Does God have a God?

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Thu May 31, 2007 2:12 pm

You went from an 'ole hippy'
lookin dude to a pretty handsome dude? (No I don't want a date!) Whats up?


Just goin' back in time, Bob, just goin' back in time.

Eventually, I'll get back to the old codger that I presently am.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Thu May 31, 2007 7:25 pm

Paidion-

am i allowed to ask what year that picture was taken?

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_Perry
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _Perry » Thu May 31, 2007 9:58 pm

My theory is that Paidion is working his way back to... paidion. :wink:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Thu May 31, 2007 10:05 pm

Paidion-

am i allowed to ask what year that picture was taken?
Sure. Go ahead and ask!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Thu May 31, 2007 10:43 pm

Lastly, do you consider yourself an Arian, Paidion?
No, I don't. Here are the points with which I disagree with the Arians. These are points found in the letter of Arius himself, which I quoted.

1. Before he [the Son of God] was begotten, he did not exist.

There never was a time before the Son of God was begotten. For He was begotten exactly at the beginning of time. So it is correct to say that He has always existed.

2. He is from what is not (or he was made out of nothing).

He was begotten or generated by the Father, and emerged out of the Father [John 16:28]. He was therefore of the same essence as the Father, and was therefore divine. This cannot be said of anyone else other than the Father Himself.

3. He is not derived from any essence.

He is derived from the essence of the Father Himself! He is "the exact image of [the Father's] essence." (Heb 1:3)

So, I'm not an Arian. I'm not a Trinitarian. I'm not a Modalist.

I believe I hold the same view as Christians in the first and second centuries. To illustrate the generation of the Son, Justin Martyr used the figure of a fire being started from a larger fire. The smaller fire is of the same essence as the larger fire, and the larger fire is in no way diminished by lighting the smaller one from it. However, Justin also stated that no one can really explain it. "Who shall declare His generation?"
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Thu May 31, 2007 11:55 pm

Paidion,

I kind of miss your "ancient of days" pic (anthropomorphic compliment: saying you looked like God, in a particularly good mood) -- though the Eddie Haskell genre' is doable too :wink:

Back to the thread:
You wrote:Rick, I’d now like to show that it weren’t the Arians who originated the idea of the begetting (or generation) of the Son before all ages. This truth was taught from the earliest times of Christianity. Please note that the begetting of the Son before all ages is an expression common to the [early Creeds you listed]
The Arians are regularly "blamed" for starting the doctrine by some of the more conservative apologists (in rebuttal to Jehovah's Witnesses).
Continuing, you wrote:What follows is the original creed set forth at Nicea, A.D. 325. It was altered later. Even later forms retained the statement that the Son of God was begotten as an act of God. It was only much later that the phrase was changed to “eternally begotten”.

THE NICENE CREED

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 before all ages....
That's a pretty big shift, isn't it?

"Eternally begotten" is a very difficult if not impossible concept to grasp. As Jerome (342-419AD) put it, "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it"....

We've heard, "It's a mystery" before. Not to challenge or critique the Calvinists...not on this thread anyway....
THE “DATED” CREED 359 A.D. wrote:But the term “essence” has been taken up by the fathers rather unwisely, and gives offense because it is not understood by the people. It is also not contained in the scriptures. For these reasons, we have decided to do away with it, and that no use at all shall be made of it for the future in connection with God, because the divine scriptures nowhere use it of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as the holy scriptures say and teach.
Oddly enough; here the Arian camp takes what seems to be a more conservative angle in their view of the Bible. It's not exactly Sola Scriptura but has that same anti-traditional Protestant ring to it. What was their protest? "Y'all's high falootin' theology and all them big words you use has everyone mixed up!"....

Okay, Paidion. Who first used the word "ousion" (substance or essence)? "HomoOusion" (of the same substance/essence)
"HomoiOusion" (of a similar, like substance/essence)

I don't suppose it matters all that much. We know they batted these terms back & forth. With this 359 Creed it looks like the Arians simply let this theological term go. "Like the Father" if it was in Greek (I don't know what language this Creed was written in offhand) would be: "homoi ho pater".

So where is all of this analysis taking us?
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:53 am

Aha! Simul-posting again!
Thanks for your reply where you wrote:Here are the points with which I disagree with the Arians. These are points found in the letter of Arius himself, which I quoted.

1. Before he [the Son of God] was begotten, he did not exist.

There never was a time before the Son of God was begotten. For He was begotten exactly at the beginning of time. So it is correct to say that He has always existed.
I see your reasoning. It wouldn't go against "In the beginning was the Word"...as far as that goes.
2. He is from what is not (or he was made out of nothing).

He was begotten or generated by the Father, and emerged out of the Father [John 16:28]. He was therefore of the same essence as the Father, and was therefore divine. This cannot be said of anyone else other than the Father Himself.
Outside of not going with (the orthodox) "eternally begotten" you're basically kosher. (I have a theory that God had many sons: in fact about 70 of them, but that's beyond where our discussion is at)....
3. He is not derived from any essence.

He is derived from the essence of the Father Himself! He is "the exact image of [the Father's] essence." (Heb 1:3)
The Greek could read "the presentation of his essence" but I don't want to go into the christology of what that or this verse might imply right now.
Lastly, you wrote:So, I'm not an Arian. I'm not a Trinitarian. I'm not a Modalist.

I believe I hold the same view as Christians in the first and second centuries. To illustrate the generation of the Son, Justin Martyr used the figure of a fire being started from a larger fire. The smaller fire is of the same essence as the larger fire, and the larger fire is in no way diminished by lighting the smaller one from it. However, Justin also stated that no one can really explain it. "Who shall declare His generation?"
From what I know about the early centuries your views are very much like second century Christians such as Justin who you cited. Their views may have gone back some distance into the first century but I'm not in the position to say their christological views were identical to the Apostles' and/or the original Christians.

Why I say this is: There was a marked cultural gap that happened quickly after the death of the Apostles, namely, the Church became predominantly Gentile. This led to an abandonment of the worldview of the Jews, who were the first Christians. Of course, the Gentile Fathers never had a Jewish worldview to begin with. In this sense they didn't as much abandon the Jewish way of seeing things as they were ignorant of it. Through no fault of their own, mind you.

Justin, however, stands out among the Early Fathers not just because he was "early" but because of his background; being Palestinian and not far from the Sea of Galilee (making him "less Gentile" in his thinking than other Fathers, so to speak). In his writings I find something like "links" to actual Jewish beliefs. Living in that region, he would have certainly been exposed to ideas that had been in circulation since the Apostles and perhaps coming directly from them.

Earlier in this thread (we're really into this "time" stuff huh? lol) and elsewhere in this forum I've posted a lot about 1st century Jewish and Jewish-Christian beliefs, such as the "two powers in heaven" theme. In Justin and other Early Fathers I look for evidence of what was believed before them by people of another culture and time -- the actual beliefs and views of the Apostles and of Jesus Himself.

While others might look to the Fathers and their writings for inspiration, instruction, or "support"; I go back further. For me, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other NT Era (including Intertestamental literature) are more important. I have reasons to believe Jesus and the Apostles saw some of this literature as inspired: The Jewish canon wasn't "closed" till about the time our canon was decided upon!

I have to job-hunt tomorrow (later today) and better go to bed....
Thanks, I'm enjoying this :)
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”