Is it possible that the worship due to Christ [see, Heb 1:6] is of a type not of the same formality as that which is given to the Father? It may be that the reverence given to Christ is of a differernt species [see, Heb 1:8ff]. The Son is set above his companions by God, not by his own nature or choosing. The Son certainly is above men and angels [Heb 1:5] but that honor is fixed in a choice made by the Father, and not of the Son's freewill.
@LothairOfLorraine Well, one of the things I've missed in this video is the mention of the Greek Septuagint's Deu 32:43. Heb 1:6 is actually a quotation from that verse. Deu 32:43 in the English translation of the LXX says this:
"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him"
And guess who is being worshiped in the context? JEHOVAH. And guess who the writer of Hebrews applies this to? JESUS. So therefore Jesus is Jehovah according to the author?
"....and each tongue might confess that lord Jesus Christ into [the] glory of God [the] father."
The expression "κυριος Ιησους Χριστος" is a nominative triplet, hence merely a title — "Lord Jesus Christ." The popular translation, "Jesus Christ is Lord", is not a plausible rendering.
@HeroOfChristArchives I'm a Trinitarian, so Sabellianism is an abomination to me. Your arguments are insufficient in disproving my assertion that Jesus is YHWH according to John 12:36-41 (compare Isaiah 6:1-10), Hebrews 1:10-12 (compare Psalm 102:25-27), Php 2:9-11 (compare Isaiah 45:23), Rom 10:13 (compare Joel 2:32), Col 1:15-17 (compare Isaiah 44:24), Eph 4:8-9 (compare Psalm 68:18-19). You must do better than that.
@HeroOfChristArchives "The expression "κυριος Ιησους Χριστος" is a nominative triplet, hence merely a title — "Lord Jesus Christ." The popular translation, "Jesus Christ is Lord", is not a plausible rendering." Whether it is "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ is Lord", Jesus is still Lord according to Php 2:9-11. But that wasn't my focus. I was focusing on the fact that Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 when he wrote Php 2:9-11. Isaiah 45:23 is undeniably about YHWH. Therefore Jesus = YHWH.
In Isaiah 45:23, the bowing and confessing is performed toward YHWH God, the Father. In Philippians 2:11, the bowing and confessing is still performed toward YHWH God the Father, but is now done in the name of YHWH God's messiah, Jesus Christ. In this passage, the reason why the knees are bowing and the tongues are confessing is "to the glory of God the Father." The author, presumably Paul, is conveying that acknowledging Jesus as messiah will glorify God, NOT that messiah is YHWH.
"God highly exalted him, and gave to him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow — those of heaven and of earth, and those under the earth — and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)
Therein exists zero evidence that Jesus is YHWH. Contrarily, Jesus Christ is distinguished in this passage from God the Father and, as was expounded, God the Father is YHWH Tzevaot. (Malachi 1:6)
Unfortunately for you, the author of 'Hebrews' was so incompetent, he misquoted Psalm 102:25 in his letter at Hebrews 1:10, inexplicably interpolating the word "Lord" where it DOES NOT APPEAR in the Hebrew! Psalm 102:25 properly reads:
לפנים הארץ יסדת ומעשה ידיך שמים
"Formerly, the earth you have founded; the work of your hands are the heavens."
(Psalm 102:25)
David is speaker, while God is the subject and the audience. There is no mention of a "lord", a "son", or secondary god.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Unfortunately for you, the author of 'Hebrews' was so incompetent, he misquoted Psalm 102:25 in his letter at Hebrews 1:10, inexplicably interpolating the word "Lord" where it DOES NOT APPEAR in the Hebrew!
Dude, it's in the LXX. It's not in the 9th century Masoretic text's Hebrew.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>The epistle is anonymous, and its authorship has always been disputed.
Yeah, but it's first century (it's quoted in 1Clement) and seems to be closely tied to apostolic sources(mentions TImothy, etc). You are beyond heretical if you're trying to remove it from the canon.
@msm1876 said: "('Hebrews' is) first century (it's quoted in 1 Clement)"
1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100. Notably, second-century Christian theologians Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus never referenced 'Hebrews', and its authenticity was disputed within the Church from a very early date. Pinpointing its authorship was so unattainable that third-century writer Origen conceded, "God only knows."
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100
Really? Why the warnings not to return to temple sacrifices?
>>>Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus never referenced 'Hebrews',
Izzat so? Justin quotes Hebrews 1:8 in Dialogue Ch 56. Ire alludes to Heb 1:3 in Against Heresies Bk 2 Ch30, Section 9. In Fragments of the Lost Writings of Ire, he quotes Heb 13:15.
I cross-checked this item on CCEL. While Hebrews 1:3 attributes this qualification (i.e., "by the power of his word") to the Son, Irenaeus attributes it to God the Father.
@HeroOfChristArchives You said: I cross-checked this item on CCEL. While Hebrews 1:3 attributes this qualification (i.e., "by the power of his word") to the Son, Irenaeus attributes it to God the Father.
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power--delegated to him by his father who upholds all things by his spirit and power in him forever.
@msm1876 said: "Where do you think (Justin Martyr) gets the idea that it's the Father calling the Son God in that verse? Hebrews 1:8."
Truly, if you had personally researched the context, you would have discovered that Justin quoted 'Psalms' consecutively. Immediately before his allusion to Psalm 45:6-7, Justin quoted Psalm 110:1. See, Justin was dialogging with Trypho, A JEW, and demonstrating from the Jewish Scriptures that Jesus was the promised messiah of Israel. He did not quote 'Hebrews'.
@HeroOfChristArchives Yeah, I've read Dialogue. And yes, I realize he was quoting the OT. And what I'm saying is that he realized that this verse was God calling Christ "God" because of Hebrews 1:8. And he was doing a LOT more than demonstrating that Jesus was just the Messiah...he was demonstrating he was YHWH in Dialogue.
@msm1876 said: "I realize he was quoting the OT."
If you've come to this realization, then it logically follows that Justin didn't require acquaintance with another apologetic writing (i.e., 'Hebrews') to assign Psalm 45:6-7 as being a messianic prophecy.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> I hope you also realize that Justin Martyr was a heretic.
Oooh...I'd bit your tongue just a bit. Have YOU lost your head as a martyr rather than bowing to idols lately. You may not agree with his theology, but let's not call a martyr a heretic, now shall we?
@HeroOfChristArchives What, that disingenuous hit piece by those cultists at the "Church of God?" Please. They misrepresent him left and right! Trying to make him look like he denied the soul went on to heaven or hades after death even though he said:
and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished...we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers...1st apology Ch20
@HeroOfChrist Those COG heretics are something else...very slick in their misrepresentation of the Church Fathers. On another of their pages, they mined a quote from Irenaeus to make him sound like a Binitarian, even though he elsewhere affirmed that the Son and Spirit were ALWAYS with the Father, and it was to them He said, "Let us create man in our image" in Genesis 1:26. (Against heresies 4:20:1)
You gotta do better than a dishonest, quote-miney hit piece to prove Justin was a heretic.
@msm1876 - Justin referred to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (5th century BC!) as "a Christian before Christ." That's not only heretical, but deluded as well.
@HeroOfChristArchives Ok, Justin was a big heretical apostate. No, he wasn't just speculating on the fate of moral men who lived before Christ and did not personally know of God.
Your attitude towards authors of scripture and defenders of the faith...it shows just how far outside the true Christian faith you are. If this is "true Christianity" count me out.
@HeroOfChristArchives Matatics made a straw man of SS in his question. Of course the apostles didn't believe that the Jewish scriptures were God's sole revelation; they were GIVING additional divine revelation.
I believe all divine revelation is in the OT...and the teaching of the apostles.
Q: Can you show me an apostolic teaching that you can CREDIBLY trace to the 1st century that ISN'T in scripture?
@msm1876 said: "The apostles didn't believe that the Jewish scriptures were God's sole revelation; they were GIVING additional revelation."
Actually, it was God through his Holy Spirit who was giving revelation. Of course, God has not ceased giving revelation to humanity. The unbiblical Protestant 'sola scriptura' dogma asserts that all divine revelation is contained in writings predating 100 AD, implying that God ceased giving revelation around then, and that only written revelation is divine.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>implying that God ceased giving revelation around then, and that only written revelation is divine.
Mmmm...check out "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison. It's on Googlebooks. You'll see what the classic doctrine of SS is, versus what many Prots have bent it into. The apostles had oral authority, and taught orally; the question is...were any of their teachings NOT inscripturated, and passed down exclusively orally instead?
@Hero"[Tradition] was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication."
AMEN!
>>>Mathison fails to prove that only written...
That's NOT his position, nor is it mine! What he's saying, if you've actually read it, is that the corpus of doctrine taught in the early church was the same as the doctrines taught IN scripture!
Can you show me an apostolic teaching that you can CREDIBLY trace to the 1st century that ISN'T in scripture?
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Moreover, Mathison allows for no post-Apostolic (post-100 AD) divine revelation.
Um, neither do Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. They both insist their doctrines were revealed by the apostles...just that they were revealed orally, not written down.
Really, read Mathison's quotes of the Patristics, and see how the Tradition I (aka SS) position existed throughout the first 3 centuries of the Church!
@msm1876 said: "Neither does Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy"
You are utterly misguided. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy defines the Church as a divinely ordained institution, hence all proclamations made by the Church are authoritative and binding. This is what I meant when stating that Mathison allows for no post-Apostolic divine revelation. Perhaps this is why he rejects the binding authority of all seven Ecumenical Councils and their respective declarations. Coincidence?
Perhaps it is YOU who are misguided. EO and RCism do NOT view decisions of Ecumentical councils as NEW revelation, on par with what the apostles revealed. They view them as infallible and binding INTERPRETATIONS of what they believe already was revealed. And I would say that sometimes they got it right, and other times they got it wrong. Thing is as a non trinitarian...you'd agree with me there, right?
@HeroOfChristArchives Augustine didn't view Ecu Councils as utterly infallible/irreformable either: the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" - Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)
@msm1876 said: "The councils.... held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of the plenary councils...."
Yeah, so? Augustine was only contending that local councils are secondary and must concur with general (ecumenical) councils. Augustine viewed the ecumenical councils as authoritative and eternally binding, unlike your boy Mathison. Interestingly, I noticed that many 'sola scriptura' adherents challenge Mathison on many points.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Augustine viewed the ecumenical councils as authoritative and eternally binding...
No, he didn't. Re-read the quote. He said Ecu councils could be "corrected" by later ones.
This is decending to the absurd. You're lecturing me on Novel doctrine not held by the Church, yet you oppose the notion of Christ's deity? Any clue when Arianism popped up? Or Socinianism?
@msm1876 said: "(Augustine) said ecumenical councils could be "corrected" by later ones."
I'm not locating this proposal anywhere within his writings. Please source your assertions with plain references rather than arguing from ambiguity.
@msm1876 said: "You oppose the notion of Christ's deity?"
I'm counterarguing the presentation of Christ's supposed deity as it's conveyed in this video and its comment section. Realize that the trinitarian dogma wasn't formulated until the 3rd/4th centuries.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Realize that the trinitarian dogma wasn't formulated until the 3rd/4th centuries.
You do agree that the middle recension of Ignatius, which is considered the most authentic, SCREAMS with Christ's uncreated diety? Yeah, the ONTOLOGICAL doctrine developed in later centuries...but the earliest beliefs about CHrist were that he was uncreated, God, worthy of worship. You HAVE to admit that, no? And they weren't Arianism/Socinianism.
"They" were Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and mentored by John. "They" were the Ephesian Church Ignatius wrote to in 106, just 5 years after John died there. "They" were Polycarp, John's disciple. "They" were Justin Martyr, who lived at John's church just 35 years after he died. "They" were Irenaeus, Polycarp's student. "They" were Clement of Alexandria, who learned from someone...cont
@msm1876 said: "Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by Peter"
Ignatius is claimed to have succeeded Evodius, not Peter.
@msm1876 said: "Ignatius of Antioch was.... mentored by John"
Ignatius was an understudy of a "John," likely John the Presbyter, during the last decade of the 1st century. According to one website (copticchurchnet), this same John "ordained him patriarch of Antioch where he preached the life-giving Gospel, converted many to the knowledge of God, baptized them, illumined them."
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Ignatius was an understudy of a "John," likely John the Presbyter
Read his martyrdom. It says "Disciple of the APOSTLE John."
Google "Theodoret Ignatius." You'll find in Theodoret's writings that Ignatius ordained Peter in Antioch, probably as an elder. He likely then succeeded Evodius as Bishop.
@msm1876 said: "In Theodoret's writings... Ignatius ordained Peter in Antioch"
Ignatius ordained Peter? That's pretty hilarious. Proofread your messages.
Papias of Hierapolis, writing EARLY 2nd century, recorded in the second book of his 'Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord' that brothers James and John, sons of Zebedee, suffered martyrdom together at the hands of the Jews. For the record, Papias was himself an understudy of this John, meaning the Presbyter, Theologian, and Elder in Ephesus.
You can mock my typo, but you can't refute the info I presented. Ignatius was ordained by Peter. Theodoret stated it, so did Eusebius.
Oh, and your Papias fragment? Came from Philip of Side. George the Sinner wrote on the same book by Papias and claimed that John's being "done away with" occurred AFTER HE CAME BACK FROM PATMOS.
@msm1876 said: "Your Papias fragment came from Philip of Sade"
Yes, and we presume that Philip, like Eusebius, faithfully quoted from Papias' now non-extant volume 'Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord'. John was martyred contemporaneous to his brother James by the Jews, perhaps in Jerusalem. The martyrdom of James at the behest of King Herod Agrippa (died 44 AD) is explicitly recorded in Acts 12:2. His brother's death must have followed shortly thereafter. This is affirmed by Papias' witness.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>Yes, and we presume that Philip, like Eusebius, faithfully quoted from Papias' now non-extant volume
Yes, and again, feel utterly free to ignore George the Sinner's writing on the same book that Philip commented on, stating that John was specifically done away with by the Jews in Ephesus AFTER HE CAME BACK FROM PATMOS.
Athanasius records Ignatius as subsequent to the Apostles without anyone (i.e., Evodius) intervening. Chrysostom makes Ignatius the Apostles' contemporary. The Apostolic Constitutions have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, with Evodius ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. Authorities are given in full by Zahn (Patres Apostolici II., p. 327).
The apostolic ordinations in order, per the Apostolic Constitutions:
"At the Church of Jerusalem, Jacob, the brother of our Lord, was the first bishop, followed by Simeon the son of Cleopas; and then the third bishop was Judas the son of Jacob.
At the Church of Caesarea of Palestine, it was Zacchaeus who was first bishop, after whom was Cornelius; and then the third was Theophilus.
At the church at Antioch, Peter ordained Evodius; and the next bishop was Ignatius, ordained by Paul."
@msm1876 - Thus, no consensus regarding the ordination of Ignatius existed with the early Church. Whether Peter, Evodius, Paul or Presbyter John ordained Ignatius as the third Bishop of Antioch is ultimately irrelevant. Many pseudepigraphal letters were forged to misrepresent Ignatius, including two epistles to "St. John." The Ignatian letters occur in three corpora: seven letters (longer version) in Greek, seven letters (shorter version) in Greek, and three letters (shortest version) in Syriac.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Many pseudepigraphal letters were forged to misrepresent Ignatius
Yep, and the middle recension, which most scholars accept as geniune, absolutely SCREAMS of the deity of Jesus. But whichever recension you choose, Ignatius' belief in Jesus deity is in there!
@msm1876 said "The middle recension, which most scholars accept as genuine, absolutely SCREAMS of the deity of Jesus."
Do the words of Jesus scream of the deity of Jesus? Did Ignatius meet Jesus? How about Paul? You're reaching. These apologists were interpreting events which predated their lifetime or, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus and his entourage, making deductions about someone they never met, never associated with, and never witnessed. Get back to Jesus' words, not words of apologists.
@HeroOfChrist >>>as in the case of Saul of Tarsus and his entourage, making deductions about someone they never met, never associated with, and never witnessed. Get back to Jesus' words,
I've seen enough; MORE than enough. First you denigrate the Hebrews Author, now Paul. You are so far out in the left field of heresy...honestly.
>>>These apologists were interpreting events which predated their lifetime.
Wrong. They were echoing the apostolic teachings that were taught to them.
@HeroOfChristArchives learned from people four putts away from St. Mark. "They" were Hippolytus of Rome, who opposed the Roman bishop on much, certainly agreed with him on Christ's deity...and that teaching was still in Rome after Peter and Paul died there. "They" were Tertullian of Carthage, great theologian and defender of the faith.
That's who "they" were. And you're kicking against the goads of history in denying Christ's deity.
Polycarp was another understudy of John the Presbyter.
Notably, Polycarp never quoted from the fourth gospel.
@msm1876 said: "Justin Martyr.... Irenaeus.... Clement of Alexandria.... Hippolytus of Rome.... Tertullian of Carthage...."
How many of these Church Fathers believed that God was three distinct υποστασες (hypostases) mysteriously coexisting as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial (ομοουσιος) within one ουσια (being)? None of them did.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>How many of these Church Fathers believed that God was three distinct υποστασες (hypostases)...
Tut tut tut...you're strawmanning it! Did all these guys get into ontology? No. Did they view Christ as Eternal and worship him? Did they believe that he was YHWH? Yep! Did they see him having been created from nothing in heaven? Nope? Did they see him as a mere man? Nope!
@msm1876 asked: "Did all these guys get into ontology? No."
The formulation of three distinct υποστασες (hypostases) mysteriously coexisting as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial (ομοουσιος) within one ουσια (being) is nonexistent before Tertullian.
@Hero I'll rephrase it again: No, these guys didn't get into HOW God was simulaneously Father, Son, and Spirit. But did they believe THAT it was so? You betcha. You can't worm outta this one.
Prov 8:22...so glad you brought it up. Athanasius applied it to Christ, and compared Arianism to vomit. "Ektisen" didn't just apply to what God made from nothing. It applied to what he PRODUCED...by creation or GENERATION. They believed eternal generation, not that he was created. I do too.
Papias also wrote this in his 'Expositions', recorded by Eusebius:
"If anyone who had followed the presbyters would come, I would cross-examine the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had SAID, or what Philip or what Thomas or Jacob (James) or what John or Matthew or what any of the Lord's other disciples had SAID; also what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were SAYING."
Papias clearly distinguished between James' brother, and the presbyter John.
@msm1876 said: "Athanasius.... compared Arianism to vomit"
Yeah, and he was subsequently excommunicated by the emperor who thereafter reinstated Arius to his rightful position. Yeah, I know the narrative.
In Proverbs 8:22 (LXX), the word εκτισεν (aorist active indicative third-person singular term, "created", same word Jesus used in Mark 13:19) is applied to Sophia. Many early Church apologists identified Sophia with Christ. If Sophia was created, and Sophia is Christ, then Christ was created.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> If Sophia was created, and Sophia is Christ, then Christ was created.
Yeah, just feel free to ignore the fact that Origen, Clement, and Athanasius applied it to Him, and they all EXPRESSLY denied that he was a creature. And feel free to ignore the whole "Ktisen" meaning both applying to what God PRODUCED...whether by creation OR generation.
@msm1876 - You're conveniently avoiding the literal meaning of Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) to avoid addressing its implications. Don't parrot the interpretations of later African apologists. Read the text. Wait, you can't read Greek? Have no fear; I provided the literal translation.
@HeroOfChristArchives Oh, I see; the literal meaning. So, the Jews putting the OT into greek meant that God existed WITHOUT wisdom and had to create it from nothing? Please. You are so far out on a limb here it's not even funny. Or did they choose "ektisen" as the verb to translate "qanah" because they felt YHWH was always PRODUCING wisdom?
@msm1876 said: "So, the Jews... meant that God existed without wisdom....?"
No, simpleton. A personification of wisdom is presented in Proverbs 8:22, hence why Hellenistic Christians could later interpret this Sophia (wisdom) manifesting into material existence in the person of Jesus. The fact is, no one (e.g., you) knows what Hebrew word the LXX scribes were translating from their exemplar. Whatever the case, the Greek text of Proverbs that has descended to us properly reads εκτισεν (CREATED).
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>knows what Hebrew word the LXX scribes were translating from their exemplar.
Yeah, I think we have a PRETTY good idea what the word is. It's "qanah" in the Masoretic text. Qanah does NOT mean "create from nothing." It can mean purchase, obtain, or produce. And if you wanna argue that, say, Justin Martyr, who beleived CHrist was God, YHWH, worshipped him(and said God alone should be worshipped), also believed he created Him from nothing...cont
@msm1876 said: "I think we have a PRETTY good idea what the word is."
No, simpleton, you only know what word appears in the 10th century Masoretic (Leningrad, Aleppo codices) manuscripts. You couldn't know what word the LXX scribes were translating, because you don't have their exemplar(s) for review! Yet, you resort to speculation. You THINK the LXX scribes were translating קנה, but it may have been ברא as in Deuteronomy 4:32, Jeremiah 38:22 and Malachi 2:10. Why do you reject the LXX reading?
@HeroOfChrist This is INSANE! You just UTTERLY flopped your position on the Masoretic text vs LXX! Last week, the MT's a MAGNIFICENT rendering of the Hebrew, now, well, it's a Ninth Century rendering that who the heck knows how well it's copied. Now the LXX is a spectacular translation of the Hebrew into Greek.
I DO **NOT** reject the LXX reading. I simply, along with the rest of the early church, do not accept that it means "Create from nothing" but Produce!
@msm1876 - Who is flip-flopping here? You were hitherto praising the LXX, but now you've resorted to ignoring the LXX rendering in favor of the Masoretic. Why?
@msm1876 said: "(I) do not accept that (εκτισεν) means 'create from nothing'"
Neither do I. The Greek term εκτισεν does not mean "create from nothing," but it does mean CREATE just as it occurs exactly in Mark 13:19 ("creation which God CREATED"), 1 Timothy 4:3 ("foods which God CREATED"), and Revelation 10:6 ("He who CREATED Heaven").
The Hebrew term קנה (qanah) occurs 84 times (in 76 verses) in the Masoretic Tanakh. Of these 84, the Greek LXX parallel is εκτησατο (acquire, obtain, procure, purchase) or one of its conjugates a whopping 67 times, or 80% of the time. The Greek αγοραζων (buy) and αγοραζω (buy) occur as parallels in 1 Chronicles 21:24; αγορασαι (buy) occurs in 2 Chronicles 34:11. Besides Proverbs 8:22, the Greek εκτισεν (create) occurs as a parallel only in Genesis 14:19 and Genesis 14:22.
@HeroOfChristArchives **Sigh** Your view of Etkitsen is far too narrow. Please read Pope Dionysius' letter "Against the Sabellians" and you will see him saying in Chapter 2: For, as ye know, there is more than one signification of the word "created; "and in this place "created" is the same as "set over" the works made by Himself-made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this "created" is not to be understood in the same manner as "made."
@msm1876 said: "Your view of Etkitsen is far too narrow."
First, the word is εκτισεν (ektisen), not ετκιτσεν (not a word).
Second, no where does εκτισεν ever mean "generate." The Greek word for "generate" is γενναο (gennao). IF the scribes intended to translate their Hebrew exemplar as "generate," they would have written the Greek word εγεννησεν (egennesen, "generated, procreated, brought forth, begotten" — aorist active indicative third-person singular). Instead, they wrote εκτισεν (CREATED).
@H You shouldn't be lecturing me, you should be lecturing the pre-nicene church as a whole. Very simply, they saw εκτισεν to be about what God PRODUCED, by MAKING it, or bringing it forth, GENERATING it.
Does not Gen 4:1 indicate that Eve brought forth a man? Bara is used, and a derivative of ektisen is used in the LXX. If you want to say that people who believed Christ was YHWH who applied this verse to him believed he was made, again, help yourself.
@msm1876 said: "Does not Gen 4:1 indicate that Eve brought forth a man? Bara is used..."
No, ברא (bara') does not occur in Genesis 4:1. Crosscheck your info. The verse states that Eve conceived (חוה = harah) and later bore (ילד = yalad; conjugate ותלד occurs here) Cain.
@msm1876 said: "A derivative of ektisen is used in the LXX"
No, a derivative of ektisen does not occur here. Greek συλλαβουσα (conceived) translates חוה, ετεκεν (bore) translates ילד, and εκτησαμην (obtained) translates קניתי.
@HeroOfChristArchives 'Scuse me, not bara, qanah. And it certainly IS used in Eve's quote. And it is translated εκτησαμην in the LXX, which means obtained, or brought forth. And Christ was BROUGHT FORTH by God, via his eternal generation...
Which is exactly how the ECFs applied the LXX version of Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus. As all the info I posted above shows, they did NOT believe him to be a creature, as that word doesn't JUST have the sense of "making" something.
@msm1876 said: "Qanah... is used in Eve's quote. It is translated εκτησαμην..."
Yes, we're WAY past that. (Did you bother reading this info in my last message?)
@msm1876 said: "εκτησαμην... means obtained, or brought forth"
You are hopelessly confused. The Hebrew word occurring in Genesis 4:1 which means "brought forth" is ותלד (vateled), translated by the LXX scribe as ετεκεν (eteken, "brought forth, bore"). Greek εκτησατο means "acquired, obtained, procured, purchased," NOT "brought forth."
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>I also challenge you to evidence biblical foundation for this Protestant invention.
Galatians 1:8. This is Paul stating that if someone says you must do/believe something that the apostles didn't preach to become/stay a Christian, they are accursed.
There is no extrabiblical idea (Mary's assumption, veneration of images) that one can credibly trace to the first century...thus I accept scripture as the SOLE source of the Apostolic Tradition.
@msm1876 said: "Galatians 1:8 (is biblical foundation for 'sola scriptura')"
Galatians 1:8 doesn't define your unbiblical heresy. It's only a Pauline anathema against anyone preaching a contradictory gospel.
@msm1876 said: "There is no extrabiblical idea that one can credibly trace to the first century..."
Why would there be? The Apostolic Age encompassed the first century. A closed canon of scripture? This didn't originate during the Apostolic Age, but was a later ecclesiastical development.
What were the judaizers saying had to happen for the Galatians to be/stay Christians? They had to be circumcised. This was NOT what the apostles preached someone had to do/believe to be a Christian. Paul said that the message concerning what one had to do/believe to be a Xtian was not alterable, even by him. And certainly not by bishops who came hundreds of years AFTER him.
@HeroOfChristArchives If you reject Sola Scriptura, then there is not much point in us debating the Trinity with Scripture. If Scripture is not your authority, then you are your own authority. Therefore you believe whatever YOU WANT to believe, even if the Bible clearly destroys your doctrines (and it does 100%). Stop quoting and using the Bible then, if you reject it as inspired by God.
@ETHANGELIST said: "If you reject sola scriptura.... then you are your own authority."
Wrong, simpleton. I reject the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura because it has no Scriptural foundation. How ironic! You're promoting a dogma about Scripture that is not founded in Scripture. How self-refuting and self-contradicting!
I adhere to Prima Scriptura, a doctrine well-founded within the Church since its beginning. This doctrine affirms that God-breathed Scripture holds prime (not sole) authority.
@msm1876 - Irenaeus writes in 'Against Heresies', Book II, ch. XXX, sect. 9:
"He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things.... by the word of His power.... He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living.... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...."
So, the attribution given is to God the Father, unlike in 'Hebrews' where it's given to the Son.
@msm1876 - Now, on to the so-called 'Fragments of Irenaeus'.
In 1715, C.M. Pfaff, professor at Tübingen, claimed to have discovered four short extracts of Irenaeus in a library in Turin. However, the manuscript was never seen again. Critics suspected that they were not genuine. In the 19th century, doubts arose over the authenticity of the second fragment because Irenaeus nowhere else attributed 'Hebrews' to Paul.
In 1900, A. Harnack proved that all four were scholarly fakes by Pfaff himself.
As a result, the Pfaff fragments are no longer part of contemporary scholarship for Irenaeus, but the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers' series published an English translation of them before their inauthenticity had been settled. The four fraudulent "fragments" are numbered XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII and XXXIX. It's the so-called "fragment" XXXVII bearing citation of Hebrews 13:15 — "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips" — complete with Pauline attribution.
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> >>>1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100
I STRONGLY suspect that it's 1 Clement is 1st century; Ignatius alludes to it in 106:
Ye have never ENVIED any one; ye have taught others (Romans 3)
What was 1Clement about? Correcting, teaching, the Corinthians concerning their ENVIOUS attitudes.
Let the dominoes fall. If 1 Clement is first century...so is Hebrews.
All 3 of those verses do not prove anything. Those verses don't say Jesus is not Yahweh. In fact the Bible says many times Jesus IS Yahweh: John 12:36-41 (compare Isaiah 6:1-10), Hebrews 1:10-12 (compare Psalm 102:25-27), Php 2:9-11 (compare Isaiah 45:23), Hebrews 13:8 (compare Malachi 3:6). The Bible undeniably identifies Jesus as Yahweh. In order for your doctrines to be true, you must refute all of these.
Jesus cannot be YHWH, because YHWH is Father, not Son.
"A son honors father, and a servant, master. But if I am Father, where is my honor? And if I am Master, where is my fear? So say I, YHWH Tzevaot, to you, O priests, despising my name! Yet, ye have said, "In what have we despised your name?" (Malachi 1:6)
In 225 AD, Hippolytus spoke of the Sabellians, saying, "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father himself is the Son."
@msm1876 said: "Here's a better rendering of James 1:13" I'll give you TEN renderings of James 1:13 (relevant part): "God cannot be tempted by evil" (NIV) "God cannot be tempted with evil" (ESV) "God cannot be tempted by evil" (NASB) "God cannot be tempted by evil" (NRSV) "God is not tempted by evil" (HCSB) "God cannot be tempted by evil" (NET) "God can't be tempted by evil" (WEB) "God cannot be tempted with evil" (KJV) "God cannot be tempted by evil" (NKJV) "God is not tempted of evil" (YLT)
Hebrews 1:10-12 is NUCLEAR to Arianism. Absolutely NUCLEAR. The Father calls the Son LORD. In the LXX, when Lord appears, it's a translation of the Divine Name YHWH. The Father is basically saying, "In the Beginning, YHWH..." to Christ. It also says that the HANDS of Christ made the universe, in the OT, it was the HANDS of YHWH.
Some heretics have to actually rationalize Hebrews out of the Canon, based on these three verses being SO toxic to their dogma.
@msm1876 Another NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians>>>>Jesus was the first son(Pro 30:4) who was born(Col 1:15) before all creation was than brought again[anew](Hbr 1:6) to be born as Mary' firstborn(Mat 1:25). The firstborn died in the flesh in which was created life by the life giving spirit of his father whose son Jesus became the firstborn from the dead who was the beginning of all creation that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Actually, Hebrews 1:6, while something of an echo of Psalm 99:7, is a direct quote from the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43. In it, Moses is commanding the angels to bid full relligious worship to YHWH.
@msm1876 This is a NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians>>>>Col 1:15 He is the image(eikōn-an image, figure, likeness) of the invisible God, the firstborn(prōtotokos-the firstborn) of all creation...And again(palin-anew) , when God brings his firstborn(prōtotokos-the firstborn) into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him-Hbr 1:6. Jesus was known as the firstborn before all creation that is why he is the first(beginning) creation of God.
@msm1876 Says who>Really? Colossians 1:15? REALLY? I honestly can't believe you Arians insist that verse means Christ is a creature. I just can't...Col 1:15 4416. prototokos Definition: first-born, eldest. from prótos and tokos (childbirth, offspring); from tiktó--------NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians
@CristoYcruz You're completely ignoring Ethan and My arguments concerning Hebrews 1:10-12; you're just saying, "Well, that can't mean he's God b/c Col 1:15 sez he's created!"
watch?v=OVbfmTrecV8
I pretty well put the notion of this HAVING to mean CHrist is a creature to rest in the above vid. And it's not the "supremacy" argument. ; )
Pretty strange that Paul was teaching Christ was a creature...and yet NO ONE saw it that way until the late 200s??
@msm1876 Hbr 1:10..Lord( kyrios)<Doesn't say Yĕhovah, to bad for you guys. Hbr 1:2 ..through whom(Son) also he(Father) created the world.=Col 1:15-16 God created all things in his son who is the first created son before all things.
@CristoYcruz Well, hang on there Pardner...In Psalm 102 in the LXX, when it says, "In the Beginning LORD" what is LORD the Word for? Ask any JW, they'll gladly tell you it was the Tetragramaton.
So the Father is calling the Son LORD in the "Title of Deity" sense. A person calls a person LORD for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as Deity.
@msm1876 Ok, if you want to make those lame comparisons than King Solomon is God too- Psa 45:6-7 as Jesus is God-Hbr 1:8-9. King Solomon is divine as Jesus is divine, so all of Father God' family are divine-2Pe 1:3-4. All Father God' family including Jesus received their divine nature by their heavenly father.
@msm1876 Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. You are day dreaming i don't see LORD in Psa 102:25. You guys love to make stuff up.
Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord(kyrios), in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: I don't see Lord(kyrios) nor LORD in Psa 102:25. And i don't see LORD in Hbr 1:10.
@CristoYcruz Read the LXX version of Psalm 102:25, **which is what the author of Hebrews is quoting** and then stop back here with an apology concerning us making things up.
Again, you just read the version translated from the Masoretic text, not the LXX.
@msm1876 Tehillim - Psalms - Chapter 102:26. In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.<This one is different.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. All other translation read the same, to bad for you guys. Psa 102:25 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.
@CristoYcruz And not to mention, this is a moot point. The Father is addressing his Son as LORD. A person calls a person LORD for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as Deity.
We both agree that the Father is not subordinate to the Son? I'll re-state, so you don't get off the hook: A person calls a person kurios for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
@msm1876 Mar 12:29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments [is]: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD(kyrios) our God, the LORD(kyrios) is one. Hbr 1:10..Lord(kyrios).. 1Pe 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord(kyrios)
Jesus is (kyrios), and Abraham is (kyrios)=Two (kyrios). But Jesus said, his (kyrios) God, (kyrios) is one. Try again M&M'S.
@msm1876 Jesus praises his (kyrios) theos, (kyrios) theos doesn't praise Jesus. The (kyrios) Jesus is not inherently immortal, only (kyrios) theos is inherently immortal. The (kyrios) Jesus changes in nature cause he is a creature, (kyrios) theos is not a creation. The (kyrios) Jesus is subject to time and space because he is a creature, (kyrios) theos who alone is timeless and spaceless creates time and space for his creatures.
@CristoYcruz Whoa, Sarge, hang on. I'll deal with him in due time. I want YOU to deal with the situation in Hebrews 1:10-12. Why is God calling Christ Kyrios?
@msm1876 & @ ETHANGELIST 7. Ok, guys, all that effort you guys made in quoting scripture are all misinterpretations. Why, because in your assumptions Jesus is Yahweh God who died, is very lame. Jesus said his God Yahweh is one who is inherently immortal(1Ti 6:16; 1Ti 1:17; Romans 1:23). You guys are so desperate to win a debate that on your part has no merit. God' word(Jesus) refutes you guys.
@ETHANGELIST The verses you referenced... those are all Paul's letters. Jesus didn't say that...<Your comment is so lame, Paul under God the father' anointing spoke and wrote those letters.(1Ti 6:16; 1Ti 1:17; Romans 1:23)." God the father was declaring himself through Paul that he was the only God who is inherently immortal. Jesus died which implies he wasn't inherently immortal. And, yes, you are always right in your own opinion so LOL all you want.
@CristoYcruz said: "The verses you referenced are all (from) Paul's letters"
What's ironic is that Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was neither an eyewitness or an earwitness to the ministry of Jesus the Nazarene. In his letter to the Galatians, he goes so far as to admit, "For neither did I receive it (Paul's gospel) from a man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12) Paul had neither heard Jesus proclaim the Gospel, nor did he accompany Jesus during his ministry.
@msm1876 asked: "Why is God calling Christ Kyrios (in Hebrews 1:10-12)?"
The author of 'Hebrews' INTERPOLATED the word κυριε into his citation (Hebrews 1:10) of Psalm 102:25. No such equivalent is to be found in the Hebrew!
לפנים הארץ יסדת ומעשה ידיך שמים
"Formerly, the earth you have founded; the work of your hands are the heavens."
@HeroOfChristArchivesThe author of 'Hebrews' INTERPOLATED the word κυριε >>>
Would you PLEASE pay attention? The word Kurios occurs in the LXX...just not in the Masoretic text! The copies of the LXX are MUCH older than the Masoretic text...could it be that a Hebrew copyist removed it?
Highly unlikely, given the meticulousness of the Jewish scribes through history. There's no evidence of casual emendation.>>>
You sure? Google "Deuteronomy 32:43 dead sea scrolls." The Phrase "Let all of God's angels worship him" is in the LXX, the most ancient DSS, yet not in the Masoretic text.
The MT is a SUPERB Mss, but it ain't 100% preserved Hebrew.
@CristoYcruz >>>Can you refute HeroOfChristArchives posts? No, you can't. You may try, but half truths will never prevail
I also just saw him call the Author of Hebrews "Incompetent." Looks like he wants that book outta the Canon b/c HE realizes how toxic to his heresy it is. You know you're a heretic when...
@CristoYcruz "You are day dreaming i don't see LORD in Psa 102:25. You guys love to make stuff up."
Dude, in fact, it doesn't even matter if "lord" is found in Ps 102:25 or not. Read the whole Psalm and the context is clearly without a doubt, addressed to Yahweh alone. "LORD/YHWH" is mentioned 8 times in Psalm 102. The whole Psalm is addressed to Yahweh and that includes verses 25-27, which the writer of Hebrews in Heb 1:10-12 applies to Jesus. Therefore Jesus = YHWH. It is undeniable. Repent.
@ETHANGELIST Keep rejecting and denying Jesus declaration of his faith in his God Yahweh is one-Mar 12:29. So did Jesus believe in Jesus Yahweh, Father Yahweh, Holy Spirit Yahweh. Jesus=Yahweh is salvation<Jesus name was given to him by Yahweh who sent his son in his name to earth.
Is it possible that the worship due to Christ [see, Heb 1:6] is of a type not of the same formality as that which is given to the Father? It may be that the reverence given to Christ is of a differernt species [see, Heb 1:8ff]. The Son is set above his companions by God, not by his own nature or choosing. The Son certainly is above men and angels [Heb 1:5] but that honor is fixed in a choice made by the Father, and not of the Son's freewill.
LothairOfLorraine 2 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine Well, one of the things I've missed in this video is the mention of the Greek Septuagint's Deu 32:43. Heb 1:6 is actually a quotation from that verse. Deu 32:43 in the English translation of the LXX says this:
"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him"
And guess who is being worshiped in the context? JEHOVAH. And guess who the writer of Hebrews applies this to? JESUS. So therefore Jesus is Jehovah according to the author?
ETHANGELIST 2 months ago
"To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him"
(1 Corinthians 8:6)
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Please deny that the Father is Lord based upon the second part of that verse!
msm1876 9 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
Philippians 2:11 — και (and) πασα (each) γλωσσα (tongue) εξομολογησηται (might confess) οτι (that) κυριος (lord) Ιησους (Jesus) Χριστος (Christ) εις (into) δοξαν (glory) θεου (of God) πατρος (father)
"....and each tongue might confess that lord Jesus Christ into [the] glory of God [the] father."
The expression "κυριος Ιησους Χριστος" is a nominative triplet, hence merely a title — "Lord Jesus Christ." The popular translation, "Jesus Christ is Lord", is not a plausible rendering.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives I'm a Trinitarian, so Sabellianism is an abomination to me. Your arguments are insufficient in disproving my assertion that Jesus is YHWH according to John 12:36-41 (compare Isaiah 6:1-10), Hebrews 1:10-12 (compare Psalm 102:25-27), Php 2:9-11 (compare Isaiah 45:23), Rom 10:13 (compare Joel 2:32), Col 1:15-17 (compare Isaiah 44:24), Eph 4:8-9 (compare Psalm 68:18-19). You must do better than that.
ETHANGELIST 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives "The expression "κυριος Ιησους Χριστος" is a nominative triplet, hence merely a title — "Lord Jesus Christ." The popular translation, "Jesus Christ is Lord", is not a plausible rendering." Whether it is "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ is Lord", Jesus is still Lord according to Php 2:9-11. But that wasn't my focus. I was focusing on the fact that Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 when he wrote Php 2:9-11. Isaiah 45:23 is undeniably about YHWH. Therefore Jesus = YHWH.
ETHANGELIST 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
In Isaiah 45:23, the bowing and confessing is performed toward YHWH God, the Father. In Philippians 2:11, the bowing and confessing is still performed toward YHWH God the Father, but is now done in the name of YHWH God's messiah, Jesus Christ. In this passage, the reason why the knees are bowing and the tongues are confessing is "to the glory of God the Father." The author, presumably Paul, is conveying that acknowledging Jesus as messiah will glorify God, NOT that messiah is YHWH.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
"God highly exalted him, and gave to him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow — those of heaven and of earth, and those under the earth — and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)
Therein exists zero evidence that Jesus is YHWH. Contrarily, Jesus Christ is distinguished in this passage from God the Father and, as was expounded, God the Father is YHWH Tzevaot. (Malachi 1:6)
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
Unfortunately for you, the author of 'Hebrews' was so incompetent, he misquoted Psalm 102:25 in his letter at Hebrews 1:10, inexplicably interpolating the word "Lord" where it DOES NOT APPEAR in the Hebrew! Psalm 102:25 properly reads:
לפנים הארץ יסדת ומעשה ידיך שמים
"Formerly, the earth you have founded; the work of your hands are the heavens."
(Psalm 102:25)
David is speaker, while God is the subject and the audience. There is no mention of a "lord", a "son", or secondary god.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Unfortunately for you, the author of 'Hebrews' was so incompetent, he misquoted Psalm 102:25 in his letter at Hebrews 1:10, inexplicably interpolating the word "Lord" where it DOES NOT APPEAR in the Hebrew!
Dude, it's in the LXX. It's not in the 9th century Masoretic text's Hebrew.
Calling a scripture writer incompetent...wow.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Calling a scripture writer incompetent...wow."
Ironically, you can't even tell me WHO penned the epistle 'Hebrews'!
The Church fathers differed: Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Clement of Rome....
The epistle is anonymous, and its authorship has always been disputed.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>The epistle is anonymous, and its authorship has always been disputed.
Yeah, but it's first century (it's quoted in 1Clement) and seems to be closely tied to apostolic sources(mentions TImothy, etc). You are beyond heretical if you're trying to remove it from the canon.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "('Hebrews' is) first century (it's quoted in 1 Clement)"
1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100. Notably, second-century Christian theologians Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus never referenced 'Hebrews', and its authenticity was disputed within the Church from a very early date. Pinpointing its authorship was so unattainable that third-century writer Origen conceded, "God only knows."
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100
Really? Why the warnings not to return to temple sacrifices?
>>>Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus never referenced 'Hebrews',
Izzat so? Justin quotes Hebrews 1:8 in Dialogue Ch 56. Ire alludes to Heb 1:3 in Against Heresies Bk 2 Ch30, Section 9. In Fragments of the Lost Writings of Ire, he quotes Heb 13:15.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 asked: "Why the warnings not to return to temple sacrifices?"
Maybe because the letter was written to post-temple Jewish messianists.
@msm1876 said: "Justin quotes Hebrews 1:8 in Dialogue Ch 56"
I cross-checked this item on CCEL. Justin actually quoted Psalm 45:6-7.
@msm1876 said: "Irenaeus alludes to Heb 1:3"
I cross-checked this item on CCEL. While Hebrews 1:3 attributes this qualification (i.e., "by the power of his word") to the Son, Irenaeus attributes it to God the Father.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives You said: I cross-checked this item on CCEL. While Hebrews 1:3 attributes this qualification (i.e., "by the power of his word") to the Son, Irenaeus attributes it to God the Father.
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power--delegated to him by his father who upholds all things by his spirit and power in him forever.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz - As I've already elucidated, Irenaeus never quoted 'Hebrews'.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>I cross-checked this item on CCEL. Justin actually quoted Psalm 45:6-7.
Yes, and where do you think he gets the idea that it's the Father calling the Son God in that verse? Hebrews 1:8.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Where do you think (Justin Martyr) gets the idea that it's the Father calling the Son God in that verse? Hebrews 1:8."
Truly, if you had personally researched the context, you would have discovered that Justin quoted 'Psalms' consecutively. Immediately before his allusion to Psalm 45:6-7, Justin quoted Psalm 110:1. See, Justin was dialogging with Trypho, A JEW, and demonstrating from the Jewish Scriptures that Jesus was the promised messiah of Israel. He did not quote 'Hebrews'.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Yeah, I've read Dialogue. And yes, I realize he was quoting the OT. And what I'm saying is that he realized that this verse was God calling Christ "God" because of Hebrews 1:8. And he was doing a LOT more than demonstrating that Jesus was just the Messiah...he was demonstrating he was YHWH in Dialogue.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "I realize he was quoting the OT."
If you've come to this realization, then it logically follows that Justin didn't require acquaintance with another apologetic writing (i.e., 'Hebrews') to assign Psalm 45:6-7 as being a messianic prophecy.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@msm1876 - I hope you also realize that Justin Martyr was a heretic.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> I hope you also realize that Justin Martyr was a heretic.
Oooh...I'd bit your tongue just a bit. Have YOU lost your head as a martyr rather than bowing to idols lately. You may not agree with his theology, but let's not call a martyr a heretic, now shall we?
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "I'd bite your tongue just a bit."
What, you don't believe me?
Just Google search: Heretic Justin Martyr
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives What, that disingenuous hit piece by those cultists at the "Church of God?" Please. They misrepresent him left and right! Trying to make him look like he denied the soul went on to heaven or hades after death even though he said:
and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished...we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers...1st apology Ch20
msm1876 9 months ago
@HeroOfChrist Those COG heretics are something else...very slick in their misrepresentation of the Church Fathers. On another of their pages, they mined a quote from Irenaeus to make him sound like a Binitarian, even though he elsewhere affirmed that the Son and Spirit were ALWAYS with the Father, and it was to them He said, "Let us create man in our image" in Genesis 1:26. (Against heresies 4:20:1)
You gotta do better than a dishonest, quote-miney hit piece to prove Justin was a heretic.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 - Justin referred to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (5th century BC!) as "a Christian before Christ." That's not only heretical, but deluded as well.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Ok, Justin was a big heretical apostate. No, he wasn't just speculating on the fate of moral men who lived before Christ and did not personally know of God.
Your attitude towards authors of scripture and defenders of the faith...it shows just how far outside the true Christian faith you are. If this is "true Christianity" count me out.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876
IF you could define 'heresy', then you would know that Justin was a heretic.
Apparently, you cannot define 'heresy', so there's really nothing to discuss.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Do you even believe the Bible is God's inerrant Word and is the sole authority for all Christian doctrine?
ETHANGELIST 9 months ago
@ETHANGELIST meant to ask me: "Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?"
Of course not. Neither did the Apostolic Church: watch?v=8C8jQR3pcSE
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Matatics made a straw man of SS in his question. Of course the apostles didn't believe that the Jewish scriptures were God's sole revelation; they were GIVING additional divine revelation.
I believe all divine revelation is in the OT...and the teaching of the apostles.
Q: Can you show me an apostolic teaching that you can CREDIBLY trace to the 1st century that ISN'T in scripture?
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "The apostles didn't believe that the Jewish scriptures were God's sole revelation; they were GIVING additional revelation."
Actually, it was God through his Holy Spirit who was giving revelation. Of course, God has not ceased giving revelation to humanity. The unbiblical Protestant 'sola scriptura' dogma asserts that all divine revelation is contained in writings predating 100 AD, implying that God ceased giving revelation around then, and that only written revelation is divine.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>implying that God ceased giving revelation around then, and that only written revelation is divine.
Mmmm...check out "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison. It's on Googlebooks. You'll see what the classic doctrine of SS is, versus what many Prots have bent it into. The apostles had oral authority, and taught orally; the question is...were any of their teachings NOT inscripturated, and passed down exclusively orally instead?
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "'The Shape of Sola Scriptura' by Keith Mathison"
"Scripture and Tradition were in no way mutually exclusive concepts because they coincided with each other completely." (p. 19)
"[Tradition] was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication." (p. 21)
Mathison fails to prove that only written revelation is divine revelation.
Mathison questions the authority of the ecumenical councils.
Prove this dogma existed before 1500!
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@Hero"[Tradition] was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication."
AMEN!
>>>Mathison fails to prove that only written...
That's NOT his position, nor is it mine! What he's saying, if you've actually read it, is that the corpus of doctrine taught in the early church was the same as the doctrines taught IN scripture!
Can you show me an apostolic teaching that you can CREDIBLY trace to the 1st century that ISN'T in scripture?
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 - You know, you're actually affirming my position - Prima Scriptura.
Please define "corpus of doctrine" (?) along with its parameters and limitations.
Moreover, Mathison allows for no post-Apostolic (post-100 AD) divine revelation.
Once again, I am challenging you to prove that this dogma existed before 1500.
I also challenge you to evidence biblical foundation for this Protestant invention.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Moreover, Mathison allows for no post-Apostolic (post-100 AD) divine revelation.
Um, neither do Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. They both insist their doctrines were revealed by the apostles...just that they were revealed orally, not written down.
Really, read Mathison's quotes of the Patristics, and see how the Tradition I (aka SS) position existed throughout the first 3 centuries of the Church!
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Neither does Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy"
You are utterly misguided. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy defines the Church as a divinely ordained institution, hence all proclamations made by the Church are authoritative and binding. This is what I meant when stating that Mathison allows for no post-Apostolic divine revelation. Perhaps this is why he rejects the binding authority of all seven Ecumenical Councils and their respective declarations. Coincidence?
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>You are utterly misguided
Perhaps it is YOU who are misguided. EO and RCism do NOT view decisions of Ecumentical councils as NEW revelation, on par with what the apostles revealed. They view them as infallible and binding INTERPRETATIONS of what they believe already was revealed. And I would say that sometimes they got it right, and other times they got it wrong. Thing is as a non trinitarian...you'd agree with me there, right?
msm1876 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Augustine didn't view Ecu Councils as utterly infallible/irreformable either: the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" - Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "The councils.... held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of the plenary councils...."
Yeah, so? Augustine was only contending that local councils are secondary and must concur with general (ecumenical) councils. Augustine viewed the ecumenical councils as authoritative and eternally binding, unlike your boy Mathison. Interestingly, I noticed that many 'sola scriptura' adherents challenge Mathison on many points.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Augustine viewed the ecumenical councils as authoritative and eternally binding...
No, he didn't. Re-read the quote. He said Ecu councils could be "corrected" by later ones.
This is decending to the absurd. You're lecturing me on Novel doctrine not held by the Church, yet you oppose the notion of Christ's deity? Any clue when Arianism popped up? Or Socinianism?
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "(Augustine) said ecumenical councils could be "corrected" by later ones."
I'm not locating this proposal anywhere within his writings. Please source your assertions with plain references rather than arguing from ambiguity.
@msm1876 said: "You oppose the notion of Christ's deity?"
I'm counterarguing the presentation of Christ's supposed deity as it's conveyed in this video and its comment section. Realize that the trinitarian dogma wasn't formulated until the 3rd/4th centuries.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Realize that the trinitarian dogma wasn't formulated until the 3rd/4th centuries.
You do agree that the middle recension of Ignatius, which is considered the most authentic, SCREAMS with Christ's uncreated diety? Yeah, the ONTOLOGICAL doctrine developed in later centuries...but the earliest beliefs about CHrist were that he was uncreated, God, worthy of worship. You HAVE to admit that, no? And they weren't Arianism/Socinianism.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "They weren't Arian/Socinian"
Who are "they," and why should I believe them?
Did "they" ever meet, associate with, or converse with Jesus the Nazarene?
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Who are "they," and why should I believe them?
"They" were Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and mentored by John. "They" were the Ephesian Church Ignatius wrote to in 106, just 5 years after John died there. "They" were Polycarp, John's disciple. "They" were Justin Martyr, who lived at John's church just 35 years after he died. "They" were Irenaeus, Polycarp's student. "They" were Clement of Alexandria, who learned from someone...cont
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by Peter"
Ignatius is claimed to have succeeded Evodius, not Peter.
@msm1876 said: "Ignatius of Antioch was.... mentored by John"
Ignatius was an understudy of a "John," likely John the Presbyter, during the last decade of the 1st century. According to one website (copticchurchnet), this same John "ordained him patriarch of Antioch where he preached the life-giving Gospel, converted many to the knowledge of God, baptized them, illumined them."
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Ignatius was an understudy of a "John," likely John the Presbyter
Read his martyrdom. It says "Disciple of the APOSTLE John."
Google "Theodoret Ignatius." You'll find in Theodoret's writings that Ignatius ordained Peter in Antioch, probably as an elder. He likely then succeeded Evodius as Bishop.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "In Theodoret's writings... Ignatius ordained Peter in Antioch"
Ignatius ordained Peter? That's pretty hilarious. Proofread your messages.
Papias of Hierapolis, writing EARLY 2nd century, recorded in the second book of his 'Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord' that brothers James and John, sons of Zebedee, suffered martyrdom together at the hands of the Jews. For the record, Papias was himself an understudy of this John, meaning the Presbyter, Theologian, and Elder in Ephesus.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@Hero>. Proofread your messages
You can mock my typo, but you can't refute the info I presented. Ignatius was ordained by Peter. Theodoret stated it, so did Eusebius.
Oh, and your Papias fragment? Came from Philip of Side. George the Sinner wrote on the same book by Papias and claimed that John's being "done away with" occurred AFTER HE CAME BACK FROM PATMOS.
We're done talking.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Your Papias fragment came from Philip of Sade"
Yes, and we presume that Philip, like Eusebius, faithfully quoted from Papias' now non-extant volume 'Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord'. John was martyred contemporaneous to his brother James by the Jews, perhaps in Jerusalem. The martyrdom of James at the behest of King Herod Agrippa (died 44 AD) is explicitly recorded in Acts 12:2. His brother's death must have followed shortly thereafter. This is affirmed by Papias' witness.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>Yes, and we presume that Philip, like Eusebius, faithfully quoted from Papias' now non-extant volume
Yes, and again, feel utterly free to ignore George the Sinner's writing on the same book that Philip commented on, stating that John was specifically done away with by the Jews in Ephesus AFTER HE CAME BACK FROM PATMOS.
Really, man...we're done. Specifically, you're done.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876
Athanasius records Ignatius as subsequent to the Apostles without anyone (i.e., Evodius) intervening. Chrysostom makes Ignatius the Apostles' contemporary. The Apostolic Constitutions have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, with Evodius ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. Authorities are given in full by Zahn (Patres Apostolici II., p. 327).
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@msm1876
The apostolic ordinations in order, per the Apostolic Constitutions:
"At the Church of Jerusalem, Jacob, the brother of our Lord, was the first bishop, followed by Simeon the son of Cleopas; and then the third bishop was Judas the son of Jacob.
At the Church of Caesarea of Palestine, it was Zacchaeus who was first bishop, after whom was Cornelius; and then the third was Theophilus.
At the church at Antioch, Peter ordained Evodius; and the next bishop was Ignatius, ordained by Paul."
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@msm1876 - Thus, no consensus regarding the ordination of Ignatius existed with the early Church. Whether Peter, Evodius, Paul or Presbyter John ordained Ignatius as the third Bishop of Antioch is ultimately irrelevant. Many pseudepigraphal letters were forged to misrepresent Ignatius, including two epistles to "St. John." The Ignatian letters occur in three corpora: seven letters (longer version) in Greek, seven letters (shorter version) in Greek, and three letters (shortest version) in Syriac.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> Many pseudepigraphal letters were forged to misrepresent Ignatius
Yep, and the middle recension, which most scholars accept as geniune, absolutely SCREAMS of the deity of Jesus. But whichever recension you choose, Ignatius' belief in Jesus deity is in there!
Give it up.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said "The middle recension, which most scholars accept as genuine, absolutely SCREAMS of the deity of Jesus."
Do the words of Jesus scream of the deity of Jesus? Did Ignatius meet Jesus? How about Paul? You're reaching. These apologists were interpreting events which predated their lifetime or, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus and his entourage, making deductions about someone they never met, never associated with, and never witnessed. Get back to Jesus' words, not words of apologists.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroOfChrist >>>as in the case of Saul of Tarsus and his entourage, making deductions about someone they never met, never associated with, and never witnessed. Get back to Jesus' words,
I've seen enough; MORE than enough. First you denigrate the Hebrews Author, now Paul. You are so far out in the left field of heresy...honestly.
>>>These apologists were interpreting events which predated their lifetime.
Wrong. They were echoing the apostolic teachings that were taught to them.
msm1876 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives learned from people four putts away from St. Mark. "They" were Hippolytus of Rome, who opposed the Roman bishop on much, certainly agreed with him on Christ's deity...and that teaching was still in Rome after Peter and Paul died there. "They" were Tertullian of Carthage, great theologian and defender of the faith.
That's who "they" were. And you're kicking against the goads of history in denying Christ's deity.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Polycarp (was) John's disciple"
Polycarp was another understudy of John the Presbyter.
Notably, Polycarp never quoted from the fourth gospel.
@msm1876 said: "Justin Martyr.... Irenaeus.... Clement of Alexandria.... Hippolytus of Rome.... Tertullian of Carthage...."
How many of these Church Fathers believed that God was three distinct υποστασες (hypostases) mysteriously coexisting as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial (ομοουσιος) within one ουσια (being)? None of them did.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>How many of these Church Fathers believed that God was three distinct υποστασες (hypostases)...
Tut tut tut...you're strawmanning it! Did all these guys get into ontology? No. Did they view Christ as Eternal and worship him? Did they believe that he was YHWH? Yep! Did they see him having been created from nothing in heaven? Nope? Did they see him as a mere man? Nope!
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 asked: "Did all these guys get into ontology? No."
The formulation of three distinct υποστασες (hypostases) mysteriously coexisting as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial (ομοουσιος) within one ουσια (being) is nonexistent before Tertullian.
Seeing as you're so fond of the LXX translation:
κυριος εκτισεν με αρχην οδων αυτου εις εργα αυτου (Proverbs 8:22)
"YHWH created me, the beginning of His ways, among His works"
MANY early writers, including Paul, identify Christ with Sophia.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@Hero I'll rephrase it again: No, these guys didn't get into HOW God was simulaneously Father, Son, and Spirit. But did they believe THAT it was so? You betcha. You can't worm outta this one.
Prov 8:22...so glad you brought it up. Athanasius applied it to Christ, and compared Arianism to vomit. "Ektisen" didn't just apply to what God made from nothing. It applied to what he PRODUCED...by creation or GENERATION. They believed eternal generation, not that he was created. I do too.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876
Papias also wrote this in his 'Expositions', recorded by Eusebius:
"If anyone who had followed the presbyters would come, I would cross-examine the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had SAID, or what Philip or what Thomas or Jacob (James) or what John or Matthew or what any of the Lord's other disciples had SAID; also what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were SAYING."
Papias clearly distinguished between James' brother, and the presbyter John.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Athanasius.... compared Arianism to vomit"
Yeah, and he was subsequently excommunicated by the emperor who thereafter reinstated Arius to his rightful position. Yeah, I know the narrative.
In Proverbs 8:22 (LXX), the word εκτισεν (aorist active indicative third-person singular term, "created", same word Jesus used in Mark 13:19) is applied to Sophia. Many early Church apologists identified Sophia with Christ. If Sophia was created, and Sophia is Christ, then Christ was created.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> If Sophia was created, and Sophia is Christ, then Christ was created.
Yeah, just feel free to ignore the fact that Origen, Clement, and Athanasius applied it to Him, and they all EXPRESSLY denied that he was a creature. And feel free to ignore the whole "Ktisen" meaning both applying to what God PRODUCED...whether by creation OR generation.
Again, we're done talking.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 - You're conveniently avoiding the literal meaning of Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) to avoid addressing its implications. Don't parrot the interpretations of later African apologists. Read the text. Wait, you can't read Greek? Have no fear; I provided the literal translation.
κυριος εκτισεν με αρχην οδων αυτου εις εργα αυτου (Proverbs 8:22)
"YHWH created me, the beginning of His ways, among His works"
It logically follows that, if Sophia is created, and Sophia is Christ, then Christ is created.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Oh, I see; the literal meaning. So, the Jews putting the OT into greek meant that God existed WITHOUT wisdom and had to create it from nothing? Please. You are so far out on a limb here it's not even funny. Or did they choose "ektisen" as the verb to translate "qanah" because they felt YHWH was always PRODUCING wisdom?
Give it up, my man.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "So, the Jews... meant that God existed without wisdom....?"
No, simpleton. A personification of wisdom is presented in Proverbs 8:22, hence why Hellenistic Christians could later interpret this Sophia (wisdom) manifesting into material existence in the person of Jesus. The fact is, no one (e.g., you) knows what Hebrew word the LXX scribes were translating from their exemplar. Whatever the case, the Greek text of Proverbs that has descended to us properly reads εκτισεν (CREATED).
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>knows what Hebrew word the LXX scribes were translating from their exemplar.
Yeah, I think we have a PRETTY good idea what the word is. It's "qanah" in the Masoretic text. Qanah does NOT mean "create from nothing." It can mean purchase, obtain, or produce. And if you wanna argue that, say, Justin Martyr, who beleived CHrist was God, YHWH, worshipped him(and said God alone should be worshipped), also believed he created Him from nothing...cont
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "I think we have a PRETTY good idea what the word is."
No, simpleton, you only know what word appears in the 10th century Masoretic (Leningrad, Aleppo codices) manuscripts. You couldn't know what word the LXX scribes were translating, because you don't have their exemplar(s) for review! Yet, you resort to speculation. You THINK the LXX scribes were translating קנה, but it may have been ברא as in Deuteronomy 4:32, Jeremiah 38:22 and Malachi 2:10. Why do you reject the LXX reading?
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChrist This is INSANE! You just UTTERLY flopped your position on the Masoretic text vs LXX! Last week, the MT's a MAGNIFICENT rendering of the Hebrew, now, well, it's a Ninth Century rendering that who the heck knows how well it's copied. Now the LXX is a spectacular translation of the Hebrew into Greek.
I DO **NOT** reject the LXX reading. I simply, along with the rest of the early church, do not accept that it means "Create from nothing" but Produce!
We're done here!
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 - Who is flip-flopping here? You were hitherto praising the LXX, but now you've resorted to ignoring the LXX rendering in favor of the Masoretic. Why?
@msm1876 said: "(I) do not accept that (εκτισεν) means 'create from nothing'"
Neither do I. The Greek term εκτισεν does not mean "create from nothing," but it does mean CREATE just as it occurs exactly in Mark 13:19 ("creation which God CREATED"), 1 Timothy 4:3 ("foods which God CREATED"), and Revelation 10:6 ("He who CREATED Heaven").
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives cont feel utterly free to do so.
You are in a heretical twilight zone. You have my pity.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876
{Continued}
The Hebrew term קנה (qanah) occurs 84 times (in 76 verses) in the Masoretic Tanakh. Of these 84, the Greek LXX parallel is εκτησατο (acquire, obtain, procure, purchase) or one of its conjugates a whopping 67 times, or 80% of the time. The Greek αγοραζων (buy) and αγοραζω (buy) occur as parallels in 1 Chronicles 21:24; αγορασαι (buy) occurs in 2 Chronicles 34:11. Besides Proverbs 8:22, the Greek εκτισεν (create) occurs as a parallel only in Genesis 14:19 and Genesis 14:22.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives **Sigh** Your view of Etkitsen is far too narrow. Please read Pope Dionysius' letter "Against the Sabellians" and you will see him saying in Chapter 2: For, as ye know, there is more than one signification of the word "created; "and in this place "created" is the same as "set over" the works made by Himself-made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this "created" is not to be understood in the same manner as "made."
It's about Christ being GENERATED.
THE END.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Your view of Etkitsen is far too narrow."
First, the word is εκτισεν (ektisen), not ετκιτσεν (not a word).
Second, no where does εκτισεν ever mean "generate." The Greek word for "generate" is γενναο (gennao). IF the scribes intended to translate their Hebrew exemplar as "generate," they would have written the Greek word εγεννησεν (egennesen, "generated, procreated, brought forth, begotten" — aorist active indicative third-person singular). Instead, they wrote εκτισεν (CREATED).
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@H You shouldn't be lecturing me, you should be lecturing the pre-nicene church as a whole. Very simply, they saw εκτισεν to be about what God PRODUCED, by MAKING it, or bringing it forth, GENERATING it.
Does not Gen 4:1 indicate that Eve brought forth a man? Bara is used, and a derivative of ektisen is used in the LXX. If you want to say that people who believed Christ was YHWH who applied this verse to him believed he was made, again, help yourself.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Does not Gen 4:1 indicate that Eve brought forth a man? Bara is used..."
No, ברא (bara') does not occur in Genesis 4:1. Crosscheck your info. The verse states that Eve conceived (חוה = harah) and later bore (ילד = yalad; conjugate ותלד occurs here) Cain.
@msm1876 said: "A derivative of ektisen is used in the LXX"
No, a derivative of ektisen does not occur here. Greek συλλαβουσα (conceived) translates חוה, ετεκεν (bore) translates ילד, and εκτησαμην (obtained) translates קניתי.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives 'Scuse me, not bara, qanah. And it certainly IS used in Eve's quote. And it is translated εκτησαμην in the LXX, which means obtained, or brought forth. And Christ was BROUGHT FORTH by God, via his eternal generation...
Which is exactly how the ECFs applied the LXX version of Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus. As all the info I posted above shows, they did NOT believe him to be a creature, as that word doesn't JUST have the sense of "making" something.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Qanah... is used in Eve's quote. It is translated εκτησαμην..."
Yes, we're WAY past that. (Did you bother reading this info in my last message?)
@msm1876 said: "εκτησαμην... means obtained, or brought forth"
You are hopelessly confused. The Hebrew word occurring in Genesis 4:1 which means "brought forth" is ותלד (vateled), translated by the LXX scribe as ετεκεν (eteken, "brought forth, bore"). Greek εκτησατο means "acquired, obtained, procured, purchased," NOT "brought forth."
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>I also challenge you to evidence biblical foundation for this Protestant invention.
Galatians 1:8. This is Paul stating that if someone says you must do/believe something that the apostles didn't preach to become/stay a Christian, they are accursed.
There is no extrabiblical idea (Mary's assumption, veneration of images) that one can credibly trace to the first century...thus I accept scripture as the SOLE source of the Apostolic Tradition.
msm1876 9 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Galatians 1:8 (is biblical foundation for 'sola scriptura')"
Galatians 1:8 doesn't define your unbiblical heresy. It's only a Pauline anathema against anyone preaching a contradictory gospel.
@msm1876 said: "There is no extrabiblical idea that one can credibly trace to the first century..."
Why would there be? The Apostolic Age encompassed the first century. A closed canon of scripture? This didn't originate during the Apostolic Age, but was a later ecclesiastical development.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Galatians 1:8 doesn't define your unbiblical heresy
What were the judaizers saying had to happen for the Galatians to be/stay Christians? They had to be circumcised. This was NOT what the apostles preached someone had to do/believe to be a Christian. Paul said that the message concerning what one had to do/believe to be a Xtian was not alterable, even by him. And certainly not by bishops who came hundreds of years AFTER him.
msm1876 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives If you reject Sola Scriptura, then there is not much point in us debating the Trinity with Scripture. If Scripture is not your authority, then you are your own authority. Therefore you believe whatever YOU WANT to believe, even if the Bible clearly destroys your doctrines (and it does 100%). Stop quoting and using the Bible then, if you reject it as inspired by God.
ETHANGELIST 9 months ago
@ETHANGELIST said: "If you reject sola scriptura.... then you are your own authority."
Wrong, simpleton. I reject the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura because it has no Scriptural foundation. How ironic! You're promoting a dogma about Scripture that is not founded in Scripture. How self-refuting and self-contradicting!
I adhere to Prima Scriptura, a doctrine well-founded within the Church since its beginning. This doctrine affirms that God-breathed Scripture holds prime (not sole) authority.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@msm1876 - Irenaeus writes in 'Against Heresies', Book II, ch. XXX, sect. 9:
"He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things.... by the word of His power.... He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living.... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...."
So, the attribution given is to God the Father, unlike in 'Hebrews' where it's given to the Son.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>So, the attribution given is to God the Father, unlike in 'Hebrews' where it's given to the Son.
It's still a reference to Heb 1:3, if a misapplied one.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 - Now, on to the so-called 'Fragments of Irenaeus'.
In 1715, C.M. Pfaff, professor at Tübingen, claimed to have discovered four short extracts of Irenaeus in a library in Turin. However, the manuscript was never seen again. Critics suspected that they were not genuine. In the 19th century, doubts arose over the authenticity of the second fragment because Irenaeus nowhere else attributed 'Hebrews' to Paul.
In 1900, A. Harnack proved that all four were scholarly fakes by Pfaff himself.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@msm1876
(Continued)
As a result, the Pfaff fragments are no longer part of contemporary scholarship for Irenaeus, but the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers' series published an English translation of them before their inauthenticity had been settled. The four fraudulent "fragments" are numbered XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII and XXXIX. It's the so-called "fragment" XXXVII bearing citation of Hebrews 13:15 — "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips" — complete with Pauline attribution.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>> >>>1 Clement is dated anywhere from 95 AD to the mid-second century, so the penning of 'Hebrews' wasn't necessarily before 100
I STRONGLY suspect that it's 1 Clement is 1st century; Ignatius alludes to it in 106:
Ye have never ENVIED any one; ye have taught others (Romans 3)
What was 1Clement about? Correcting, teaching, the Corinthians concerning their ENVIOUS attitudes.
Let the dominoes fall. If 1 Clement is first century...so is Hebrews.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "Ye have never envied any one.... (Romans 3)"
Yes, this is Ignatius' letter to the Romans, 3:1.
I was unable to locate any such parallel in 1 Clement. Can you?
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
• Jesus' power is given to him (Matthew 28:18), not simply assumed.
• Jesus was TAUGHT (by God). (John 8:28) God knows all. (1 John 3:20)
• No man has ever seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12), unlike Jesus.
• God is not a son of man (Numbers 23:19), unlike Jesus. (80+ times in NT)
Thus, the "Jesus is a god" and "God is a trinity" myths are biblically unfounded.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
• God is sovereign over all. (Daniel 5:21) Jesus is His servant. (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Acts 3:13; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:27 Acts 4:30)
• Jesus is subordinate to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:28)
• God's understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5), but Jesus' is not. (Luke 2:52)
• Jesus was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15), unlike God. (James 1:13)
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives "Jesus is not YHWH. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; Mark 12:29)"
All 3 of those verses do not prove anything. Those verses don't say Jesus is not Yahweh. In fact the Bible says many times Jesus IS Yahweh: John 12:36-41 (compare Isaiah 6:1-10), Hebrews 1:10-12 (compare Psalm 102:25-27), Php 2:9-11 (compare Isaiah 45:23), Hebrews 13:8 (compare Malachi 3:6). The Bible undeniably identifies Jesus as Yahweh. In order for your doctrines to be true, you must refute all of these.
ETHANGELIST 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
Jesus cannot be YHWH, because YHWH is Father, not Son.
"A son honors father, and a servant, master. But if I am Father, where is my honor? And if I am Master, where is my fear? So say I, YHWH Tzevaot, to you, O priests, despising my name! Yet, ye have said, "In what have we despised your name?" (Malachi 1:6)
In 225 AD, Hippolytus spoke of the Sabellians, saying, "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father himself is the Son."
So, are you a Sabellian?
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Jesus cannot be YHWH, because YHWH is Father, not Son.
YHWH is Father, Son, and Spirit.
THe Speaker of Zechariah 12:10 is NOT the Father...but it is YHWH...and it is fulfilled when CHrist is looked upon pierced on the cross.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "YHWH is Father, Son, and Spirit."
Maybe according to trinitarianism, but this dogma has no biblical basis.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>Jesus was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15),
So you slam Hebrews as being incompetent, and then use it to disprove CHrist's deity? Wow.
Here's a better renderning of James 1:13 from the Douay Rheims:
For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.
The context is not about God not being tempted, it's about him not being a tempter.
msm1876 10 months ago
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives That's great; the context is still God not being a tempter.
msm1876 10 months ago
• Jesus is not omniscient. (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32)
• Jesus is not immutable. (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8)
• Jesus is not YHWH. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; Mark 12:29)
• God is not a man. (Numbers 23:19) Jesus is a man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
• God is immortal. (Romans 1:23) Jesus died. (Mark 15:37, etc.)
• God is good, and He alone, but not Jesus. (Luke 18:19)
• God is greater than men (Job 33:12), including Jesus. (John 14:28)
• Jesus sought God's will, not his own. (Luke 22:42; John 5:30, 6:38)
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
Let me ask you a question. How did God create everything through or by his Son?
FalseTrinityDoctrine 10 months ago
Hebrews 1:10-12 is NUCLEAR to Arianism. Absolutely NUCLEAR. The Father calls the Son LORD. In the LXX, when Lord appears, it's a translation of the Divine Name YHWH. The Father is basically saying, "In the Beginning, YHWH..." to Christ. It also says that the HANDS of Christ made the universe, in the OT, it was the HANDS of YHWH.
Some heretics have to actually rationalize Hebrews out of the Canon, based on these three verses being SO toxic to their dogma.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Another NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians>>>>Jesus was the first son(Pro 30:4) who was born(Col 1:15) before all creation was than brought again[anew](Hbr 1:6) to be born as Mary' firstborn(Mat 1:25). The firstborn died in the flesh in which was created life by the life giving spirit of his father whose son Jesus became the firstborn from the dead who was the beginning of all creation that in all things he might have the preeminence.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
Actually, Hebrews 1:6, while something of an echo of Psalm 99:7, is a direct quote from the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43. In it, Moses is commanding the angels to bid full relligious worship to YHWH.
msm1876 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@msm1876 This is a NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians>>>>Col 1:15 He is the image(eikōn-an image, figure, likeness) of the invisible God, the firstborn(prōtotokos-the firstborn) of all creation...And again(palin-anew) , when God brings his firstborn(prōtotokos-the firstborn) into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him-Hbr 1:6. Jesus was known as the firstborn before all creation that is why he is the first(beginning) creation of God.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Really? Colossians 1:15? REALLY? I honestly can't believe you Arians insist that verse means Christ is a creature. I just can't.
And once again, you respond to NONE of the arguments made here; NONE. You just vomit forth Arian prooftexts.
msm1876 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@msm1876 Says who>Really? Colossians 1:15? REALLY? I honestly can't believe you Arians insist that verse means Christ is a creature. I just can't...Col 1:15 4416. prototokos Definition: first-born, eldest. from prótos and tokos (childbirth, offspring); from tiktó--------NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE for trinitrians
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz You're completely ignoring Ethan and My arguments concerning Hebrews 1:10-12; you're just saying, "Well, that can't mean he's God b/c Col 1:15 sez he's created!"
watch?v=OVbfmTrecV8
I pretty well put the notion of this HAVING to mean CHrist is a creature to rest in the above vid. And it's not the "supremacy" argument. ; )
Pretty strange that Paul was teaching Christ was a creature...and yet NO ONE saw it that way until the late 200s??
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Hbr 1:10..Lord( kyrios)<Doesn't say Yĕhovah, to bad for you guys. Hbr 1:2 ..through whom(Son) also he(Father) created the world.=Col 1:15-16 God created all things in his son who is the first created son before all things.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Well, hang on there Pardner...In Psalm 102 in the LXX, when it says, "In the Beginning LORD" what is LORD the Word for? Ask any JW, they'll gladly tell you it was the Tetragramaton.
So the Father is calling the Son LORD in the "Title of Deity" sense. A person calls a person LORD for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as Deity.
There ya go.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Ok, if you want to make those lame comparisons than King Solomon is God too- Psa 45:6-7 as Jesus is God-Hbr 1:8-9. King Solomon is divine as Jesus is divine, so all of Father God' family are divine-2Pe 1:3-4. All Father God' family including Jesus received their divine nature by their heavenly father.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@msm1876 Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. You are day dreaming i don't see LORD in Psa 102:25. You guys love to make stuff up.
Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord(kyrios), in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: I don't see Lord(kyrios) nor LORD in Psa 102:25. And i don't see LORD in Hbr 1:10.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Read the LXX version of Psalm 102:25, **which is what the author of Hebrews is quoting** and then stop back here with an apology concerning us making things up.
Again, you just read the version translated from the Masoretic text, not the LXX.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Tehillim - Psalms - Chapter 102:26. In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.<This one is different.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. All other translation read the same, to bad for you guys. Psa 102:25 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Yeah, well, which version did the author of Hebrews quote? That would be the authentic one!
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 I agree with all the translations that agree with each other not the LXX that doesn't agree with the others.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz And not to mention, this is a moot point. The Father is addressing his Son as LORD. A person calls a person LORD for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as Deity.
There ya go.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Yeah, the father is addressing his Son as Lord( kyrios) and not LORD. Keep dreaming, maybe one day your dreams will come true.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Ok, Kurios, fine. Again, I will state: A person calls a person kurios for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as Deity.
There ya go.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 God the father calls King Solomon God- Psa 45:6-7. So King Solomon is deity as Jesus is deity.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz That there was a dodge, Cruzie.
We both agree that the Father is not subordinate to the Son? I'll re-state, so you don't get off the hook: A person calls a person kurios for 2 reasons in scripture:
1) You are subordinate to that person; (God isn't subordinate to Christ)
2) That person is addressing that person as YHWH.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Mar 12:29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments [is]: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD(kyrios) our God, the LORD(kyrios) is one. Hbr 1:10..Lord(kyrios).. 1Pe 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord(kyrios)
Jesus is (kyrios), and Abraham is (kyrios)=Two (kyrios). But Jesus said, his (kyrios) God, (kyrios) is one. Try again M&M'S.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz >>> Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord(kyrios)
Good try, but Sarah was subordinate to Abe. THAT'S why she called him Kyrios. THe Father is NOT subordinate to the Son. Why is He calling HIM Kyrios?
Hint: There's only one other scriptural answer.
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 Jesus praises his (kyrios) theos, (kyrios) theos doesn't praise Jesus. The (kyrios) Jesus is not inherently immortal, only (kyrios) theos is inherently immortal. The (kyrios) Jesus changes in nature cause he is a creature, (kyrios) theos is not a creation. The (kyrios) Jesus is subject to time and space because he is a creature, (kyrios) theos who alone is timeless and spaceless creates time and space for his creatures.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@msm1876 Can you refute HeroOfChristArchives posts? No, you can't. You may try, but half truths will never prevail.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz Whoa, Sarge, hang on. I'll deal with him in due time. I want YOU to deal with the situation in Hebrews 1:10-12. Why is God calling Christ Kyrios?
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 & @ ETHANGELIST 7. Ok, guys, all that effort you guys made in quoting scripture are all misinterpretations. Why, because in your assumptions Jesus is Yahweh God who died, is very lame. Jesus said his God Yahweh is one who is inherently immortal(1Ti 6:16; 1Ti 1:17; Romans 1:23). You guys are so desperate to win a debate that on your part has no merit. God' word(Jesus) refutes you guys.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz "Jesus said his God Yahweh is one who is inherently immortal(1Ti 6:16; 1Ti 1:17; Romans 1:23)."
The verses you referenced... those are all Paul's letters. Jesus didn't say that...
"You guys are so desperate to win a debate that on your part has no merit."
Your whole argument can be summed up thus: "I'm right you're wrong." LOL
ETHANGELIST 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST The verses you referenced... those are all Paul's letters. Jesus didn't say that...<Your comment is so lame, Paul under God the father' anointing spoke and wrote those letters.(1Ti 6:16; 1Ti 1:17; Romans 1:23)." God the father was declaring himself through Paul that he was the only God who is inherently immortal. Jesus died which implies he wasn't inherently immortal. And, yes, you are always right in your own opinion so LOL all you want.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz said: "The verses you referenced are all (from) Paul's letters"
What's ironic is that Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was neither an eyewitness or an earwitness to the ministry of Jesus the Nazarene. In his letter to the Galatians, he goes so far as to admit, "For neither did I receive it (Paul's gospel) from a man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12) Paul had neither heard Jesus proclaim the Gospel, nor did he accompany Jesus during his ministry.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@msm1876 asked: "Why is God calling Christ Kyrios (in Hebrews 1:10-12)?"
The author of 'Hebrews' INTERPOLATED the word κυριε into his citation (Hebrews 1:10) of Psalm 102:25. No such equivalent is to be found in the Hebrew!
לפנים הארץ יסדת ומעשה ידיך שמים
"Formerly, the earth you have founded; the work of your hands are the heavens."
(Psalm 102:25)
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchivesThe author of 'Hebrews' INTERPOLATED the word κυριε >>>
Would you PLEASE pay attention? The word Kurios occurs in the LXX...just not in the Masoretic text! The copies of the LXX are MUCH older than the Masoretic text...could it be that a Hebrew copyist removed it?
msm1876 10 months ago
@msm1876 said: "The word Kurios occurs in the LXX, just not in the Masoretic"
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation. It is not the authoritative Hebrew.
@msm1876 said: "The copies of the LXX are MUCH older than the Masoretic"
Your point? The LXX is a translation. The Masoretic is the preserved Hebrew.
@msm1876 asked: "Could it be that a Hebrew copyist removed it?"
Highly unlikely, given the meticulousness of the Jewish scribes through history. There's no evidence of casual emendation.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroOfChristArchives >>>"Could it be that a Hebrew copyist removed it?"
Highly unlikely, given the meticulousness of the Jewish scribes through history. There's no evidence of casual emendation.>>>
You sure? Google "Deuteronomy 32:43 dead sea scrolls." The Phrase "Let all of God's angels worship him" is in the LXX, the most ancient DSS, yet not in the Masoretic text.
The MT is a SUPERB Mss, but it ain't 100% preserved Hebrew.
msm1876 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CristoYcruz >>>Can you refute HeroOfChristArchives posts? No, you can't. You may try, but half truths will never prevail
I also just saw him call the Author of Hebrews "Incompetent." Looks like he wants that book outta the Canon b/c HE realizes how toxic to his heresy it is. You know you're a heretic when...
msm1876 10 months ago
@CristoYcruz "You are day dreaming i don't see LORD in Psa 102:25. You guys love to make stuff up."
Dude, in fact, it doesn't even matter if "lord" is found in Ps 102:25 or not. Read the whole Psalm and the context is clearly without a doubt, addressed to Yahweh alone. "LORD/YHWH" is mentioned 8 times in Psalm 102. The whole Psalm is addressed to Yahweh and that includes verses 25-27, which the writer of Hebrews in Heb 1:10-12 applies to Jesus. Therefore Jesus = YHWH. It is undeniable. Repent.
ETHANGELIST 10 months ago
@ETHANGELIST Keep rejecting and denying Jesus declaration of his faith in his God Yahweh is one-Mar 12:29. So did Jesus believe in Jesus Yahweh, Father Yahweh, Holy Spirit Yahweh. Jesus=Yahweh is salvation<Jesus name was given to him by Yahweh who sent his son in his name to earth.
CristoYcruz 10 months ago