Worshipping The Son

So your answer is the Son is less than His Father?

There is a reason I asked you about rank. You don't know the argument. You're following professors that didn't teach you about it... :)

Listen, this has been fun but I'm not going to keep doing this. I really have better things to do than to argue over a liar from the 3rd century. Just put me in the Sola Scriptura category and deal with me from the Scriptures. I'll listen.

You greatly underestimate my trinitarian professors. The trinitarians here are allowing you to denigrate them. It’s left to a Jewish monotheist to defend them. Cowardly is the word.

Burn it down right before their closed eyes, clogged ears and closed mouths. They deserve it.
 
Trinitarian on trinitarian violence. And the trinitarian crowd shrugs its shoulders and twiddles its thumbs. I’ve witnessed it for thirty plus years.
 
You greatly underestimate my trinitarian professors. The trinitarians here are allowing you to denigrate them. It’s left to a Jewish monotheist to defend them. Cowardly is the word.

Burn it down right before their closed eyes, clogged ears and closed mouths. They deserve it.
Denigrate? I'm just witnessing the emptiness of the argument. I've been debating this a very long time. I gave up arguing over what some man said hundreds of years after that fact....a very long time ago. After all, they are just men. That is just witnessing facts. I haven't denigrated anyone.
 
Trinitarian on trinitarian violence. And the trinitarian crowd shrugs its shoulders and twiddles its thumbs. I’ve witnessed it for thirty plus years.
What? Origen lied extensively on his work in textual criticism. Why should believe anything he said?
Like I said, you're attempting to paint him as an authority on the Trinity. He isn't.

Speak of doctrine on doctrine "violence". Haven't you been disagreeing with Unitarians in this thread? Shouldn't qualify as the same?
 
Last edited:
Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem [of subordinationism … which to this point in time in the 3rd century had been the safeguard of monotheism.] Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with it’s emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view 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 the 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)

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. I give you the contribution of Origen, whom a trinitarian voice on an Internet discussion forum has surnamed “The Liar”.
 
Denigrate? I'm just witnessing the emptiness of the argument. I've been debating this a very long time. I gave up arguing over what some man said hundreds of years after that fact....a very long time ago. After all, they are just men. That is just witnessing facts. I haven't denigrated anyone.

You denigrated my trinitarian professors and now you’ve denigrated Origen, aka - thanks to you - “The Liar”.
 
What? Origen lied extensively on his work in textual criticism. Why should believe anything he said?
Like I said, you're attempting to paint him as an authority on the Trinity. He isn't.

Don’t believe a word of what he said then.

Speak of doctrine on doctrine "violence". Haven't you been disagreeing with Unitarians in this thread? Shouldn't qualify as the same?

I agree and disagree with unitarians on some things. I fully agree with unitarians who say that the Father alone is the one true God. I don’t call any of them liars.
 
Demand whatever you want. You‘ve thrown away Origen. That’s not a wise thing to do.
Actually it was the Church that did the "throwing away" of many of Origen's writings. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Origen for various reasons.

It's funny that you didn't select the real champions of Christology like Athanasius and Basil the Great. Athanasius destroyed Arianism and Basil the Great championed the Hypostatic understanding of Christology. No, you had to select someone who was anathemized by the Church.
 
Don’t believe a word of what he said then.



I agree and disagree with unitarians on some things. I fully agree with unitarians who say that the Father alone is the one true God. I don’t call any of them liars.
Origen lied. He more than lied, he was dishonest. It wasn't a simple mistake. I don't call people who make simple mistakes liars. I haven't called you a liar even though I disagree with you. You're making more seamless comparisons.
 
No. I’ve been arguing that Origen has a major role in the development of the post-biblical doctrine of the Trinity.




You concocted it out of your imagination.
No meaningful difference. He has zero influence upon me and many others. You and your professors are overstating his influence. That is what happens when you start embellishing men.
 
You’re asking about something which you already know.
Why not say it. Say Christ is less than God. You need say it and then define how rank establishes it. The argument centers around rank. I've been trying to get you to deal with what is important. Who cares what Origen said. We don't need him to establish anything..
 
Actually it was the Church that did the "throwing away" of many of Origen's writings. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Origen for various reasons.

It's funny that you didn't select the real champions of Christology like Athanasius and Basil the Great. Athanasius destroyed Arianism and Basil the Great championed the Hypostatic understanding of Christology. No, you had to select someone who was anathemized by the Church.
They either established their arguments upon the Scriptures and reason or they mean very little.

Ultimately, it is an argument centered around authority. I disarmed his argument because there is no authoritive position that denies the Holy Trinity. It doesn't exist.
 
Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem [of subordinationism … which to this point in time in the 3rd century had been the safeguard of monotheism.] Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with it’s emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view 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 the 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)

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. I give you the contribution of Origen, whom a trinitarian voice on an Internet discussion forum has surnamed “The Liar”.
Who needs Origen. We have

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Origen didn't originate anything.
 
Actually it was the Church that did the "throwing away" of many of Origen's writings. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Origen for various reasons.

That’s right. But what did the Church keep that came to it from Origen? That’s a rhetorical question.

It's funny that you didn't select the real champions of Christology like Athanasius and Basil the Great. Athanasius destroyed Arianism and Basil the Great championed the Hypostatic understanding of Christology. No, you had to select someone who was anathemized by the Church.

You really didn’t think I would leave them out, did you? @praise_yeshua doesn’t want or need them. You‘ve seen what he is saying about them. Have you spoken with him privately about it? Because you sure haven’t publicly, at least not in this thread.

I’ve been at this all day. You havenm’t brought them up, and it’s going to take me a while to do it. Especially with everything else I have going on away from the forum.

And will it even matter?

They borrowed from paganism! You heard it straight from their lips. Does that bother you?

It was a theological equivalent of “Soylent Green is people!” moment.

The response of trinitarians? Ignore it.

Jesus Christ isn’t going to ignore it. You can write it down and take it to the bank.

What will he do about it? I don’t know. We’ll leave it in his hands, right where it belongs.
 
Back
Top Bottom