wazua Thu, Mar 28, 2024
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

4 Pages«<234
Swearing with the Bible/holy book
tycho
#61 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:39:43 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
There are many texts that are difficult to read, especially given the biases and attitudes we approach a text, not withstanding the language used.

I'd advocate a careful and patient investigation despite the odds.

There are certainly many sources that could help such an investigation. For example, there was a time when the 'Arian controversy' wasn't as contentious as it was during Nicene doctrine. So what did it mean that various ideologies could exist peacefully, and then suddenly the matter is explosive?

And why is it explosive now, why don't we have the peace before Constantine?

Does language have its own politics?

For me, we can only access language through political action, and this complicates matters.

This can only be answered if we can know the politics of Christ and see how it's connected to God. A tall order for us debaters.
tycho
#62 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:51:32 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Was Sir Isaac Newton an Arian?

Quote:
From these additional manuscripts More
reached the conclusion that Newton was not orthodox but an Arian. He proceeded to say that Newton was not only an Arian but, because of the manner in which he understood Jesus’ role as prophet, a Unitarian


This topic isn't a Muslim v/s Christian issue.
AlphDoti
#63 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:27:59 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/20/2008
Posts: 6,274
Location: Kenya
The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.
tycho
#64 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:25:39 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
AlphDoti wrote:
The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.


In that case the formulation of the trinity begins to gain traction...
tycho
#65 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:19:32 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Quote:
Newton’s preoccupation with prophecy influenced his reading of church history, so that the fourth century was seen as the time in which false teaching was introduced into the church.


tycho
#66 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:54:37 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Eusebius, who was at the council...

Quote:


When they had set this formulary, [the Nicene Creed] we did not leave
without examination that passage in which it is said that the Son is of
the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Questions
and arguments thence arose, and the meaning of the terms was
exactly tested. Accordingly they were led to confess that the word
consubstantial [omoousio~] signifies that the Son is of the Father, but
not as being a part of the Father. We deemed it right to recieve this
opinion; for that is sound doctrine which teaches that the Son is of the
Father, but not part of His substance. From the love of peace, and lest
we should fall from the true belief, we also accept this view, neither do
we reject the term “consubstantial.” For the same reason we admitted
the expression, “begotten, but not made;” for they alleged that the word
“made” applies generally to all things which are created by the Son, to
which the Son is in no respect similar; and that consequently He is not a created thing, like the things made by Him, but is of a substance
superior to all created objects. The Holy Scriptures teach Him to be
begotten of the Father, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible
and inexplicable to all created beings. So also the term “of one
substance with the Father,” [ek th~ ousio~ tou patrou] when
investigated, was accepted not in accordance with bodily relations or
similarity to mortal division of substance, nor abcission, nor any
modification or change or diminution in the power of the Father, all of
which are alien from the nature of the unbegotten Father. It was
concluded that the expression “being of one substance with the Father,”
implies that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the
creatures which He has made; but that to the Father alone, who begat
Him, He is in all points perfectly like: for He is of the essence and of the
substance of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been
given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to assent to it....
AlphDoti
#67 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 4:33:17 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/20/2008
Posts: 6,274
Location: Kenya
tycho wrote:
AlphDoti wrote:
The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.

In that case the formulation of the trinity begins to gain traction...

Yes. However, look at the observation below:

Quote:
The Scriptural truth, on the other hand, is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible: God is one person, his son Jesus is a second person, and the holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the spirit, power and influence of God. Jesus is subordinate to his Heavenly Father. God existed from eternity, but there was a time before the creation of his son Jesus when God was alone.
tycho
#68 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:24:20 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
AlphDoti wrote:
tycho wrote:
AlphDoti wrote:
The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.

In that case the formulation of the trinity begins to gain traction...

Yes. However, look at the observation below:

Quote:
The Scriptural truth, on the other hand, is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible: God is one person, his son Jesus is a second person, and the holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the spirit, power and influence of God. Jesus is subordinate to his Heavenly Father. God existed from eternity, but there was a time before the creation of his son Jesus when God was alone.


Let us get a few things first.

1. We're dealing with a live theological discussion, whose sides are firmly in the Christian domain of discourse

2. Any non-Christian discussant must suspend any other belief system for a Christian one

3. As in any other rational discussion, we must get background facts right and agree upon them.

It's on this 3rd premise that I wish to explore at the moment. What do we understand by 'God'? Or rather, can we have approximation of what the Church fathers meant? And do we adopt their definition(s)?

4. Is there a definition of God that has emerged since the Church fathers?

For me evidence points at a Platonic conception of the universe. Arius sounds like an Indian even in his philosophy.

Tradition would also support a Platonic- Hermetic interpretation as the intended definition by the Church fathers.

That being the case we can now postulate the all important questions:

1. What is the Hermetic-Platonic definition of God?

2. Does such a conception allow the possibility of God, being alone, at any one time?

To me, the Platonic conception of God precludes a lone God at any one time.

Let's also not forget how like in the above quote, Eusebius deals with the question you've posed.

AlphDoti
#69 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 6:20:42 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/20/2008
Posts: 6,274
Location: Kenya
tycho wrote:
AlphDoti wrote:
tycho wrote:
AlphDoti wrote:
The first use of this word, Trinity in early Christian writings referred merely to the existence of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (Theophilus of Antioch, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, page 201). But as the doctrine evolved in the 4th-6th centuries, it became much more mysterious. It asserted that God is actually composed of three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all co-equal and co-eternal.

In that case the formulation of the trinity begins to gain traction...

Yes. However, look at the observation below:

Quote:
The Scriptural truth, on the other hand, is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible: God is one person, his son Jesus is a second person, and the holy Spirit is not a person at all. It is the spirit, power and influence of God. Jesus is subordinate to his Heavenly Father. God existed from eternity, but there was a time before the creation of his son Jesus when God was alone.


Let us get a few things first.

1. We're dealing with a live theological discussion, whose sides are firmly in the Christian domain of discourse

2. Any non-Christian discussant must suspend any other belief system for a Christian one

3. As in any other rational discussion, we must get background facts right and agree upon them.

It's on this 3rd premise that I wish to explore at the moment. What do we understand by 'God'? Or rather, can we have approximation of what the Church fathers meant? And do we adopt their definition(s)?

4. Is there a definition of God that has emerged since the Church fathers?

For me evidence points at a Platonic conception of the universe. Arius sounds like an Indian even in his philosophy.

Tradition would also support a Platonic- Hermetic interpretation as the intended definition by the Church fathers.

That being the case we can now postulate the all important questions:

1. What is the Hermetic-Platonic definition of God?

2. Does such a conception allow the possibility of God, being alone, at any one time?

To me, the Platonic conception of God precludes a lone God at any one time.

Let's also not forget how like in the above quote, Eusebius deals with the question you've posed.

You're right to have a concept of God as "alone God"

Contrary to trinitarian tradition which looks at God as (1) the Father, (2). God the Son, and (3). God the Holy Spirit.

Yet in the Scriptures we see expression "God the Father," is used to denote God as provider of all...
Example: "There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things..." (1 Corinthians 8:6). And the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" appear zero times in the scripture.

Also the word "God" is used thousand times in the Bible, referring to God himself. Never at one time is this word "God" used to refer to the holy Spirit.

But the word "god" in lower case, is used in various meaning. It is the Hebrew word "elohim" (god) that describes any high dignitary. We see this in being used to describe Abraham in Genesis 23:6. It can also be used to refer to angels, God, gods, great personality, mighty person, judges etc et. The same word exists in Greek "theos" that also have variety of usage, it has been used to refer to Jesus Christ, it as been used to refer to a magistrate... It has even been used to refer to Satan himself "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" 2 Corinthians 4:4

None of these use should confuse us as to who is truly God Almighty
tycho
#70 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:26:54 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
No. I fear you misread my statement @Alph. To paraphrase:

There is no moment even in eternity that God can be alone. That is, going by the Platonic position.
AlphDoti
#71 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:33:53 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 6/20/2008
Posts: 6,274
Location: Kenya
tycho wrote:
No. I fear you misread my statement @Alph. To paraphrase:

There is no moment even in eternity that God can be alone. That is, going by the Platonic position.

Ok @tycho, let us switch back to our witnesses: the holy books.
tycho
#72 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:39:24 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
AlphDoti wrote:
tycho wrote:
No. I fear you misread my statement @Alph. To paraphrase:

There is no moment even in eternity that God can be alone. That is, going by the Platonic position.

Ok @tycho, let us switch back to our witnesses: the holy books.


The Bible and Torah are Platonic-Hermetic. Even the holy Quran is of the same order.

The act of creation is preceded by 'Let us...'

The tradition of the heavenly ladder of the seven rungs is the cornerstone of Platonism.
masukuma
#73 Posted : Monday, March 19, 2018 8:05:19 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 10/4/2006
Posts: 13,821
Location: Nairobi
AlphDoti wrote:
tycho wrote:
No. I fear you misread my statement @Alph. To paraphrase:

There is no moment even in eternity that God can be alone. That is, going by the Platonic position.

Ok @tycho, let us switch back to our witnesses: the holy books.

why are they holy? are the books themselves self aware? are they holy because we deem them to be holy? are they holy because they deem themselves to be holy? what of other books deeming themselves to be holy? what of other books deemed by others to be holy?
All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
tycho
#74 Posted : Monday, March 19, 2018 12:54:38 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
masukuma wrote:
AlphDoti wrote:
tycho wrote:
No. I fear you misread my statement @Alph. To paraphrase:

There is no moment even in eternity that God can be alone. That is, going by the Platonic position.

Ok @tycho, let us switch back to our witnesses: the holy books.

why are they holy? are the books themselves self aware? are they holy because we deem them to be holy? are they holy because they deem themselves to be holy? what of other books deeming themselves to be holy? what of other books deemed by others to be holy?


Some books are holy because they have a certain inherent character in them. Viz;

1. They contain a metaphysical understanding and statement of life

2. They are essentially a set of instructions on how to live a life conforming to the particular metaphysical understanding

3. They describe the active archetypes of being

4. They describe the daily lives of the people they are intended for

Holy scriptures are manuals for socio-political identities.

All books that have the above qualities are holy whether they are from a different ideology or not.

And even, a person may say this book isn't holy, but as long as the objection falls short of the criteria then the objection is flimsy.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2024 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.