Oh Ivan. I didn't even know you have a debate with that heretic. I'll just watch your side of it. I'm pretty sure I already have seen all the Trinitarian arguments. =P
@thephosphatemine Lactantius [240-320]: "...God, ...before approaching the remarkable task of making this world, created a holy and incorruptible spirit whom he called his son and though he later created countless others, whom we call angels, this, his First-Born, was the only one he distinguished with a name of divine significance, presumably because he had his Father's qualities of power and supremacy..." - (Divinae institutiones 4.6.1)
@thephosphatemine Arius believed that the holy spirit was created by the Son [If im not wrong]. That's why I said that Origen did not know the concept of "Arianism"... But my point was that he nor any of the early christians believed on a "tri{3}nity".
@thephosphatemine This is what Origen actually wrote. Origen [185-254 C.E.]: "...(Contra Celsum L. V. Page 257) "For the Son of God, the firstborn of every creature, altho' he seems to have been incarnate but very lately, yet therefore he is not a late Being; for the sacred Oracles own him to be the Ancientest of all Creatures..." - (William Whiston Primative Christianity Revived Vol 4 Page 154)
@thephosphatemine Epiphanius-on-Origen [310-403 C.E.]: “...is the text of every word, to show you, scholarly hearer, that Origen plainly held that the Son of God is a creature... But since I have found many instances that Origen wrongly distingushes between the Only-begotten God and the Father's Godhead and essense” - (Page 136-137; SECTION IV. 5:9; The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Volume 2 By Frank Williams.) Seems like this trinitarian disagrees, and this is not the only one.
@thephosphatemine Origen viewed all spiritual beings, both what he calls theoi and human souls, as eternal beings. Origen’s doctrine countered the assertion that the Son must be later than the Father. Creation for Origen applies to everything that comes from God as eternal. But one wonders to what extent he subordinates the Son to the Father. Was the son a creature for Orgien or not? Let's see what Epiphanius had to say about Origen in the Fourth Century:
@thephosphatemine I'm not sure if Origen knew the concept of "arianism" at his time, but it seems that he just wrote what early christians believed around the Fist and Second Century like Aristedes, II Clement, Papias, Policarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Clement of Rome, etc.
It worth looking at the DSS genesis apocraphon (which may be of Sadusaical thought) which refers too the THREE FRIENDS who eat and drink with Abraham.
There are mishna and talmud documents that point to YHWH + 3 men (note the MT marginal for verse 2 is questionable - the latest JPS (2000) & the NEB use "lords" & "sirs" respectively).
…But when we regard the Saviour as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all. [ANF04 - Against Celsus – Book VIII – Chapter 15]
There’s also proof on patristic writings, For example: [Origen – 180-250 A.D] …“For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. …(continues)
Oh Ivan. I didn't even know you have a debate with that heretic. I'll just watch your side of it. I'm pretty sure I already have seen all the Trinitarian arguments. =P
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian Yeah, lol ... I think it was the time when you went on a hiatus from YouTube!
IvanDefendingTruth 1 month ago
Comment removed
afterraincomessun 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Lactantius [240-320]: "...God, ...before approaching the remarkable task of making this world, created a holy and incorruptible spirit whom he called his son and though he later created countless others, whom we call angels, this, his First-Born, was the only one he distinguished with a name of divine significance, presumably because he had his Father's qualities of power and supremacy..." - (Divinae institutiones 4.6.1)
Castillodearagon 7 months ago 2
@thephosphatemine Arius believed that the holy spirit was created by the Son [If im not wrong]. That's why I said that Origen did not know the concept of "Arianism"... But my point was that he nor any of the early christians believed on a "tri{3}nity".
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine This is what Origen actually wrote. Origen [185-254 C.E.]: "...(Contra Celsum L. V. Page 257) "For the Son of God, the firstborn of every creature, altho' he seems to have been incarnate but very lately, yet therefore he is not a late Being; for the sacred Oracles own him to be the Ancientest of all Creatures..." - (William Whiston Primative Christianity Revived Vol 4 Page 154)
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Epiphanius-on-Origen [310-403 C.E.]: “...is the text of every word, to show you, scholarly hearer, that Origen plainly held that the Son of God is a creature... But since I have found many instances that Origen wrongly distingushes between the Only-begotten God and the Father's Godhead and essense” - (Page 136-137; SECTION IV. 5:9; The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Volume 2 By Frank Williams.) Seems like this trinitarian disagrees, and this is not the only one.
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Origen viewed all spiritual beings, both what he calls theoi and human souls, as eternal beings. Origen’s doctrine countered the assertion that the Son must be later than the Father. Creation for Origen applies to everything that comes from God as eternal. But one wonders to what extent he subordinates the Son to the Father. Was the son a creature for Orgien or not? Let's see what Epiphanius had to say about Origen in the Fourth Century:
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine Origen argued that Jesus and the Father were different Gods in John 1:1...
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@thephosphatemine I'm not sure if Origen knew the concept of "arianism" at his time, but it seems that he just wrote what early christians believed around the Fist and Second Century like Aristedes, II Clement, Papias, Policarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Clement of Rome, etc.
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
It worth looking at the DSS genesis apocraphon (which may be of Sadusaical thought) which refers too the THREE FRIENDS who eat and drink with Abraham.
There are mishna and talmud documents that point to YHWH + 3 men (note the MT marginal for verse 2 is questionable - the latest JPS (2000) & the NEB use "lords" & "sirs" respectively).
dunklaw 7 months ago
…But when we regard the Saviour as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all. [ANF04 - Against Celsus – Book VIII – Chapter 15]
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
There’s also proof on patristic writings, For example: [Origen – 180-250 A.D] …“For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. …(continues)
Castillodearagon 7 months ago
Hey Ivan nice job. How have you been? I hope things are well.
Josiahvidz 7 months ago
EXCELENT EXCELLENT video Ivan
JAKEV25 7 months ago