Author Topic: Can you explain?  (Read 29621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline studier

  • Restricted
  • *
  • Posts: 1805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can you explain?
« Reply #575 on: September 08, 2008, 12:31:56 AM »
When will people learn to quit using lies and fallacy to prove what they think is right and true. This is the kind of non-sense that comes because of it.

Quote from: WillieH
JESUS is a SON... a SON is an OFFSPRING...  Everyone noting Him as GOD in and of Himself, is clinging to TRADITION...

BABYLON (the system of TRADITION), is that which makes the WORD, inert and powerless by its insistence of ITSELF (Matt 15:6 / Mk 7:13)

What WillieH is saying everyone is that anything that has TRADITION is wrong.  The existence of God is tradtion, the resurrection of the dead is tradition, salvation is in tradition and therefore if what WillieH is saying folks, is that if you is that if you believe anything that is found in tradition, you are living a lie. Therefore WillieH is saying you believe in a lie from the beginning. He is saying God doesn't exist, Jesus did not come and die and raise from the dead, or that there is any salvation. The reason, once again, is because these things are CLINGING TO TRADITION. Even WillieH has nullified everything he believes by his own words as well. So don't take it to hard.

Offline Pierac

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1377
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can you explain?
« Reply #576 on: September 08, 2008, 12:34:46 AM »
Hi! Pleroo

No brother, wrong! Jesus Christ was Christ/Jehovah/Word/God in the flesh, not of the dust of the earth like ours but a heavenly body specially prepared for Him. "....who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."  (Phil.2:6-8).

He is very much God and very much man at the same time.
Roy   UK

Roy, both you and Craig have expressed belief in the "kenotic doctrine." Many Trinitarians use Phil.2:6-8 to show how Jesus became a man, and gave up his deity. The problem is it completely goes against the Chalcedon Creed which you both agreed with.

Chalcedon Creed (451 AD)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
This shows how little people understand their creeds.  People try to use the "kenotic doctrine" it in defense of the trinity. But it is in total contradiction to the Chalcedon Creed. The Kenotic Doctrine says that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus' nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the kenotic doctrine, then you have already rejected the trinity. You cannot be both.

Even the Pope, who we all know is a Trinitarian agrees. In 1951 at the 1500 anniversary of  the Council of Chalcedon wrote the following:

There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (2:7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations.  Encyclical of Pope Pius the 12th on the Council of Chalcedon September 8, 1951  (paragraph 29).

You also create another problem, a very BIG problem. If the second part of the Godhead becomes a man, then so does the first part! ( two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation). One can not become flesh with out the other. This Chalcedon doctrine has God the Father also becoming a man.   Heresy of the highest order!

When you combine all the creeds you can see theological mental gymnastics at it's best. 

My belief is easier... The LORD our God is one! ...  No mental gymnastics required!




Offline studier

  • Restricted
  • *
  • Posts: 1805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can you explain?
« Reply #577 on: September 08, 2008, 12:42:15 AM »
Roy, both you and Craig have expressed belief in the "kenotic doctrine." Many Trinitarians use Phil.2:6-8 to show how Jesus became a man, and gave up his deity. The problem is it completely goes against the Chalcedon Creed which you both agreed with.

Why do you lie? Pierac, show us anywhere where I said I agreed with the Chalcedon Creed?

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: Can you explain?
« Reply #578 on: September 08, 2008, 02:28:02 AM »
Basically, this thread is starting to lose it's civil tone and I'm not sure how to reclaim it.  It's one of the subjects that Gary did not want on the boards, but as long as everything was civil and it wasn't turning into a playground fight, then I was tolerating it.  It's nearly 25 pages long.  Surely by now there's a sampling of the views of many of the people on the boards.  It was a subject that I was hoping would sorta go away on it's own.  A few honest questions turned into a few more, and that was fine.  But the fruitfulness of where this is going is questionable now.  A few people have been reporting posts with increasing regularity from this thread and when you use the "report post" feature on the posts, Gary's still listed in the administrative section of the boards as an administrator, so he gets a copy of all of those.  If all went according to plan, then he had hip replacement surgery this past Friday.  Not sure when he'd be back with his normal routine, checking email, etc.  I don't want him to have 50 emails about this one thread to ask me about why I allowed the thread to start with.  He might already have 50.  He forwarded one of the complaints to me this past week and his only comment was "Whine. Whine."  If we're going to ever p.o. Gary, then I want it to be 'cause 75 ETers joined the boards all at once and it turned into an absolute free for all on a dozen threads about ET, so that it's at least the actual purpose of the boards that got a little out of hand, kapish?

This issue is a never ending "merry-go-round",...
Yup!

I want to keep everyone that we have, so just a quick reminder about some of the rules, from this other page on the rules board:
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=2693.0

Quote
For these one warning will be given and then if repeated, you will be banned without further explanation.  The ban may be of time duration but rather expect it to be permanent.
...
4. Calling out any member's views/opinions as stupid, dumb, crazy etc. viz. insults.
5. Public criticism of moderation decisions.
6. Starting a new thread of a similar topic as one that is recently locked.

They were the rules that I inherited when I became admin this past May.  Though I may eventually choose to reword a few things, ""when I have time,"" I [generally] like the rules that we have in place because they [essentially and for the most part] are just defined standards of conduct that keep the place civil.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 03:15:35 AM by martincisneros »

Offline Pierac

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1377
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can you explain?
« Reply #579 on: September 08, 2008, 06:56:50 AM »
Roy, both you and Craig have expressed belief in the "kenotic doctrine." Many Trinitarians use Phil.2:6-8 to show how Jesus became a man, and gave up his deity. The problem is it completely goes against the Chalcedon Creed which you both agreed with.

Why do you lie? Pierac, show us anywhere where I said I agreed with the Chalcedon Creed?

No lie, just an honest mistake. I know you did not hold the traditional view so I should have check the creeds and dates. There are sooo many. You were Ok with the Nicene Creed 325. However, you do teach the "kenotic doctrine."  Sorry for the mistake, Just wanted to correct this error and let everyone know you did not accept the Chalcedon Creed. My Bad!  :mblush: