One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Religious question!!
Page <<first <prev 66 of 90 next> last>>
Nov 10, 2019 21:35:10   #
Fodaoson Loc: South Texas
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Cannot be co-equal... Christ specifically stated that God gave him his power... And that he himself could do nothing except through the Father... Numerous verses prove that the relationship was not co-equal...


from wikipedia:
Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Hypostasis (Greek: ὑπόστασις) is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus.
In Christian theology, a hypostasis is one of the three hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity.The Encyclopedia of Christianity Volume 5 by Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milic Lochman and John Mbiti (2008) ISBN 080282417X p. 543
Contents
Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]
Pseudo-Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance.[1]
Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are: the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.[2][3]
Christian theology[edit]
See also: Trinity and Hypostatic union
In early Christian writings, hypostasis is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia ('essence' or 'substance'). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325.
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[4] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes:
The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.[4]
This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different. Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance); thus when speaking of three "hypostases" in the godhead, they might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one god existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.[5]

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 21:42:54   #
Fodaoson Loc: South Texas
 
Fodaoson wrote:
from wikipedia:
Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Hypostasis (Greek: ὑπόστασις) is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus.
In Christian theology, a hypostasis is one of the three hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity.The Encyclopedia of Christianity Volume 5 by Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milic Lochman and John Mbiti (2008) ISBN 080282417X p. 543
Contents
Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]
Pseudo-Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance.[1]
Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are: the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.[2][3]
Christian theology[edit]
See also: Trinity and Hypostatic union
In early Christian writings, hypostasis is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia ('essence' or 'substance'). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325.
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[4] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes:
The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.[4]
This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different. Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance); thus when speaking of three "hypostases" in the godhead, they might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one god existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.[5]
from wikipedia: br Hypostasis (philosophy and reli... (show quote)


The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the Trinity as "a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the 'mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God'", and it declares: "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life.

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 21:44:46   #
rumitoid
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I would like to second this...

Absolutely no quarrel...

Just a discussion...

Amen


Amen and amen.

Reply
 
 
Nov 10, 2019 21:49:01   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Fodaoson wrote:
from wikipedia:
Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Hypostasis (Greek: ὑπόστασις) is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus.
In Christian theology, a hypostasis is one of the three hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Trinity.The Encyclopedia of Christianity Volume 5 by Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milic Lochman and John Mbiti (2008) ISBN 080282417X p. 543
Contents
Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]
Pseudo-Aristotle used hypostasis in the sense of material substance.[1]
Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three higher spiritual principles, or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are: the Soul, the Intellect, and the One.[2][3]
Christian theology[edit]
See also: Trinity and Hypostatic union
In early Christian writings, hypostasis is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia ('essence' or 'substance'). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325.
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[4] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes:
The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.[4]
This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different. Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance); thus when speaking of three "hypostases" in the godhead, they might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one god existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.[5]
from wikipedia: br Hypostasis (philosophy and reli... (show quote)


Hope the other Trinitarians are paying attention to this post

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:01:13   #
PeterS
 
Parky60 wrote:
I'm not a regressive conservative Pete. And I'm definitely not a f*****t.

You always seem to conveniently forget that part of the definition f*****m states: EXALTS nation and often race above the individual (God is the only one I exalt and ALL races are equal) AND I certainly don't support a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

And if you can't see -- it's as plain as the nose on your face -- that the liberal progressives are trying to lead us into socialism and the next step c*******m you truly are a useful i***t.
I'm not a regressive conservative Pete. And I'm de... (show quote)

So you don't believe in MAGA or the current catchphrase "Keep America Great" or Donald Trump who is the most Authoritarian president we have probably ever had?

Beliefs and behaviors are quite often two different things. Our ideologies are never fixed but guided by our propensity to do something. For Liberals it a propensity towards C*******m and for Conservatives, it's a propensity towards F*****m. Having a propensity towards something doesn't mean I am a C*******t or you a f*****t but I recognize the worst that Liberalism can develop into whereas few if any Conservatives realize the worst that Conservatism can evolve into. Therein lies the problem. It's a bit like if we have a genetic propensity for cancer and we ignore it then developing cancer when it could have been prevented by simply admitting our propensity and doing something about it when we can.

If we don't take care to develop the worse that is in our ideology by what force do we use to prevent becoming that thing?

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:08:26   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
rumitoid wrote:
Why do you always pull off this charade about me not answering your questions? No matter. Let me see, you want verses in the Bible that speaks out against a false doctrine not expressed for centuries after the New Testament? Curious. Try this for a beginning in defeating this apostate belief. This video accurately shows how the idea of the trinity had similar pagan roots like Easter and Christmas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bThWd1HgnTY You, Texacan, are falling for an ancient heresy.

Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386).

With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.

The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge! Read the rest here, if you dare: https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine
Why do you always pull off this charade about me n... (show quote)

Well, it’s not a charade! You didn’t answer my questions! You don’t even know what the questions were concerning your accusations! It had nothing to do with the Trinity! Is it really that hard to keep up with what you are talking about? I would attempt to go back over the whole conversation, but I seriously doubt if you could keep up or even remember your ridiculous unbiblical accusations! Apparently you can’t read!

Rant on Rumi! On that you are an expert!

You Rumi, yes you.....can’t keep up with who’s discussing what and you DON’T answer questions!
Be Still and know that I am God!
Does that ring a 🛎?

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:17:58   #
Rose42
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Catholics are Trinitarians...

According to many of your earlier threads they promote multiple false doctrines...

I guess if we apply your "logic" to the argument, then the Trinity must also be false doctrine...


Nope. I also said the Catholic doctrine is not Christian. And its not ‘according to me’, its according to the bible.

Reply
 
 
Nov 10, 2019 22:27:41   #
Rose42
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Tommy's answer concerning who Christ was is who Christ was according to Tommy.

Who IS Christ according to Jesus Himself?

Jesus, in response to the Pharisees’ question “Who do you think you are?” said, “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.’ ‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ the Jews said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’ ‘I tell you the t***h,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I AM!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (John 8:56–59). The violent response of the Jews to Jesus’ “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring—that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3: 13-14

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.
Colossians 2: 8-10
Tommy's answer concerning who Christ was is who Ch... (show quote)


It was according to Tommy and it was not biblical. That is the problem.

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:31:41   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
Nope. I also said the Catholic doctrine is not Christian. And its not ‘according to me’, its according to the bible.


You completely missed the point...

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:32:27   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
It was according to Tommy and it was not biblical. That is the problem.


Except Tommy backed his opinion up using the Bible... I think that might be the problem...
For some...

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 22:46:29   #
Rose42
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Except Tommy backed his opinion up using the Bible... I think that might be the problem...
For some...


No he didn’t. He misused and misapplied scripture and that is obvious to any bible believing Christian. And he ended up meandering all over the place and going nowhere. The reason his posts lack any power is because they are false teaching.

He no more backed it up than the Joel Osteen types have backed up theirs.

Reply
 
 
Nov 10, 2019 22:57:30   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
No he didn’t. He misused and misapplied scripture and that is obvious to any bible believing Christian. And he ended up meandering all over the place and going nowhere. The reason his posts lack any power is because they are false teaching.

He no more backed it up than the Joel Osteen types have backed up theirs.


Which scripture did he misuse? Be specific... Show how it should have been used and how he misapplied it...

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 23:07:13   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
No he didn’t. He misused and misapplied scripture and that is obvious to any bible believing Christian. And he ended up meandering all over the place and going nowhere. The reason his posts lack any power is because they are false teaching.

He no more backed it up than the Joel Osteen types have backed up theirs.


Try this one... Just the one... Please demonstrate how Tommy misused the verses to support his "false" understanding....

Quote Tommyradd:
"“Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same... Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people... (Hebrews 2:14–18)

This verse clearly disallows Christ as a God-man hybrid by clearly defining him as being made in all things like his brothers. This verse simply reiterated the description that God gave to Moses, namely that the Messiah would be like his brothers."

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 23:27:12   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Co-equal they are, and that has nothing to do with the mutual love, cooperation and respect within the Godhead.

You cannot relegate the God of the Universe to the union laws of the Teamsters under Jimmy Hoffa.


Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
So God the Father and God the Son are not co-equal?

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 23:39:37   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
TexaCan wrote:
Well, it’s not a charade! You didn’t answer my questions! You don’t even know what the questions were concerning your accusations! It had nothing to do with the Trinity! Is it really that hard to keep up with what you are talking about? I would attempt to go back over the whole conversation, but I seriously doubt if you could keep up or even remember your ridiculous unbiblical accusations! Apparently you can’t read!

Rant on Rumi! On that you are an expert!

You Rumi, yes you.....can’t keep up with who’s discussing what and you DON’T answer questions!
Be Still and know that I am God!
Does that ring a 🛎?
Well, it’s not a charade! You didn’t answer my qu... (show quote)



Reply
Page <<first <prev 66 of 90 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.