Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
I hope you have the patience to watch paint peel.
Paul calls Jesus a man on a number of occasions.
So? Jesus DID have a human nature, did he not? And were there not certain things pertaining to that nature that were purely human? He died, he suffered, he rose again? He had a human body of flesh and blood, he came into the world through a woman's body, he was tempted, he did not ever sin.
Romans 15:14-22 does not say that God is equal to Jesus Christ and equal to the Holy Spirit co eternal? Where does it say it?
Paul, as well as the others believed in ONE God. Not three gods. He called the Father God, he called Jesus God and also the Holy Spirit, God. Paul was a monotheist. Why would he refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God if they were not one with the Father?
You guys are a rah rah Paulian crowd.
Rah rah as in we accept Paul as an Apostle and the writer of God-breathed scripture who God used to reveal major doctrines of the Christian faith? Absolutely! Do we worship Paul? Give me a break! Do I really need to answer that? Name even one church that does that, one.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
I could show you from Paul's epistles that he confirms each and every one of these truths, but what would be the point? If you really wanted to know, you could do the same for yourself. Take care!
Thank you, Mark, for your straightforward answer. I think I see what it is you are saying. In your previous post that caused me to ask the three simple questions, you said, “the nature of Nicene Trinitarianism was not understood by the Apostles and the early Church and most definitely not by Paul.” Now in your reply to me you say, “The Jewish Apostles didn’t really understand Him to be God at the beginning.” I assume by “Him” you mean Jesus.
There are several questions here. First, in regard to Nicene Trinitarianism, one could say on one level that of course the Apostles did not understand the nature of Nicene Trinitarianism. The phraseology of Nicaea did not come about until 325 A.D., and did so in response to specific errors, heresies, and misstatements of Christian doctrine. In the same way we could say that John Locke didn’t understand the nature of the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers. And yet, it was John Locke’s writings about the separation of governmental powers that paved the way for the U. S. Constitution. Our founding fathers fashioned their phraseology in the Constitution and in the so-called Federalist Papers out of the writings of John Locke (and of course others). Would Locke have understood the Constitution and agreed with it? I rather suspect he would have had he lived another hundred years through all the events that helped to mold its arguments and then read it.
But on another level if we ask, did the Apostles understand God to be Triune, even though the word itself may never have crossed their minds, I see no reason to believe they didn’t. And I would say that in the case of the Apostle Paul specifically, he certainly did. Consider what he wrote to the Ephesians: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6) How is this not to be see as the Nicene Creed in a nutshell? Otherwise, who is this Spirit, if not “the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life.” It is He Paul connects here to the calling of every Christian and thus the formation of the Church. Who is this Lord, if not the “one Lord Jesus Christ,” who Paul here connects with the “one faith”? And what is the “one faith” but that which follows immediately in the Nicene Creed, every bit of which, though phrased differently, can be found in Paul’s writings? And finally, who is the “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all,” if not the “one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”?
No, the words of Nicaea are not the words of St. Paul. But the thoughts are all certainly in line with what he wrote two and a half centuries earlier. That some later twisted Paul’s words and used them in support of an Arius or a Marcion does not in any way make Paul an Arian or Marcionite. So, the question is, had Paul lived long enough to experience the various heretical teachings and then read the Nicene Creed would he have understood and agreed with it. Again, I am quite sure the answer would be yes.
.
|
JAMES 2—NIV 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? NIV 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. NIV 12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! NIV |
> I don't think these verses are the parts of James 2 you were speaking of . . . however . . . > Given that we are here . . . I have observed the Roman Catholic groups and Institution to be schizohrenic on the issue of FAVORITISM. There is a lot of wonderful ministering to the lowest of the low as eye to eye brothers and sisters as they are. > There's also a huge amount of bowing and scraping and kowtowing, deferring to power and position by the bureaucratic magicsterical power-mongers in the Vatican and their local hierarchy in the persons of the Bishops and Cardinals . . . and too often, some of the local Pastors as well. > Witness the funerals of the Kennedays et al who were notorious philanderers as well as supporters of infanticide. Nancy P et al still, as far as I know, are treated with lots of deference by many Roman Catholics. Given such duplicities, I don't know how many 'grace chits' the ministering to the lowest of the low will turn out to be useful in counter balancing such duplicity. I don't think it works that way. The exhortations in this section about not murdering, BEING merciful etc. are FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAVED BY ACCEPTING CHRIST'S BLOOD AS THEIR SALVATION COVERING. DONE. The exhortations are about how then they ought to walk by God's Grace, Spirit and Christ's cleansing Blood's help. NOT per se for Salvation--but as salt in a hurting world.
|
Sarcasm is not stand-in for a solid defense of your faith.
Try harder.
Thank you. Quite succinctly and accurately put.
The Greek original says in him (en autos). Sometimes the proposition in is translated differently because otherwise it may sound awkward in English, but there is no doubt that the Greeks swear in the prophets then by the prophets. Perhaps saying "in his name" would preserve the original meaning if not the form.
He cannot logically have created ALL things if He Himself were a created thing.
Well, no that doesn't follow if he was the only thing created.
Anyway, suggesting that Christ created the universe, rather than God the Father (who is considered the first principle or source of all existence of everything, including the divinity), would is rather Gnostic, making Christ a demiurge-like Platonic idea.
It is no wonder than Gnostics particularly liked Paul and John, for that reason.
If Paul believed Christ was a created being or a being with origins as the Arians suggest, then Paul had available to him the terms prwtovktisto" (first-created) or prwtovplasto" (first-formed). Murray, 44.
John and Luke use the term "one of a kind," or only-begotten (monogenes) rather than firstborn (prototokos).
In verse [2 Col:]9, which precedes these verses Paul says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"
Well, yes, the same can be said of all believers. Is the Holy Spirit not the "fullness of divinity" dwelling inside a bodily form? We can debate if the term Paul invented (theotes) which is somewhat incorrectly translated as "Godhead" in some Bibles is a "who" or a "what."
If eikon means an "artistic representation" in the strict sense, and a "mental image" in the metaphorical sense, or, as in the sense of a "copy" eikon means a "living image," a "likeness," an "embodiment" and a "manifestation, as the translators/commentators say
That is just plain wrong. Icons are used in the Apostolic Churches and they don't represent a "living image." In fact the Catholics and Orthodox are often accused of "idolatry" by Protestants for showing reverence to graven images.
The image must never be confused with the thing. No Orthodox or Catholic will tell you that an icon of Christ is a 'living image" of Christ, or Christ himself, or a copy of Christ, or a duplicate of him, or embodiment of him, etc. but only a symbolic representation of him, which makes you mentally aware of the person behind the image.
F. F. Bruce points out, that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested--that in Him the invisible has become visible?
Jesus was fully human in Flesh. How can fullness of nature of God be manifested in bleeding, suffering flesh?
And if all this were only to emphasize His Sonship, how does emphasizing His Sonship deny His Deity?
In the Judaic sense it is a given.
That's fine, except that the Bible does not name the thieves, let alone give their backgrounds, and St. Dismas is a 4th century legend. If you can live with that as a matter of fact, more power to you. Might as well be pink unicorns on Jupiter. They are real if you are willing to believe they are.
It refers either way to the eternal life in the Heavenly Kingdom (the word “kingdom” IS used, mind you)
Yes the kingdom was mentioned but apparently Jesus (mis)understood it to mean paradise, which is neither heaven nor his kingdom, nor where he supposedly "went" that same day.
In either case, he put to paper what he learned from others, most likely, from the Blessed Virgin who he obviously had many conversations with
Where do you get that from?
Consider also the following:
God calling God God?
Well I think it would mean quite a lot would have to change. Your religion teaches that ex-cathedra proclaimations are inerrant. The dogma that states the perpetual virginity of Mary was also claimed to pronounce "anathema" on anyone who did not believe it, as I understand it. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine of De fide (of the faith). It is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy. So, yes, it would actually mean that the "Church" was actually wrong about something and would blow that whole "inerrancy" bubble sky high.
We know that many "traditions" from the past can be based on myths or legends so not all traditions are necessarily true. That is why God gave us scripture as our rule of faith. People don't always get things right. God is never wrong.
And that, dear lady, is also a myth. Blind belief in the Bible's inerrancy is no different than any other blind belief. You make a brilliant critique of the de fide acceptance, and then turn around and express the same de fide acceptance yourself.
Thanks much for these very informative links. Definitely bookmarked.
Hi, FK! Serendipity! I was just looking for your name and saw you hadn’t posted in a week. So welcome back! 8~)
Interesting. This means two or three human witnesses in an attempt to persuade another man of his wrongness. Paul's revelation was to him alone.
Acts 9: 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
Compare this to Acts 22: 6 "On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' 8 I replied, 'Who are you, sir?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.' 9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
In Acts 2, the companions heard the voice but saw nobody. In Acts 9, the companions saw a great light but heard nothing. Paul gets this wrong; Luke wrote these two opposing verses. Which is correct? You talk about two or three witnesses, but Paul (and Luke) cannot get the revelation to Paul (which is the most significant thing in his life) consistent.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:...
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1: 1-7).
In this passage, Jesus is described as the Son of God (from the seed of David, who was also a Son of God) given the title Lord (a human title as separate from God the Father's Divine title).
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen". (2 Cor. 13:14).
This can be explained to fit into the Trinitarian formula, but it cannot be used as proof of it. For example, it could also be explained to fit into JW theology, or LDS beliefs as well. Just as easily as Christian theology.
"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". (2 Cor. 13:1).
Interesting twist; you are trying to make the witnesses the Trinity, when Paul does not express the Trinity as given in Nicea. First time I've seen that tried. It fails, but a very good try.
If, *in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses would every word be established*,and those *witnesses were God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit*, why would the Disciples, the early Church, and Paul not understand *the Trinity*?
The premise does not hold. If God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit came down to the mountaintop and witnessed to the people about Paul, then that is one thing. If you start with a premise and look for supporting evidence, that is entirely different than starting from first principles (here, Pauline Scripture only) and attempting to prove the Nicene Trinitarian formula. You cannot. Nobody can, since it is not there.
Actually, I think the Trinity is very clear in scripture, in the light of 2 or 3 witnesses, establishing every word.
Very novel attempt; very innovative. The Trinity does not witness for Paul here, though. Good try.
Hmm; what a strange post. Earlier, you were trying to convince me that the Jews celebrated what we know as Pentecost and they were there in Jerusalem expressly because of the Pentecost so that they could see the results of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Now you don't care what the Jews think of that outpouring of spirit.
So do try to pay attention as I've no more time to waste explaining the obvious to you.
Obviously. You might try to become Christian instead.
This is increasingly apparent.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.