanasius and his writings.
Wasn't the Word of God (Christ) begotten before creation, making Him uncreated? I don't understand why the need for the "He is always begetting Him" idea.
Matthias
Well-known member
Have you read Tertullian and the Greek Apologists for yourself?
They didn’t believe what you believe.
I appreciate your question. I was reading Origen’s Commentary On Matthew when you dialed me up.
Anything that gets me away from Origen is appreciated.
I read John 1:3 that proves that the Word of God is Uncreated. I start from the Bible and then move out to other writings. The other way around introduces too many pitfalls.
Diserner
Well-known member
It's an attempt to express atemporal or timeless language.
A logical relation outside of time.
Matthias
Well-known member
See Tyndale and a whole bunch of other trinitarians. They read John 1:3 as John reflecting on God speaking the creation into existence.
God is an it? Heaven forbid. Such a thought never entered their minds.
God‘s spoken word an it? Every time.
Your view blows an engine when you read "the Word was God" in John 1:1.
In other words, the Word = God.
Referring to the Word as an "it" is referring to God as an "it".
civic
Well-known member
Amen and didn’t Jesus becomes your primary source for truth and not others then one’s foundation is built upon the solid rock. Then one lines up what others say that affirms His teachings , not contradicts them. So when one’s beliefs or teaching contradicts Jesus you know it’s wrong. And one misunderstands any Apostles or Prophets understanding of Jesus that contradicts His teaching then we can be assured they don’t understand what they are saying about Jesus since He Himself says He would guide them into all truth.
And we can see those contradictions in Unitarianism. They deny who Jesus said He was and the Apostles who confirmed who he was, God in the flesh, our Great God and Savior, the Lord of glory, the Almighty God, the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, YHWH, the Great I Am, the Only Sovereign, The Only Lord, the One Lord who is the True God and Eternal Life. The Source of all life, the Creator of heaven and earth etc…
Matthias
Well-known member
The word which you just typed and posted: he or it?
What you just wrote must be clearly communicated to everyone because people can easily fall into the idea that Christ is being begotten right here right now in temporal time.
Your point by point refutation of what was written in post 322 is astounding.
Last edited:
The evidence he points out that refutes was written in post 322 is also astounding.
1. Murray Harris: This verse could equally appropriately be listed under 'slaves of Christ', for the singulars 'his slaves' (hoi douloi autou) and 'him' (autō) could refer to 'the Lamb', the nearest antecedent. More probably, however, the reference is to both God and the Lamb, conceived of as forming an inviolate unity, just as in Rev. 11:15 the one kingdom belonging to 'our Lord' and 'his Christ', in Rev. 21:22 the one temple in the heavenly city is 'the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb', and in Rev. 22:1 the one throne belongs to 'God and the Lamb' (Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ, page 22, footnote 8).
2. G. K. Beale: That "they will serve him" likely does not refer only to God or only to the Lamb. The two are conceived so much as a unity that the singular pronoun can refer to both. This may find a parallel in 6:17b...possibly in reference to both God and the Lamb (see on 6:17; cf. also 11:15). That both are sitting on only one throne and together form one temple (21:22) enhances their perceived unity (The Book of Revelation, page 1113).
3. G. R. Beasley-Murray: But observe: his servants serve him. Whose servants, and who is served? God, or the Lamb, or God and the Lamb? It is difficult to interpret the statement in reference to the Lamb alone, who is the immediate antecedent of his. Still more difficult is it to refer to God alone. We must assume, therefore, that the third alternative is correct: God and the Lamb are viewed as a unity in so real a fashion that the singular pronoun alone is suitable to interpret them (The Book of Revelation, page 332).
4. R. T. France: Note the remarkable use of singular pronouns to refer to 'God and the Lamb' in 22:3f.; cf. 11:15; 20:6 (The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?, Vox Evangelica 12, c. 1981, page 30, footnote #29).
5. A. T. Robertson: "Their" (autōn) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on equality as in...22:3 (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Revelation 6:17).
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=6
More can be quoted if need be.
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
it cannot be refuted which is why it was ignored.
Matthias
Well-known member
Who posted it? You did.
With a post that massive, you weren’t looking for a conversation about it.
I began responding to it later anyway.
Why are you changing the subject?
The subject is the Word who was God.
Since when is my words God?!?
Face the fact that "the Word was God".
Referring to the Word as an "it" is referring to God as an "it".
Matthias
Well-known member
I haven’t changed the subject.
God’s word. He or an it? An it.
Your word. He or an it? An it.
God. He or an it? He.
You. He or an it? He.
No. The subject is the word which God spoke.
Never.
Before you spoke your word, he was in your mind? No.
Before you spoke your word, it was in your mind? Yes.
