Spammers wasteland

[Arthur Brain]

Indeed ... no one expected you to reply to the FACT that second-hand smoke puts children at risk and has been linked to approximately 3500 infant deaths a year.

You're talking to a guy who doesn't even think that smoking is harmful in itself, that's how thick he is. No wonder he starts threads without any evidence in support as long as he can project his ignorance and hatred...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I like beer. I enjoy maybe one a week, usually less. Don't particularly like wine, hate the hard stuff. I can enjoy my one beer without concern of becoming even slightly impaired.

Pot cannot be smoked without becoming impaired to some degree. That's exactly the point of smoking it.

Even that one beer 'impairs' you, even if imperceptibly to yourself. You're not the arbiter of what constitutes that believe it or not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nice misdirection. I told you. Marijuana smokers are immoral.

Hey, not like you to make broad, grandiose and sweeping statements rooted in anything but fact. Well, okay, you certainly don't make grandiose statements but moving on from that...Soooo, anyone who's ever smoked a spliff is immoral then? But not anyone who's smoked a cigarette? When you first smoked a 'fag' Nick did you not get a bit high off the nicotine rush your body wouldn't have been used to?

:think:

 

[Rusha]

You're talking to a guy who doesn't even think that smoking is harmful in itself, that's how thick he is. No wonder he starts threads without any evidence in support as long as he can project his ignorance and hatred...

But but but ... all I provided was evidence from the CDC .....

:chuckle:

 

[Ben Masada]

May I EMPHASISE - Do you love Jesus and his word ?

If yes then get back to CF soteriology and defend it. Bottom line - true Christ or the 'elite mob' - what is left of them, leading Christians astray.
Please defend the true Gospel with all your heart.

No more. I can't love the dead as their word no longer means any thing.

 

[Ben Masada]

Do you love God's word or what ?

Matthew 18:6 ESV

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea

I do love God's Word. How could I not to? If you read Psalm 147:19,20, God's Word was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. I could never stop loving God's Word.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I have never visited a Cabbalist synagogue. From the short contacts I had with Cabbalism, I left with the impression of Mysticism which is the same as Superstitious legenda.

ALL Synagogues are Kabbalah Synagogues. Biblical Judaism is extinct. Your Pharisaic Rabbinical Talmudism is a fraud, just as you personally are. Zohar, Tikkun, and all the rest.

You are your last sentence.

 

[The Horn]

" An eye for an eye " and eventually the whole world will be blind ". Mahatma Gandhi .

 

[patrick jane]

Unlike youJob repented, because like you, he erroneously thought he could contend for his case with God.

You might want to ask yourself why Job repented.

Because his butt hurt

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Because his butt hurt

Job Submits Himself to God
…4'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' 5"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; 6Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."…

 

[KingdomRose]

Hey, do you want a real good post or two or three on the "Historical Development of the Trinity"? It's very informative, and can be found on the forum Debating Christianity & Religion.

Spam link removed.

This will take care of the argument.....if anyone is really interested in what has actually transpired throughout history.

 

[Krsto]

And that is the problem. If one doesn't understand the distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (substance), one cannot address this topic sufficiently or accurately.

So the Christian church not only did not, but could not address this topic sufficiently or accurately, during the 300 years before this distinction was created - yet - this understanding is essential to being a Christian. See a problem here? Sorry, not buying this for obvious reasons. What we should be aiming for is the understanding Christ had of himself and the apostles had of Jesus, and their immediate successors had, BEFORE all of these distinctions were made. THAT would be the orthodox faith, and any development afterward is only helpful at best, not essential, and the councils were not infallible. Since the councils were not infallible, we might be able to find fault in them. I have.

 

[Krsto]

Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So the Christian church not only did not, but could not address this topic sufficiently or accurately, during the 300 years before this distinction was created - yet - this understanding is essential to being a Christian. See a problem here? Sorry, not buying this for obvious reasons. What we should be aiming for is the understanding Christ had of himself and the apostles had of Jesus, and their immediate successors had, BEFORE all of these distinctions were made. THAT would be the orthodox faith, and any development afterward is only helpful at best, not essential, and the councils were not infallible. Since the councils were not infallible, we might be able to find fault in them. I have.

Incorrect. Though it was understandably delayed by extreme persecution, the very earliest apologists began distinguishing the subtleties of Greek word meanings to apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one divinity in some manner.

Councils were to omit clearly heretical schismatic beliefs that were a threat to truth, unlike modern systematic theology, etc.

And I never indicated that understanding thosa word meanings was the threshhold for salvific faith. But to deny the authentic eternal and uncreated divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is beyond that threshhold.

Salvation is a being/becoming comparable to copula/gerund in linguistics. We are "saved" when we receive the end of our faith.

If you're appealing to first century theology as orthodox, then you are in even greater peril. Polycarp and others clearly affirmed the ontological divinity of our Lord. Just because apologetics lagged behind that for clear expression, it doesn't change the core beliefs that you are trying to dismiss.

The Apostles weren't Unitarians or Arians or Sabellians.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?

"God, His Word, and His Wisdom" was among the earliest cry of Patristic hearts according to Apostolic teaching. Divinity all around is the theme. And it was near unanimous.

You know I despise the English term "Person/s" and Multi-Hypostaticism. So I'm obviously not lobbying for any Nicean form. Yet there was a general consensus of ontological divinity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Makhoen]

Trinity has been refuted many times

Trinity has been refuted many times

Trinity of gods is not the God of Jesus

 

[Ben Masada]

Trinity of gods is not the God of Jesus

The God of Jesus was HaShem, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the One Who is of an absolute Oneness. (Isaiah 46:5)

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus and his apostles were strict monotheists who never entertained the idea of God being ontologically 3 anything. When they became Christians they became Christian Monotheists. This is what the church was before it was trinitarian. If not this, then what? What was the church before it was trinitarian if it wasn't Christian Monotheist (aka Unitarian)?

Jesus and his apostles never became Christians. There was never a time of Christian Monotheists. The Church was risen already trinitarian. Paul was always Trinitarian,
from the day he founded Christianity. (Acts 11:26) Don't forget that he himself fabricated the idea, not only of the Trinity as well as for the resurrection of Jesus; including that he had been the individual Messiah. (II Tim. 2:8)

 

[Krsto]

I like the fact PPS that you actually engage in the subject matter. So few on any side of a debate are willing to do that.

Incorrect. Though it was understandably delayed by extreme persecution, the very earliest apologists began distinguishing the subtleties of Greek word meanings to apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one divinity in some manner.

This did not happen until the latter half of the 2nd century, and it was not in an attempt to define orthodoxy, but as part of the church's struggle with different ways of thinking. Those who wrote about these issues wrote to offer a way to understand things, sometimes in contradistinction to others who did the same. The early apologists were just as much innovators as they were defenders.

Councils were to omit clearly heretical schismatic beliefs that were a threat to truth, unlike modern systematic theology, etc.

No, the councils were to bring unity to the body at the demand of a Roman emperor who could not tolerate any form of disunity in "his" kingdom. He was the one who decided which doctrine was the "approved" doctrine and his position flip flopped according to who happened to be in front of him. Constantine caused more schisms than there were before the councils by enforcing his position on the church. He damned near caused a civil war. To say their reason for being was to "omit clearly heretical" beliefs finds no basis in history.

And I never indicated that understanding thosa word meanings was the threshhold for salvific faith. But to deny the authentic eternal and uncreated divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is beyond that threshhold.

And yet the church didn't start out believing Jesus was eternal and uncreated. That came later.

Salvation is a being/becoming comparable to copula/gerund in linguistics. We are "saved" when we receive the end of our faith.

We are also saved when we are delivered from the bondage of sin, i.e., when we stop sinning. Salvation is a process as much as it is a goal.

If you're appealing to first century theology as orthodox, then you are in even greater peril. Polycarp and others clearly affirmed the ontological divinity of our Lord. Just because apologetics lagged behind that for clear expression, it doesn't change the core beliefs that you are trying to dismiss.

Polycarp did not affirm that Jesus was "fully God." He affirmed him as theos, if memory serves (it doesn't always). Theos applies to men as well as to God. Polycarp was a Unitarian.

The Apostles weren't Unitarians or Arians or Sabellians.

Then what were they?

 

[Krsto]

"God, His Word, and His Wisdom" was among the earliest cry of Patristic hearts according to Apostolic teaching. Divinity all around is the theme. And it was near unanimous.

That was 170 AD, and it was only one person, Theophilus of Antioch. This was a novel idea not shared by anyone else, and he wasn't describing God ontologically, he was just saying that there is a trinity of Father, Word, Wisdom. I could say the same thing, or come up with a host of other trinities without saying "God is a triune being". Your contention that Theophilus expressed the near unanimous opinion of the church finds not basis in history.

You know I despise the English term "Person/s" and Multi-Hypostaticism. So I'm obviously not lobbying for any Nicean form. Yet there was a general consensus of ontological divinity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There wasn't a general consensus on much of anything in the early church, and the farther away from the source, the more innovation became popular thinking among theologians and the more ideas floated around Christendom. To say the whole church believed what the theologians said would be like saying Voltaire represented what the French believed. That only came after the thinker's thinking became popular, which took a couple hundred years. In the case of early theologians, if they were lucky, some later ecclesiastical body would approve. Some of the ideas that became popular among trinitarians such as "eternally proceeding from the Father" came from people who were otherwise considered rank heretics and didn't even believe the same things about it but their terms were just borrowed and molded it into something useful for their purposes, which included trying to rationalize what's inherently contradictory.