Absolute truth? Yes or no...

[sodaseller]

Hey, for all who understood it the first time, or at least think they did, fantastic for you, here's your smily face

That scripture references what Jesus said, not what you said, unless, of course, you're claiming to be Jesus

So, I ask again, just so I can be sure that I understand what you meant by the post in question - did you mean what I summarized it to mean?

I wasn't comparing the speakers but the listeners - note the lead in -"About "choosing sides" and claiming not to understand" - those listeners chose sides through their feigned claim not to understand. Try to avoid the same path. But in the event your confusion is not duplicitous, which I doubt, consubstantiality is caputered by this part of the Creed

eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

That section of the Creed refuted, among other heresies, Ariansim. New Advent summarizes the Arian heresy as follows:

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

The Arians had a good argument based upon the greater weight of scripture, notwithstanding the first chapter of John.
Some of the scripure that Arius relied upon is summarized by one commentator as follows:

As stated above, Scripture had called the Son "God," and apparently considered him to be equal with the Father.[13] At the same time, however, even a cursory glance at the New Testament reveals that Jesus himself claimed to be inferior to, and distinct from God. At John 20:17, he tells Mary Magdalene that the Father is his God; he specifically says in John 14:28 that "the Father is greater than I;" he claims imperfect knowledge; he could not do things by himself, and apparently disclaimed moral perfection as well.[14]

Arius drew upon these passages to demonstrate that, although the Son should indeed be called "God," since he was inferior to the Father, he was "God" in name only. With Christ's inferiority as his starting point, Arius then put into motion his supreme argument from one of his most important 'proof-texts,' Proverbs 8:22. Here, God's Wisdom says, "The Lord created me as the beginning of his work." For Arius, then, God the Father had created the Son, who then became a "secondary God" or a "subservient God."[15] The Father and the Son were indeed 'one,' but in moral perfection only, and were certainly not identical in being.[16] In other words, Arius had effectively solved the issue of Christ's divinity by placing him with the 'created' beings.


A favorite Arian proof text was the Christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-9:


Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death --
even death on a cross.
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name that is above every name.

Here they stressed the rewards the Son received for being obedient. How could the Son advance in position, they asked, if he was fully God and incapable of change?

An aside for a humorous take on the heresy from a former protégé when addressing the material.

He adopted a screen name - "ouisadaddy", a great play on words on the controversy.

The ultimate point is that you are claiming scripture as the sole source of truth, which was especially ironic in discussing the interrelated Trinity/consubstantiality issue that you were attacking Belle on in your very Pharasaic way (with similar motives, I might add), when that heresy was defeated and true Doctrine defined more on the basis of tradition than scripture, which is why your brand of fundamentalism is heretical in and of itself. Left only to our reading of individual reading of Sacred Scripture, we are too weak to avoid lapses

 

[sodaseller]

All I'm looking for is for you to state plainly and summarize it for me.

I don''t think that is all you are looking for, and if it were, you are already lost - that pilgrim stuff you know

 

[hokiefan33]

I wasn't comparing the speakers but the listeners - note the lead in -"About "choosing sides" and claiming not to understand" - those listeners chose sides through their feigned claim not to understand. Try to avoid the same path. But in the event your confusion is not duplicitous, which I doubt, consubstantiality is caputered by this part of the Creed



That section of the Creed refuted, among other heresies, Ariansim. New Advent summarizes the Arian heresy as follows:



The Arians had a good argument based upon the greater weight of scripture, notwithstanding the first chapter of John.
Some of the scripure that Arius relied upon is summarized by one commentator as follows:


An aside for a humorous take on the heresy from a former protégé when addressing the material.

He adopted a screen name - "ouisadaddy", a great play on words on the controversy.

The ultimate point is that you are claiming scripture as the sole source of truth, which was especially ironic in discussing the interrelated Trinity/consubstantiality issue that you were attacking Belle on in your very Pharasaic way (with similar motives, I might add), when that heresy was defeated and true Doctrine defined more on the basis of tradition than scripture, which is why your brand of fundamentalism is heretical in and of itself. Left only to our reading of individual reading of Sacred Scripture, we are too weak to avoid lapses

Nice. Soda, I think you are too smart for your own good, and I think you get confused by your own mental gymnastics. I never discussed Arianism, consubstantiality, used the Creed or New Advent (whatever New Advent is, Catholic I'm sure) to discuss anything.

I asked you 1, and only 1, simple question - are you saying that the Bible does not support the Trinitarian doctrine of God? That's all I asked. I understand perfectly what I believe, and I don't care to understand what you believe. You are so caught up on all the Latin terms, the proving of things, the Catholic ways, etc..., that I think you're getting lost in it. As a non-Catholic, I couldn't care less about all things Catholic.

Yet my question remains unanswered, as you try to steer the conversation away from that very question. Why, I don't know. You claim it is b/c I know the answer already, but am "faking it" for some reason, b/c I know your way to be true and don't want to be discredited. Whatever. If that's what you think, you're welcome to that belief. However, my question still remains unanswered, and you have had many opportunities to do so, but for some reason, don't want to easily answer it, but to evade it. I'm not sure why, and at this point I don't care, really. But it is strange why you won't.

 

[sodaseller]

Nice. Soda, I think you are too smart for your own good, and I think you get confused by your own mental gymnastics. I never discussed Arianism, consubstantiality, used the Creed or New Advent (whatever New Advent is, Catholic I'm sure) to discuss anything.

I asked you 1, and only 1, simple question - are you saying that the Bible does not support the Trinitarian doctrine of God? That's all I asked. I understand perfectly what I believe, and I don't care to understand what you believe. You are so caught up on all the Latin terms, the proving of things, the Catholic ways, etc..., that I think you're getting lost in it. As a non-Catholic, I couldn't care less about all things Catholic.

Yet my question remains unanswered, as you try to steer the conversation away from that very question. Why, I don't know. You claim it is b/c I know the answer already, but am "faking it" for some reason, b/c I know your way to be true and don't want to be discredited. Whatever. If that's what you think, you're welcome to that belief. However, my question still remains unanswered, and you have had many opportunities to do so, but for some reason, don't want to easily answer it, but to evade it. I'm not sure why, and at this point I don't care, really. But it is strange why you won't.

What I said -

Tradition plays a significant role. The Church predated the canonical bible, and selected the Canon, with a large input from tradition. You are stretching a reform too far. What is ironic is that you are upholding two core interrelated beliefs - consubstantiality and Trinitarianism, that are more the products of tradition than scriptural text, which is most naturally read (notwithstanding the first book of John, the outlier), to undermine both. Using only scripture as the source of Truth, at least on these issues, leads to the heresy of Arianism. You are doing harm with misstatements""

The meaning of that is clear. You are being dishonest like the questioners in John 8, serving the same master. Your question does not remain unanswered, you heart, and hence your loyalties remain uunchanged

 

[BelleMcNally]

Nice. Soda, I think you are too smart for your own good, and I think you get confused by your own mental gymnastics. I never discussed Arianism, consubstantiality, used the Creed or New Advent (whatever New Advent is, Catholic I'm sure) to discuss anything.

I asked you 1, and only 1, simple question - are you saying that the Bible does not support the Trinitarian doctrine of God? That's all I asked. I understand perfectly what I believe, and I don't care to understand what you believe. You are so caught up on all the Latin terms, the proving of things, the Catholic ways, etc..., that I think you're getting lost in it. As a non-Catholic, I couldn't care less about all things Catholic.

Yet my question remains unanswered, as you try to steer the conversation away from that very question. Why, I don't know. You claim it is b/c I know the answer already, but am "faking it" for some reason, b/c I know your way to be true and don't want to be discredited. Whatever. If that's what you think, you're welcome to that belief. However, my question still remains unanswered, and you have had many opportunities to do so, but for some reason, don't want to easily answer it, but to evade it. I'm not sure why, and at this point I don't care, really. But it is strange why you won't.

Okay, I promised myself I was done with this, but it's like a train wreck.

Sodaseller did, in fact, answer your request.

What I don't get is why you keep asking him if you don't give a darn what sodaseller thinks? It's been explained. What do you have against Catholics anyway? You should be darn happy that Catholic scholars took such care to preserve Christian history, tradition, and scripture, otherwise you'd be SOL.

I obviously don't agree with a lot of your views, but I would never think of making some of the snarky, vitriolic comments you've made about others' religions and beliefs.

If you want to discuss ideas, viewpoints, Bible verses--great! We're all up for that.

But you can keep your condescension to yourself from now on.

 

[hokiefan33]

What I said -

The meaning of that is clear. You are being dishonest like the questioners in John 8, serving the same master. Your question does not remain unanswered, you heart, and hence your loyalties remain uunchanged

Again, an easy opportunity to answer "Yes" or "No", but you choose to state what you've already stated, which I've already said I wanted clarification on. You are now being cowardly about it.

Here's an easy method, let's try this:

"The Bible does not support the Trinitarian doctrine"

YES NO

That's as easy as it gets!

 

[hokiefan33]

Sodaseller did, in fact, answer your request.

No, he did not. I asked him to clarify. I've even summarized what I THINK he said, and just asked him to simply confirm it. I've now just made it very simple and asked him to respond "YES" or "NO" to a clear statement. All of which he has been unwilling or unable to do, claiming that I really already know the answer, but am faking it for some reason. Sure, that makes sense. Had he already answered the request, I wouldn't still be asking for an answer, now, would I genius?

What I don't get is why you keep asking him if you don't give a darn what sodaseller thinks? It's been explained. What do you have against Catholics anyway? You should be darn happy that Catholic scholars took such care to preserve Christian history, tradition, and scripture, otherwise you'd be SOL.

I don't care what he thinks about everything else, but I obviously care what he thinks about this, b/c I've asked him to clarify. It hasn't been explained, it's been sidestepped. He's trying to make it so difficult and murky then claim it has been explained, when all he needs to do is say "YES" or "NO." But he is refusing to take that stand, for whatever reason.

Catholic scholars did nothing so great that they should be placed above anyone else. The Bible, God's WORD, would have survived with or without the Catholic church, if He wanted it to.

I obviously don't agree with a lot of your views, but I would never think of making some of the snarky, vitriolic comments you've made about others' religions and beliefs.

And?

If you want to discuss ideas, viewpoints, Bible verses--great! We're all up for that.

Wrong. Some are. Some say they are, but then when it gets down to it, they like to inject "their" beliefs into it, whether they coincide with the Bible or not. Some like to use "other" texts that they believe to be just as truthful and important as the Bible, and base their arguments from those texts, claiming it's all truth. If we had a discussion based solely on the Bible, things would go a lot different.

 

[sodaseller]

Again, an easy opportunity to answer "Yes" or "No", but you choose to state what you've already stated, which I've already said I wanted clarification on. You are now being cowardly about it.

Here's an easy method, let's try this:

"The Bible does not support the Trinitarian doctrine"

YES NO

That's as easy as it gets!

The Bible does support the Trinitarian Doctrine - it also undermines it. It is not unambiguous (especially when considered with the "interrelated" term of consubstantiality. Hokie, you are doing about as well as your namesakes against the average Florida team

 

[bananiem]

If we had a discussion based solely on the Bible, things would go a lot different.

No, it wouldn't. You only think your interpretation of the Bible is the only one and refuse to see anyone else's ideas.

 

[hokiefan33]

The Bible does support the Trinitarian Doctrine - it also undermines it. It is not unambiguous (especially when considered with the "interrelated" term of consubstantiality. Hokie, you are doing about as well as your namesakes against the average Florida team

Hmmm...so you say it supports it, but also undermines it. According to the Bible itself, it can't do both, b/c the Bible never contradicts itself. That is a key concept/belief about the Bible. If you think it does, you may as well throw the whole thing out, b/c you would never know what to believe and what not to.

What about 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed...", combined with Titus 1:2 "...which God, who does not lie..."? These clearly show that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. So if it doesn't, then it can't support the same idea it undermines - that would be contradictory.

 

[hokiefan33]

No, it wouldn't. You only think your interpretation of the Bible is the only one and refuse to see anyone else's ideas.

That's just it - thanks for proving my point. A lot of what other people construe to be "Biblical" is, in fact, just their "ideas." They're not the same. A good many things that people post on here that they say come from the Bible clearly are not, and can be shown to not be Biblical. That's my point!

 

[bananiem]

That's just it - thanks for proving my point. A lot of what other people construe to be "Biblical" is, in fact, just their "ideas." They're not the same. A good many things that people post on here that they say come from the Bible clearly are not, and can be shown to not be Biblical. That's my point!

No...once again you've twisted someone's words to prove YOUR point. You are a sad, bitter person. I'm just glad their won't be people like you in my heaven.

 

[eclectics]

That's just it - thanks for proving my point. A lot of what other people construe to be "Biblical" is, in fact, just their "ideas." They're not the same. A good many things that people post on here that they say come from the Bible clearly are not, and can be shown to not be Biblical. That's my point!

So for the record, you believe your interpretation of the bible is the only correct one in the DIS community?

 

[hokiefan33]

No...once again you've twisted someone's words to prove YOUR point. You are a sad, bitter person. I'm just glad their won't be people like you in my heaven.

Whose words did I twist, my own? Yours?

I'm not sad and bitter. I'm actually joyful and alive, in Christ, and calling an ace an ace and a spade a spade, which many don't like, including you.

There is no "my" heaven or "your" heaven, there is only "Heaven". And I WILL most assuredly be there, of that I have no doubt. And I hope that you, and all others in this world, will be there, as well.

 

[hokiefan33]

So for the record, you believe your interpretation of the bible is the only correct one in the DIS community?

For the record, I believe that my interpretation of the Bible is correct, in that it holds to the teachings of the Bible. I can't speak for the entire DIS community, b/c I don't know the Biblical interpretations of many of its members.

 

[FencerMcNally]

hokiefan, when's the last time that you actually read the bible? i mean the whole thing. the bible contradicts, undermines, clarifies itself all over the place. There are two different creation stories right at the beginning, remember? And that's just one example.

If you would give the New Testament a close reading you'll see that it both supports and undermines the Trinity. Jesus often claims to be subservient to the Father and the very idea of the Trinity is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three in one being and equal.

You might try to read some of those old Catholic scholars instead of summarily dismissing them. Many of the doctrines you cling to were based more on their studies, theology, and philosophy than on the Bible alone.

Sodaseller is not hiding behind big words, these are big matters, the nature of truth, of religion, of Christianity, the universe. Big matters often require big words. May you should try looking them up sometime, you have access to the internet, why don't you go to dictionary.com or hit google and look up the Arian heresy when someone mentions it.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not the only interpretation of the bible, and your mommy and daddy and your pastor telling you it is doesn't make it so. Because *gasp* other people's mommies and daddies and pastors told them that their interpretation was the right one, and *double gasp* some people actually looked at the whole picture and figured it out for themselves.

I've never been one to water down how I feel about others. You are so full of piping hot s*** the mere mention of your name draws flies.

 

[sodaseller]

Hmmm...so you say it supports it, but also undermines it. According to the Bible itself, it can't do both, b/c the Bible never contradicts itself. That is a key concept/belief about the Bible. If you think it does, you may as well throw the whole thing out, b/c you would never know what to believe and what not to.

What about 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed...", combined with Titus 1:2 "...which God, who does not lie..."? These clearly show that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. So if it doesn't, then it can't support the same idea it undermines - that would be contradictory.

But it does, as shown by the verses relied upon by the Arians, not to mention Christ's "turn the other cheek", or is that supreseding so not conflicting?

What the Arians pointed out are various verses which suggest that Christ is a substance below God the Father, i.e.,

"Jesus said to her, "Stop holding on to me, 10 for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

John 14

"You heard me tell you, 'I am going away and I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."

John 8, the area wher your forebears make their case "But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. "

But Romans 10

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we preach),

for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Now I happen to agree with you that these passages are not truly contradictory, but to reach that point, you must use tradition, because, strictly speaking as matter of text, they are. The whole point of tradition (the beginning of the debate) is that it has internal inconsistencies that must be resolved through the understanding of tradition - to protect Christians from those like you

Here's a fun one for ya Hokie. If the three persons of the Trinty are consubstantial (they are), and God the Father has a male nature, what is the biblically assigned gender of the Holy Spirit?

For some real fun, check out Proverbs 8-9, Luke 7:35, and the etymology of "Spirit" in the original biblical lanaguages you are so fluent in. But do you find an assigned gender?

Now the Nicene Creed make the Spirit unambiguously male, but that's tradition!

 

[eclectics]

For the record, I believe that my interpretation of the Bible is correct, in that it holds to the teachings of the Bible. I can't speak for the entire DIS community, b/c I don't know the Biblical interpretations of many of its members.

Actually it wouldn't matter if you admitted to my statement because there are many, many others that believe their interpretation of the bible is the one and only and would consider your interpretations to be a lot of hooey. I personally don't think a absolute and rigid opposition to be open to others points of view is neccesarily setting a stellar example of one's own deep faith. Fighting over biblical interpretation is one of the reasons I am so disillusioned with organized religion. A waste of energy, in my opinion.

 

[scubamouse]

what is the biblically assigned gender of the Holy Spirit?

ohh we had this discussion over dinner on Sunday w/a friend that's a priest!! She said you need to go back to the Hebrew translation for the answer but that it's very clear if you go back to the original source. Just going back to Latin changes the answer.

do i get a Gold Star?

 

[cardaway]

ohh we had this discussion over dinner on Sunday w/a friend that's a priest!! She said you need to go back to the Hebrew translation for the answer but that it's very clear if you go back to the original source. Just going back to Latin changes the answer.

do i get a Gold Star?

Woudl you settle for some crackers and wine?