Jesus is not God....part 2

Re: Nicene creed

Ahanu said:
I have been doing a little homework on this and have a quick question.

In the creed that Athanasius came up with, he used a term to describe Jesus's relationship with God: he was homoousion, 'of one substance' with the Father.

Is this term based on scripture?

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (redirected)
Click to expand...

Ask yourself if the "Trinity" is found in Scripture. Be careful. Try to use only the text. Look at only what the text(s) say.

Now, with texts in hand, do they tell us that there are three "persons" of the same "substance"? Or is this idea a later theological development by the church, an "explanation" that avoided the charge of polytheism? Note, for the idea to be based in scripture, one should be able to find the concepts of "essence" or "substance" in the texts, in other words, something more concrete that "God is One," because Christ and the HS are being "added" to that One.
 
Bruce Michael said:
Hi Operacast,
<SNIP>

For me, a deep study of all the pre Christian religions affords the greatest proofs of the Christian faith.
Click to expand...

Now that really intrigues me. Could you please describe some of your study of the pre-Christian religions that facilitated these new perspectives?

Many thanks,

Operacast
 
Bruce Michael said:
Hi ask yourself "Do I really feel the presence of Christ here?". That is the premier question.


God Blesss,
Br.Bruce
Click to expand...



Or even do you see the signs of christs presence or porousia.

its all happening no matter where we are.
 
Nicene Creed

Actually Ahanu, I should have said John 1. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Thanks (Titus 2:13).

But the greek term homoousion is not even in the bible! Well, from what I have understood.

In the Nicene Creed, the key word used to describe Christ’s relation to God—homoousion, meaning, “of the same substance”—had been considered heretical a century earlier. Some earlier orthodox theologians argued that the term was not found in the Bible and that it blurred the distinctions between the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...

Did You Know? - Christian History & Biography - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com


As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics...."11 Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.
Click to expand...

Council of Nicea

It is interesting that homoousion is not in the bible.
 
. . .since most scholars agree that Titus was not written by Paul, and that he never mentioned that Christ was God, I might end up changing opinion! Scriptures can be used to support both arguments :)eek:).
 
Ahanu said:
. . .since most scholars agree that Titus was not written by Paul, and that he never mentioned that Christ was God, I might end up changing opinion! Scriptures can be used to support both arguments :)eek:).
Click to expand...
Lol, Genesis brings the three into light within a few paragraphs, and it is so simply laid out that the greatest scholars can't see it for the punctuation on the page...:rolleyes:

You guys kill me...:D
 
mens_sana said:
Quahom1 said:
Lol, Genesis brings the three into light within a few paragraphs, and it is so simply laid out that the greatest scholars can't see it for the punctuation on the page...:rolleyes:

Ancient Hebrew was written with no punctuation. Perhaps you've not read much of what "the greatest scholars" have written.
Click to expand...
Where doesn't it say "Jesus", and punctuation is there, it is in the way the verses are spoken...(duh)

Hard to see the forest, for the trees, and some will not confess to Him 'til on their knees...

Don't come into the the Christianity forum and try to blast the faith...it ain't gonna work. I believe, you do not. That is the end of it.
Click to expand...
 
Quahom1 said:
mens_sana said:
Where doesn't it say "Jesus", and punctuation is there, it is in the way the verses are spoken...(duh) ... I believe, you do not. That is the end of it.
Click to expand...


I asked where in Genesis does the text say Jesus? You have not answered the question. You only ducked, implying that "doctrine" can substitute for what the text does NOT say. I asked for exegesis. You gave me eisegesis. That tells me you have no respect for the text — and that you have no intention of examining your beliefs. While some RCC theologians can find Christ in Genesis, none of their text experts can find Jesus there. I think the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (imprimatur and all) would just scare you silly.

You also seem to think that the way the text is spoken hasn't changed since the time of Moses. Wheeeeuuuuu!
Click to expand...
 
mens_sana said:
Quahom1 said:
I asked where in Genesis does the text say Jesus? You have not answered the question. You only ducked, implying that "doctrine" can substitute for what the text does NOT say. I asked for exegesis. You gave me eisegesis. That tells me you have no respect for the text — and that you have no intention of examining your beliefs. While some RCC theologians can find Christ in Genesis, none of their text experts can find Jesus there. I think the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (imprimatur and all) would just scare you silly.

You also seem to think that the way the text is spoken hasn't changed since the time of Moses. Wheeeeuuuuu!
Click to expand...

The "Word" is Jesus my friend, in Genesis. It is backed up by John in the New Testament, when more is revealed. The old testament explains that Jesus was in the world, and the world knew him not. In the new testament, we learn who He is, and what His purpose is (to provide a light for the path).

I don't need an "expert" to point out the obvious.
Click to expand...
 
Quahom1 said:
The "Word" is Jesus my friend, in Genesis. It is backed up by John in the New Testament.... I don't need an "expert" to point out the obvious.
Click to expand...

But you asserted that the "text" in Genesis supported you. When are you going to show me where the "text" supports you, where the "text" shows Jesus in Genesis? Oh, and by the way, you have broadened your claim, so exactly where in Genesis is the Word mentioned?

If you are going to claim that "faith" supports you, please go ahead and do so. Be my guest, and genuflect as you retreat from your rash assertions. But a claim that you are backed up by the "text" deserves citations that back you up — and you have yet to offer one.
 
Kindest Regards, mens_sana, and welcome to CR!
mens_sana said:
where the "text" shows Jesus in Genesis?
Click to expand...
I'm probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, and it has been a long time since I looked into this, but I am thinking this is more in the symbols and interpretation rather than in the specific words.

Ha-Adam is considered by some Christian scholars to be a type or model of Messiah, which by extension would be the man called Jesus. I am not certain if the Jews consider Ha-Adam a type of Messiah or not.

Then there is the "curse" levelled on the serpent, wherein the serpent will bruise man's heel but the son of man will bruise the serpent's head. The Christian interpretation is that of Jesus overcoming the serpent (as a type for the devil). Again I am not sure of the Jewish take on this, as they do not believe Messiah has yet come, and that the devil doesn't exist (at least not in the same sense Christians do).
 
mens_sana said:
But you asserted that the "text" in Genesis supported you. When are you going to show me where the "text" supports you, where the "text" shows Jesus in Genesis? Oh, and by the way, you have broadened your claim, so exactly where in Genesis is the Word mentioned?

If you are going to claim that "faith" supports you, please go ahead and do so. Be my guest, and genuflect as you retreat from your rash assertions. But a claim that you are backed up by the "text" deserves citations that back you up — and you have yet to offer one.
Click to expand...
Lol, I already did, and I retreat from nothing. But you go ahead and try to prove me wrong...which is as ludicrous as the reasoning I've been reading as of late.
 
Quahom1 said:
Lol, I already did, and I retreat from nothing. But you go ahead and try to prove me wrong...which is as ludicrous as the reasoning I've been reading as of late.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all I asked was that you back up your assertions. You claimed that Jesus was in Genesis, then that the Word was in Genesis. I (apparently mistakenly) assumed that you could back up your claims with citations and asked you for those citations. It is not a question of whether or not I could/even should "prove you wrong," it is whether you are a blowhard.
 
mens_sana said:
Sorry, all I asked was that you back up your assertions. You claimed that Jesus was in Genesis, then that the Word was in Genesis. I (apparently mistakenly) assumed that you could back up your claims with citations and asked you for those citations. It is not a question of whether or not I could/even should "prove you wrong," it is whether you are a blowhard.
Click to expand...
Mens, Jesus is "The Word" of God...that is throughout the bible. It is simply another name/title for Him. So, I came through with your request.
 
juantoo3 said:
Ha-Adam is considered by some Christian scholars to be a type or model of Messiah, which by extension would be the man called Jesus. I am not certain if the Jews consider Ha-Adam a type of Messiah or not.
Click to expand...

Hi, and thanks for the welcome.

Yes, some Christian scholars consider Ha-Adam to be a type of Messiah. However, the Jews do not — and they are the ones that wrote the book, all the way from Genesis to Chronicles (Hebrew Bible order).

Do you know the terms "exegesis" and "eisegesis"? When the Christian scholars find the Ha-Adam type, they are using eisegesis. Which practice do you think comes closer to the intention of the author?
 
mens_sana said:
Hi, and thanks for the welcome.

Yes, some Christian scholars consider Ha-Adam to be a type of Messiah. However, the Jews do not — and they are the ones that wrote the book, all the way from Genesis to Chronicles (Hebrew Bible order)...
Click to expand...
Which can be shown to have been taken in great deal from the Zoarastrian writings of Persia...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top