Originally posted by NemesioTo begin, you didn't answer the point blank question, namely, the world was created by whom?
LOL! I was the one who examined the whole passage until you incorrectly claimed the Greek said one thing when it said precisely what I rendered in English.
Without getting into the entire passage, let's look at just the second to last phrase of the passage, as you quoted. Specifically:
"and has seen the one whom no one among men has either seen or can see."
Who, in this sentence, is the has seen and who is the one?
I won't even bother with commenting on the 'pseudo' illusions, or go on to other passages until you respond to the two questions put forth here.
Since this thread appears to have evolved into a discussion of Jesus' divinity/humanity, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I’m wondering if the original homoousia/hypostases distinction wasn’t an attempt to deal with this? In the original (pre-filioque) formulation, both the Son and the Spirit have their ground, source and essence in the Father (Abba), but all have different hypostases. Their oneness is in having the same essence (ousia) as the Abba. The addition of the filioque brought in theologies of the Godhead as the ground of all three hypostases, but I don’t think that really changes the ousia/hypostasis distinction.
Originally posted by vistesdI also view it as an attempt to reinforce the role of Christ and his more-than-human status. It doesn't really change the essence distinction between the three, but it realigns Christ so that the Father is not above him. Perhaps they feared to be viewed as a sub-cult of Judaism?
Since this thread appears to have evolved into a discussion of Jesus' divinity/humanity, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I’m wondering if the original homoousia/hypostases distinction wasn’t an attempt to deal with this? In the original (pre-filioque) formulation, both the Son and the Spirit have their ground, source and essence in the F ...[text shortened]... three hypostases, but I don’t think that really changes the ousia/hypostasis distinction.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, I think you’re right. The historical context seems to be one in which there was a perceived need to emphasize the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son in the face of Arianism.
I also view it as an attempt to reinforce the role of Christ and his more-than-human status. It doesn't really change the essence distinction between the three, but it realigns Christ so that the Father is not above him. Perhaps they feared to be viewed as a sub-cult of Judaism?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundNo, the issues are great, but because we were able to do them and
If god has a plan for every part of our lifes, and what happens is the will of god, what is the point of free will? is this not like bieng given a bicycle to cross the atlantic ocean?
please discuss
did not ,it became an issue. Our will is what makes us who we are,
it is what makes us unique in the universe, as a painter paints s/he
moves the brush across the canvases as s/he will, as a song writer
writes a song s/he puts to paper the notes s/he places the notes
where ever seems best for them. What comes out of the lives of
each of us is what makes us, for God to destroy that will to get
robots is counter productive in the creative process He has started
and it would destroy who we are. God has a plan for His creation, now
He is dealing with some corruption that has ruined some of parts of it,
once that is done the eternal will here.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To begin, you didn't answer the point blank question, namely, the world was created by whom?
According to the Bible, God created the world. And according to the Bible, God also created
Jesus (the Colosians bit quoted in an earlier post).
I don't see where you are going with this question.
Without getting into the entire passage, let's look at just the second to last phrase of the passage, as you quoted.
Why wouldn't we consider the entire passage? I mean, that's how it was conceived, right?
"and has seen the one whom no one among men has either seen or can see."
Who, in this sentence, is the has seen and who is the one?
I think it is clear that the intent of the author is to convey that Jesus has seen the One.
Again, I don't see how this observation contradicts a conclusion that the author saw
Jesus as distinct from God (whereas the quoted passages I provided from this letter and
previously from St John's Gospel do).
I won't even bother with commenting on the 'pseudo' illusions, or go on to other passages until you respond to the two questions put forth here.
I'm not surprised you don't have a cogent answer for my presentation. Let me know when
your head is out of the sand; I'll play ball. But if your next post is simply going to be a
repetition of your position with no support, and does not do anything to explain the passages
quoted by me (and by Chess Express), then don't expect more free Greek transliteration
to demonstrate why your 2nd-century position makes no sense in a 1st-century context.
Nemesio
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSanctamonious? You call me sanctamonious because I'm explaining something you don't understand and have no willingness to learn about?
not to have santamonious people saying were going to burn in hell per cahnce?
That's an odd definition. I think Webster's would disagree with you.
If you're trying to call me a hypocrit, upon what grounds to you make such an assertion?
DF
Originally posted by NemesioAccording to the Bible, God created the world.
If, as you say, God created the world, how does Jesus create the world, as well, if Jesus is not God?
I think it is clear that the intent of the author is to convey that Jesus has seen the One.
If Jesus has seen God, how is it possible that a man has beheld God's glory?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, as you say, God created the world, how does Jesus create the world, as well, if Jesus is not God?
Jesus was the first-born creation, existing before the world began (confer with the
Pauline epistle mentioned earlier in this thread).
If Jesus has seen God, how is it possible that a man has beheld God's glory?
I'm not saying that the authors of the various book of the NT didn't think Jesus was
special. They sure did. The first-born creation is pretty dang special. They held
that this special creation came to earth to communicate God's message in person.
The words attributed to Jesus about the Father indicate distinction between Father
and Son, God and 'sent by God.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by DragonFriendplease explain your response? I neither called you sanctimonious or a hypocrit, might i propose the word paranoid ?
Sanctamonious? You call me sanctamonious because I'm explaining something you don't understand and have no willingness to learn about?
That's an odd definition. I think Webster's would disagree with you.
If you're trying to call me a hypocrit, upon what grounds to you make such an assertion?
DF
Originally posted by NemesioThe position of first-born is one of priority, not actual birth. Otherwise, when born, He was certainly not born first. Otherwise, how born?
Jesus was the first-born creation, existing before the world began (confer with the
Pauline epistle mentioned earlier in this thread).
While you may key upon first-born and take it out of context, how does all of creation find its existence in Him? All visible and invisible, if, indeed, He is not the Agent of creation? Before all, He Is?
How could any Jew have any god betwixt them and God?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The position of first-born is one of priority, not actual birth. Otherwise, when born, He was certainly not born first. Otherwise, how born?
He was born to facilitate Creation, so it says. He was created before there was Creation so that,
in and through Him, creation might be. The means of His birth is not expressed, but that He was
born, as is clear. He is also the firstborn of the dead (same word in Greek both times,
prototokos). This makes it pretty clear that St Paul understood 'born' as a literal thing, for he
clearly viewed Jesus's being raised from the dead literally.
And so, when He came to earth in the form of a man, He came with first-hand knowledge of God
and His ways and made an effort to express them directly to humankind.
How could any Jew have any god betwixt them and God?
They don't: they have a mediator, the term used several times by St Paul.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHe was born to facilitate Creation
So His position is facilitator of Creation? Created before creation? Whoa! That's a mind-bender, eh? So He wasn't before all things, as He was the first of all things, created before any creation. Of course, being created kind of makes Him part of creation, but He was before that, somehow. What's that make God? Creator of the facilitator of Creation?
They don't: they have a mediator
No one between, of course, save a mediator, who:
wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name,
that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --
and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Calling this 'special' personage of unknown characteristics (mini-god, high-ranking angel, progressive human?) "Lord" seems a bit like worship. I think most people would classify that as coming between a Jew and God... unless, of course, Jesus is God.
there is no god. no satan, no heaven and no hell. discuss!
my reasoning? please provide proof of any of the above. you really can't and that's why it's called faith.
so, if it can't be proved why do so many humans believe in one form of god or another (or in some cultures several gods)? maybe to form early good living guidelines/common law? if so, surely many of these are outdated - like removal of foreskin for hygiene, not eating pork etc. so why follow it still?
i don't doubt my view will offend but like religious people i'm not sorry for my opinion. i'll be as polite as i can (as that's the only thing my dear old mum told me i absolutely had to be) in any response and all views are welcome, no matter how different to my own.