davidylan:

Does deepsight do anything else besides post on his confusions here?

^^ I just wonder!

davidylan:

Does deepsight do anything else besides post on his confusions here?

viaro:

^^ I just wonder!

You folks need to show some respect. Have you forgotten that i am the only begotten son of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to be persecuted for your sins? ? ?

Bow down and worship. . .! ! !

Deep Sight:

Well in all honesty i realized not everything one apprehends in one's mind can be easily communicated in words.

Spend a few moments deeply reflecting on that statement - especially because it comes from you. Do you realise that such holds even truer when discussing with them about issues you don't understand? There are things I don't understand in other peoples' worldviews - I used the example of the Hindu's 'cows are God'; since I don't understand what the informed Hindu might mean, I would not go about "disdaining" him/her on such things. It were better for me to discuss with such a thinker without trying to run him/her aground when in particularly I'm not a Hindu.

There are issues about the Christian faith that many Christians may not be able to communicate in words to your mind's apprehension. When you appreciate that fact, you won't need to go about with "disdain" at what things you can't grasp in the Christian faith.

This point must be all the more appreciated when dealing with the ultimate mystery: GOD.

There's no problem with dealing with such things as ultimate questions, ultimate realities, or even the 'ultimate Mystery' - GOD. Your problem, however, is that you approach the discussions about the ultimate Mystery with such reckless abandon as to make us wonder if you're bereft of any thread of intelligence. You should be able to respect your own limitations (as I'm always conscious of mine); and where you may not be able to grasp the understanding of others in their concept of GOD, you don't need to go about rabidly deriding them for what they believe on that question! To do so would make one wonder why you're so driven with such attitudes, as if you want to tell the Christian how to believe in 'God' while you don't subscribe to the Christian faith! It is just as if viaro would be telling you how to be a deist and yet not subscribing to deism on my own part!

DeepSight, leave these matters and let others be. The mystery of the Christian faith is beyond your grasp, and expressing 'disdain' for what is beyond you is not an intellectually sound display of any rationality you would like to impress anyone with.

Deep Sight:

You folks need to show some respect. Have you forgotten that i am the only begotten son of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to be persecuted for your sins? ? ?

Bow down and worship. . .! ! !

poor deep sight . . . the guy must have a flu.

What is wrong with you David? Having trouble accepting me as your Lord and personal Saviour? ? ?

Ah well, a prophet is always derided in his hometown.

This must explain why the Jews do not accept Christ but peeps all the way in Africa do!

This must also explain why you guys are rejecting me as your personal lord and saviour.

davidylan:

poor deep sight . . . the guy must have a flu.

^^ what are you talking about??. . . please hang on, let me peep:

Deep Sight:

You folks need to show some respect. Have you forgotten that i am the only begotten son of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to be persecuted for your sins? ? ?

Bow down and worship. . .! ! !

[list]Now thou speakest plainly. . and viaro quivers -
The thunders of OOI resonating in thee
thy mount of 'transfiguration' would melt our livers
if only, besought, t'were better we screamed![/list]

[list]We hail! We hail! Though thy 'infinities' be multiplied -
Nairaland's begottens are out-of-hand forgotten!
Ever engraven on 'prose' is thy 'singularity' putrefied:
else, damned we all, are to thy esoterics rotten![/list]

[list]'Respect', cried thee, for 'tis thy sonnet untold -
Thou dost terrify with thy 'ultimate mystery'
shouldest ourselves, as slaves returned unsold
thy glory it is to assuage us with mysery![/list]

Em, DeepSight, here is viaro 'bowing' to your majestic blackhole! I tried to get out of its gravity zone, but no - I'm now at quantum leaps and seeing another dimension!

viaro:

I used the example of the Hindu's 'cows are God'; since I don't understand what the informed Hindu might mean, I would not go about "disdaining" him/her on such things.

Out with the truth abeg! DO NOT LIE – IF ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT HE THOUGHT A COW IS GOD YOU WOULD THINK THAT TO BE C.RAP.

Just as surely as I am entitled to regard your belief that a late Jewish Rabbi is the Creator God as . . .well, you know. . .B.S!!!

There are issues about the Christian faith that many Christians may not be able to communicate in words to your mind's apprehension.

Yep; I concede that it is EXTREMELY HARD to explain a belief that the man living next door is almighty God. . .

You should be able to respect your own limitations (as I'm always conscious of mine); and where you may not be able to grasp the understanding of others in their concept of GOD, you don't need to go about rabidly deriding them for what they believe on that question!

I deride no one: I deride dogma only.

Especially the dogma which seeks to get me to bow down to a Jewish Rabbi and call him almighty God . . .

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity. . .wake up and think for yourself!

The mystery of the Christian faith is beyond your grasp

That Cows or Guru Maharaji are God is also beyond my grasp!

Deep Sight:

Out with the truth abeg! DO NOT LIE – IF ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT HE THOUGHT A COW IS GOD YOU WOULD THINK THAT TO BE C.RAP.

Do you need once again to show your frustration with all caps? Truth is I have never once derided any Hindu for that text in their scripture. If you find me deriding a Hindu for that, please quote me here as truthfully as you can, thank you.

Just as surely as I am entitled to regard your belief that a late Jewish Rabbi is the Creator God as . . .well, you know. . .B.S!!!

I'm a Christian who adheres to what the Bible reveals about Jesus Christ. You cannot hang your deism on any page of the Bible, I sympathize, so I can understand your frustration.

Yep; I concede that it is EXTREMELY HARD to explain a belief that the man living next door is almighty God. . .

The difficulty in explanations does not therefore mean that you ought to go out of your way to act like the 'fundamentalist' piece of tissue paper you are. No matter how many times one has to try to reason with a fundamentalist, he never gets it - and should I be surprised at all that you're confirming it once again? Hardly. You're just a total stranger to reason, which is why I don't try any more to contain your shallow IQ.

I deride no one: I deride dogma only.

You truly do not understand what a dogma is - any idiot could deride 'dogma' because he thinks it is necessarily the 'evil word'. Please, go back to school and do some true reading. . . I'm beginning to have more respect for Abuzo-lala than the goon called Deep Sight. When you eventually vomit your 'essential deism', I shall help you deride your own 'dogma' - let me read how you cough when I do so.

Especially the dogma which seeks to get me to bow down to a Jewish Rabbi and call him almighty God . . .

This is where you shine as a confirmed and consummate knucklehead! Who in deism is asking you to bow down to Jesus Christ? The problem is that your deism has been too busy stealing concepts from other worldviews so that even at this point you're not even sure what to make of your confused claptrap. Christians who have believed know that Jesus Christ is their Lord - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (John 13:13). They do not need for any goon called DeepSight to push his deistic fundamentalism to the fore and complaining that anyone is asking you to bow down to Him when you're not even a Christian to begin with! This is what happens when you keep stealing from various religions to add up to your illiterate 'onness of infinity' - you just end up all the more confused. Funny that no Christian is grovelling about bowing down to your dead OOI, hehe . . . because we just don't need to borrow anything from your irregular singularities that has long collapsed into a blackhole!

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity. . .wake up and think for yourself!

You're a dunce! The Bible was not written at the Council of Nicea - and if anyone ought to have known that fact, you should! I have not been arguing my Christian convictions from the Bible with you from the late-comers of the 4th century, hellooo?? It would be as stupid for anyone to argue that Deism is predicated on the illiterate arguments of that fraudster, Thomas Paine! This is why you remain the most illiterate braincell on Nairaland! I pity you.

That Cows or Guru Maharaji are God is also beyond my grasp!

I'm not committing suicide over that, so you can as well swallow a rhino on that!

viaro:


You're a dunce! The Bible was not written at the Council of Nicea - and if anyone ought to have known that fact, you should!

The dates are not at issue Viaro – the content and interpretation are.

For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

Why did that heresy become important enough for the powers that be to convene a Diet targeted at addressing principally that heresy?

That is what you need to reflect on.

You cannot deny that the resolutions at the Council have largely shaped church doctrine up till this day in respect of this matter. For the influence of the Nicene Creed on literally all Christian sects existing today can scarcely be denied.

But I expect that you will deny it.

Deep Sight:

The dates are not at issue Viaro – the content and interpretation are.

Dates are as important to me as much as the contents and interpretations that may be derived from any subject. You should not make any pretences here in anywise as though you of all people would be oblivious of that fact!

For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

Why did that heresy become important enough for the powers that be to convene a Diet targeted at addressing principally that heresy?

I don't know, for viaro was not invited to sit at that august Council. I also understand all the while that you have been using the piffling heresies of Arianism to argue against the Deity of Christ, especially on His statement in John 14:28 (nevermind, Muslims also confuse themselves with such selective readings to argue against the Deity of Christ).

However, although you may not agree that Arius was a heretic who achieved more for his confusion than anything else, I wonder if you are aware that he affirmed the Deity of Christ while denying that same thing?? Are you aware that, whatever denials of Christ's Deity may be found in Arianism, Arius himself is purported to have written that Jesus Christ had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"??

I'm least bothered by his tomes of controverted christology arguing his denials of the Deity of Christ; but from that quote above we find three things he yet affirmed about Christ:

           *  that Christ had subsisted before time

           *  that Christ had subsisted before all ages

           *  and that Christ had subsisted as perfect God!

           (see Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, cited by Edward Peters in
           Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41;
           University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980)

           

So, whatever cacophony you may find most appealing in Arianism, it just perfectly suits me fine that even the heretic Arius could not deny, but rather confessed, that the Son of God had subsisted before time and before ages as "perfect God". You can interprete that any which way you want to; but please don't amuse me with your fundamentalism on this issue - you often make me pity you with your anxieties over what you have not carefully considered.

That is what you need to reflect on.

Yea, thanks - like I was completely oblivious, and need Deep Sight to come bore me with his profoundly cosmetic erudition on matters he least understands! Oh please!

You cannot deny that the resolutions at the Council have largely shaped church doctrine up till this day in respect of this matter. For the influence of the Nicene Creed on literally all Christian sects existing today can scarcely be denied.

Please stop whimpering - you're almost reading like someone with whooping cough! The Deity of Christ is not a new doctrine that was birthed at the Nicene Council; nor did Biblical Christianity begin or end with whatever cacophony the heretic Arius was campaigning.

But I expect that you will deny it.

Like you had anything that was news-worthy in the first place. Please pack yourself one corner, lost son of a dead OOI.

viaro:


You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

I would like to presume in your favour that rather than being dishonest, you perhaps are simply not seeing things from the particular perspective I had in mind.

I am fairly certain that you did not hear me state at any point in time that the Arian Controversy had anything to do with “prophetic writings” or that the issue of the deity of Christ arose during the time of Arius? ? ? Please do follow your own advise and listen to what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

What I stated was clear:

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity

It is a source of irritation that I find myself consistently having to break down grammar for you. Moreso that I know very well that understanding of language should not be a problem for you except that you deliberately make it so.

The statement of mine above simply means –

- - -> - - -> That modern Christian doctrine regarding this matter has been influenced by the decisions taken at that gathering

- Which is an incontestable and obvious fact.

I did ask you what the source of the controversy was and why it was so important at the time. Rather than address the simple question you were busy calling me names: stating that I am a dunce, etc as is your wont. I feel that it has become rather sickening the extent to which you rabidly desire to fling vulgarities and insults my way at anything that I say – be it on a secular or objective matter of any kind.

Quite simply the reason that the controversy was so important was the fact that there was a lot within scripture to suggest that Christ perhaps was not to be equated with God and things had reached a head such that it became compelling for the Church to take a stand one way or the other on the hydra-headed monster that the issue that become.

In case you do not recognise it what this basically implies is that the deity of Christ was neither a certainty nor taken for granted – if it were, there would have been no reason to take the “controversy” with any degree of seriousness.

Now I am going to introduce to you one fact which I do not know if you are aware of: that pro-trinitarian verses were actually deliberately inserted into scripture where they previously were not in the original texts.

One example of this is 1 John 5 v 7 –

The King James Version states -

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These words did not exist AT ALL in the original scripture! The discovery of older manuscripts has shown it to be a deliberate and later insertion!

Thus modern bible versions WITHOUT EXCEPTION have REMOVED these words!

What does this tell you?

That people throughout History have been so determined to manipulate scripture that outright additions have been made to scripture in a bid to foist authority for the paganistic doctrine of the Trinity.

The truth is that if there was already sufficient authority within the bible for the Trinity – THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT DELIBERATE AND FRAUDULENT INSERTION. In this context you can appreciate the questions I put to you.

Thus you need to appreciate that such manipulations are evidence of the fact that not everything handed down by the Church can be relied upon: and it remains an incontestable fact that whatever was resolved at Nicea and subsequent Councils is what the Church would have accepted as standard doctrine.

Whatever the Church accepted as standard doctrine is what the branches of the Church that later sprang out also imbibed as the supposed correct interpretation of scripture regarding the matter of the Deity of Christ.

So think again brother, and address the issues please!

Deep Sight:

I would like to presume in your favour that rather than being dishonest, you perhaps are simply not seeing things from the particular perspective I had in mind.

No worries - just make yoursef clear if you may.

I am fairly certain that you did not hear me state at any point in time that the Arian Controversy had anything to do with “prophetic writings” or that the issue of the deity of Christ arose during the time of Arius? ? ? Please do follow your own advise and listen to what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

I follow my advice well enough, but you're too full of yourself to the point of being too noisy and airy. You posed your question in connection with the Scriptures, did you not?

Deep Sight: For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

. . .and the "prophetic writings" are also part of the "accepted scriptures". So what noise are you on about? If you don't mean to say something, then don't say it - or be clear even when you must be noisy to the point of irrelevance.

What I stated was clear:

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity

Why are you now acting like a most disingenuous fellow in addition to being a fundamentalist?

DeepSight, I'm weary now of your tendency to be such an idiot. My response of the part which you first quoted was directly addressing where you mentioned "accepted scriptures", so why come here pretending to have said something completely different from what I had replied in yours?? As regards the first part of my reply which you quoted, this was what happened:
[list](a)

Deep Sight: For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

(b)

viaro: You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

[/list]
That response followed logically as above in post #73; and the part you quoted and now claiming to have said something else was addressed even earlier in my post at #71 - what game are you playing here in quoting things out of their sequence and accusing me of being dishonest?

It is a source of irritation that I find myself consistently having to break down grammar for you. Moreso that I know very well that understanding of language should not be a problem for you except that you deliberately make it so,

Get lost with your professional duplicity and championing your poor readership. If you paid any attention to what I said, you would not be returning with such arrant nonsense about breaking grammar to impress yourself! This was the same stupidity you exhibited in MyJoe's thread about non-essentials and only ended up displaying your shallowness.

The statement of mine above simply means –

- - -> - - -> That modern Christian doctrine regarding this matter has been influenced by the decisions taken at that gathering

- Which is an incontestable and obvious fact.

Please stop repeating yourself as if you didn't see I already addressed that question. Before the Nicene Council, Christians affirmed the Deity of Christ - and that doctrine was not birthed at that Council. Look for another excuse when you run out of steam; I already made the observation that fundamentalists are strangers to reason, regardless how many times plain issues are set before them.

I did ask you what the source of the controversy was and why it was so important at the time. Rather than address the simple question you were busy calling me names: stating that I am a dunce, etc as is your wont. I feel that it has become rather sickening the extent to which you rabidly desire to fling vulgarities and insults my way at anything that I say – be it on a secular or objective matter of any kind.

I call you Nairaland's most illiterate braincell (euphemistically preferable to 'dunce') because you keep repeating the same issue that has been dealt with, regardless how many times it is pointed out to you. Now again, your braincell is at work with the same illiteracy claiming that I did not address your query. If you wanted to discuss, there are far more intelligent ways to do so without trying to wave the victim's card and pretending your enquiries have not been answered. Please pack yourself one corner and let's do better things.

Deep Sight: Quite simply the reason that the controversy was so important was the fact that there was a lot within scripture to suggest that Christ perhaps was not to be equated with God and things had reached a head such that it became compelling for the Church to take a stand one way or the other on the hydra-headed monster that the issue that become.

Okay, better now that you have attempted to provide your own view.

Just try and understand that the people you discuss with are not oblivious of some of things you think you have to your advantage. This was why I often tease you with such lines as that you might think you had anything news-worthy, because all these matters are not new to us. Rather than bore readers with them, I chose to not emphasize that aspect which forms your most important concern, although I noted it in my replies by mentioning "Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity".

Such should have given you the hint that I was well aware that whatever you may mention specifically would not be new to me, back or front of the core of my summary that "the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings", even though the man Arius himself had drawn selectively from "within scripture" to formulate his heresies.

The point was that I was not given to petty details as if they were the most essential point - for the more essential issue was one on the question of whether the Deity of Christ rested on a convening of the Nicene Council. If the petty details such as you wanted to highlight were to be made the main issue, I would be prone to your sensationalism and sentimentalism of focusing on the peripherals. But no, I didn't do that - instead, I chose to narrow it down to the grand point in Arius' unequivocal affirmation of the deity of Christ nonetheless (as having "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God". When I sum down things that way, I believe the essential points are already touched so you don't come back reharshing them - which was why I said; "please don't amuse me with your fundamentalism on this issue".

In all Arius' campaigns against the Deity of Christ, have you asked yourself why he would yet affirm that the Son of God had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"?? What would Arius himself had seen from "within Scripture" to make that affirmation about Christ? This is the essential point, and not the peripherals you hanging unto.

In case you do not recognise it what this basically implies is that the deity of Christ was neither a certainty nor taken for granted – if it were, there would have been no reason to take the “controversy” with any degree of seriousness.

I do not take Arius with any grain of seriousness anyways, so what's the biggy?

Now I am going to introduce to you one fact which I do not know if you are aware of: that pro-trinitarian verses were actually deliberately inserted into scripture where they previously were not in the original texts.

One example of this is 1 John 5 v 7 –

The King James Version states -

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These words did not exist AT ALL in the original scripture! The discovery of older manuscripts has shown it to be a deliberate and later insertion!

Thus modern bible versions WITHOUT EXCEPTION have REMOVED these words!

What does this tell you?

It tells me nothing that favours your and Arius' campaigns against the Deity of Christ. I am well aware of that issue over 1 John 5:7, and perhaps this is the first time I would have quoted it on Nairaland - because those opposed to the Deity of Christ chance upon such a verse for their campaigns. But again I ask: have you asked yourself why Arius would yet affirm that the Son of God had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"?? Even if we remove 1 John 5:7 from the equation, does that yet affect Arius' affirmation of Christ as "perfect God?"

You see, you started out making so much noise about Arius and the Nicene Council, blah-blah. . . but in order to cut to the chase, I simply narrowed it down for you by going directly to the sum of it all: "the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings" - which would help sort through the issue quickly for you, without or without 1 John 5:17. I wonder if you have studied the prophecies of the OT about the deity of the Messiah for yourself?

That people throughout History have been so determined to manipulate scripture that outright additions have been made to scripture in a bid to foist authority for the paganistic doctrine of the Trinity.

But what then do you say about even Arius affirmation that Christ was PERFECT GOD before age and before time? Dude, wake up from your fusty pyjamas and see what's the issue here: you presented Arius' controversy that predicated the Nicene Council - no walaha. You jump from that to 1 John 5:17 - no walaha. In all these things, even the shots you called forth come down to one thing: the Son of God is affirmed to be 'perfect God' before time and before ages - and that by the man who's at the center of your own objections? Hahaha. . . you're such a laugh!

The truth is that if there was already sufficient authority within the bible for the Trinity – THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT DELIBERATE AND FRAUDULENT INSERTION. In this context you can appreciate the questions I put to you.

There was enough authority within the Bible for Arius to have affirmed Christ is perfect God. Did you miss that?

Thus you need to appreciate that such manipulations are evidence of the fact that not everything handed down by the Church can be relied upon: and it remains an incontestable fact that whatever was resolved at Nicea and subsequent Councils is what the Church would have accepted as standard doctrine.

Like I said, the Deity of Christ was not birthed at the Nicene Council, and even Arius himself affirmed that the Son of God was PERFECT GOD. You can turn and twist on this till you stir Arius from his grave, it won't change that very fact.

Whatever the Church accepted as standard doctrine is what the branches of the Church that later sprang out also imbibed as the supposed correct interpretation of scripture regarding the matter of the Deity of Christ.

Who forced Arius to affirmed that Christ was "perfect God" before time and before ages? Who forced that upon him?

So think again brother, and address the issues please!

I did. Now, if you don't mind taking your fundamentalism off the charts. . . looks like you've remained at #1 on the fundies charts on Nairaland for long enough.

Viaro -

My driver has had a long hard day and i don't want to keep him waiting downstairs any longer so i have to leave the office now.

I will respond in detail later. But let me say just one thing -

What is this you are bandying about Arius believing that Christ was "perfect God"? ? ?

The same Arius referred to by wikipedia here - ?

Quote from wikipedia -

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".

Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "begotten"? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

My driver has had a long hard day and i don't want to keep him waiting downstairs any longer so i have to leave the office now.

No problem, hurry along.

I will respond in detail later. But let me say just one thing -

What is this you are bandying about Arius believing that Christ was "perfect God"? ? ?

Was I the one who first mentioned the 'Arian Heresy' in this thread? I just wanted to cut to the chase and save you swallowing a rhino, that's all.

The same Arius referred to by wikipedia here - ?

Quote from wikipedia -

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".

I didn't quote from Wikipedia for you - go back and see my source (Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, cited by Edward Peters in Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980).

But even if you want to hang your neck on Wikipedia, no worries - Wiki carries that quote from Edward Peter's ~~
[list]

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that [size=14pt]the Son[/size] is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; [size=14pt]and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has[/size] [size=14pt]subsisted before time and before ages[/size] [size=14pt]as perfect God[/size], only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

—Peters , Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[/list]

Did you miss all that, son of OOI??

Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "bgotten"? ? ? ?

Only the illiterate madman called Arius.

@POSTER
do you stay with deepsight to know this?

[size=13pt]What has been Christianity's fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and Persecution. WHAT A TRASH!! [/size]

Viaro -

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. [size=16pt]We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.[/size]

Why is it that you refuse to read that which you yourself quote?  ?  ?

Can you not see the bolded? What does it suggest to you? ? ?

^^

Deep Sight:

Why is it that you refuse to read that which you yourself quote?  ?  ?

I read far much more than that, my friend - I did.

Your problem, however, is that (true to your fundamentalist appetite) you're prone to reading half-statements and running with them as the totality of any subject you come across. On my part, I often call your attention to the fact that my approach to issues is holistic - that's why when you brokered the Arian Heresy to bail you out of your mysery on the Deity of Christ, it made me come to the conclusion that you're toast.

Can you not see the bolded? What does it suggest to you? ? ?

Nothing more than Arius was an illiterate heretic - which is the legacy he left you.

If you want me to elaborate, no worries - here then:

(a)  Arius caused himself his own great problem by championing his own cacophony between two diametrically opposed axioms:

       ~~   that the Son had subsisted as perfect God before time and before ages
       ~~   that the Son (even as PERFECT GOD) yet had a "beginning"
       ~~   that even though 'God is without beginning', yet the "perfect God" had a beginning

(b)  If there was any acclamation more idiotic than these contradictory assertions of Arius, why don't you DeepSight post your defence of any coherence you might find in them? How is the "PERFECT GOD" the same Being that would yet have had a beginning and still be called "GOD" by any means?

(c)  The problem is not mine - but yours, in so far that between us, you're the very same dude who tried to wave the Arian Heresy initially for what you can't sustain. On my part, I have maintained and continue to maintain that I do not take Arius with even a grain of seriousness, because reading his cacophony may well appeal to twerps (or, in your case, fundamentalists), but it makes absolutely no dent on viaro's skin.

The main point is not whether or not The Son had a "beginning"; rather, whether or not Arius could identify any "beginning" for the Son, he yet affirmed that the same Being he identified as the Son had subsisted before time and before ages as. . . as what? . . as PERFECT GOD!

Now tell me:

(d)  How would any Being be described as "perfect GOD" and yet still be anything less than GOD?

(e)  How do you make sense of any Being subsisting BEFORE TIME and BEFORE AGES as the same Being who yet had a "beginning"? When is that "beginning" that could be identified before TIME?

You see, DeepSight, not only do you continue to shine through as the fundamentalist of this thread (a befitting epitaph), you just make me feel very sorry for you with each passing day. Please reconcile your cacophony on behalf of your mentor Arius by answering those simple questions above.

Hello Viaro  -

I think this below should serve to clarify the web Arius was trying to untangle –

You may have seen it on the wiki page on the Arian Controversy; but perhaps you regarded it lightly  - please read it carefully and then see my comments below.

To address both issues pertaining the creation of Logos, or the Word and the creation of the prior in time.

(New International Version) John 1:1,2 - 1. In the beginning was the Word (Gr., Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (was a god [NWT]; “was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage [both German]). 2. He was with God in the beginning.

1st - The Word existed during an undefinable (in terms either traceable or current means regarding human science) but definite "beginning"
2nd - The Word was with God (denotes closeness or proximity)
3rd - The Word was God (indicates explicit divinity)
4th - The Word was with God (reiteration of 2nd) in the beginning (reiteration of the 1st)

Inferences: The Word had a definable beginning and associated with God.
Open ended issues: Scriptures note that The Word was God and was with God. One cannot be himself and be with himself.

This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.”

Summary: "Logos" or the Word has a noted and definable beginning and is noted to associate with God, whereas God, as understood to be "God Almighty" (Exodus 6:3)(the aforementioned term being used exclusively to him and not to Jesus or the Holy Spirit), has neither a beginning nor a foreseeable end.

Conclusion: The Word had to have been created in the stream of time in order to have a beginning. Nothing in a logical sense can create itself so the only alternative means of manifestation existed by means of God as he was the only individual in existence before the Word, therefore by default, the Word had to have been created by God and would not be God in the sense that he is the Almighty God, but would not invalidate that The Word has a divine nature similar to, but less than that, of God.

My Comments –

1. Arius clearly was struggling with the fact that the son is said to be “begotten” and yet is said to be God.

2. It is undisputed that the bible repeatedly describes the son as “begotten.”

3. The natural, logical and undeniable inference of being “begotten” is that the one begat, clearly had a beginning.

4. God is well known not to have had a beginning.

5. Therefore Arius, a man steeped in the doctrines of Christ’s supposed deity and divinity could only have come to the conclusion that whilst Christ remains perfectly of the essence of divinity (“perfect God”) – he yet is not that Uncaused Cause that is the ultimate being. This doubtless at first glance may seem somewhat contradictory as you have pointed out: but that very contradiction I hope you realize serves to highlight one thing and one thing only: the absurdity and incongruity of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Read carefully the text I quoted from wiki above: particularly –

Summary: "Logos" or the Word has a noted and definable beginning and is noted to associate with God, whereas God, as understood to be "God Almighty" (Exodus 6:3)(the aforementioned term being used exclusively to him and not to Jesus or the Holy Spirit), has neither a beginning nor a foreseeable end.

. . . . the Word had to have been created by God and would not be God in the sense that he is the Almighty God, but would not invalidate that The Word has a divine nature similar to, but less than that, of God

I think the foregoing puts Arius’ dilemma in some context. We are compelled to take his words “Perefct God” in careful context of his other remarks, and I think the quoted above puts it in proper perspective; that by the words “perfect God” he was referring to Christ’s presumed Divinity – or exact reflection of the substance of the father.

Many such parallels are drawn in scripture. When Christ says “if ye have seen me, ye have seen the father” – this surely underscores the exact reflection of divine nature which Arius was struggling to put across whilst noting carefully that that did not make Christ the Uncaused Cause itself – given that he was begotten.

Perhaps if you had a son whose DNA perfectly matches yours, that son would be called “perfect viaro” – whilst a man like Arius would call him so, and yet carefully note that he is NOT Viaro.

Nevertheless all the foregoing still begs the question.

Because my question was – why was this controversy so important?

I believe the internal inconsistencies of the Trinity Dogma which Arius exposed made the controversy seminal.

And that is what I have been trying to point out from scratch: that if that boiling controversy was not resolved in favor of the trinity: the Church today would disdain the doctrine.

Whichever way we view the matter we cannot escape that which Arius highlighted –

1. That the Bible teaches the son to have been begotten

2. That being begotten implies having had a beginning

3. That the son thus had a beginning

4. Thus that the son cannot be said to be “Almighty God” - WHO NEVER HAD A BEGINNING.

The premises and conclusion in red font above ON THEIR OWN are absolutely unassailable and they give an ABSOLUTE death-blow to the idea of the Trinity; regardless of whether or not Arius called the son “Perfect God.”

That only shows the poor fellow was struggling to make sense of the nonsensical.

Arius: "There was when he was not"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QVYOagUrvcgC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=faith+seeking+understanding+arius+nicea&source=bl&ots=HywRSbQt3z&sig=rEVCn-2mrTTGxQ1FKaJ4F13JE3c&hl=en&ei=-z-FS_OJHMOI8QaA3vHGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Hello viaro -

I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit. My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

The Trinity - Christ co-equal, co-existent, or co-eternal with God? This is not well grounded on scripture. In fact, the scriptures contradict it. Which is why I wonder what you think of the following scriptures:

Is Jesus God, according to the Bible?
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders.
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

But so are others:
Psalm 82:1,2,6 (New International Version)
1 God presides in the great assembly;
       he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you [a] defend the unjust
       and show partiality to the wicked?
       Selah
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
       you are all sons of the Most High.'

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
4[b]The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers[/b], so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Genesis 33:9-11 (New International Version)
10 "No, please!" said Jacob. "If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. 11 Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need." And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it.

Is Jesus equal to God according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (New International Version)
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28[b]When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,[/b] so that God may be all in all.

Colossians 1:15-16 (New International Version)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 14:28 (New International Version)
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Krayola, thank you so much for that.

Viaro - i have extracted the relevant text and i reproduce it below -

The initial milestone in the development of Christology in the post apostolic era was the first ecumenical council of the Church held in Nicea in 325 A.D.

This council was convened to counter the threat to Christian Faith posed by Arianism.

According to Arius and his followers, Jesus Christ, the divine Logos, was the pre-eminent creature rather than the eternal son of God. True Divinity, Arius argued, could not be subject to any limitations and certainly not to suffering and death. Hence Christ, while the unique revealer of God and our redeemer, could not be God with us. Although he is as much like God as a creature could be, he was not equal with God: he did not share in God’s being. “There was when he was not” said Arius. While the intent of Arius was to honor and exalt God above every creature, he could speak of divine transcendence only in the sense of being the opposite of everything created. For Arius it was inconceivable to speak of God as coming amongst us as one of us.

I hope you can see what i meant by the relevance of the arian heresy to the affirmation and development of doctrine. . . also note Arius' general views on this matter in refernce to the arguments i set forward in my last post.

MyJoe:

Hello viaro -

I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit. My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

The Trinity - Christ co-equal, co-existent, or co-eternal with God? This is not well grounded on scripture. In fact, the scriptures contradict it. Which is why I wonder what you think of the following scriptures:

Is Jesus God, according to the Bible?
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

But so are others:
Psalm 82:1,2,6 (New International Version)
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you [a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
4[b]The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers[/b], so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Genesis 33:9-11 (New International Version)
10 "No, please!" said Jacob. "If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. 11 Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need." And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it.

Is Jesus equal to God according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (New International Version)
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28[b]When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,[/b] so that God may be all in all.

Colossians 1:15-16 (New International Version)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 14:28 (New International Version)
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Brilliant MyJoe. Thanks for this.

It is instructive to note the difference between the "divinity" of christ and the "diety" of Christ.

Let me add that Arius went to great lengths to distinguish this.

Krayola:


Arius: "There was when he was not"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QVYOagUrvcgC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=faith+seeking+understanding+arius+nicea&source=bl&ots=HywRSbQt3z&sig=rEVCn-2mrTTGxQ1FKaJ4F13JE3c&hl=en&ei=-z-FS_OJHMOI8QaA3vHGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Krayo, thanks for that link. I could not access the page directly from the browser on my PC just now, but I'm aware of that book by theologian Daniel L. Migliore (?). That people lean over to Arius ideas still begs the basic question at the core of my enquiry: what would Arius have seen within Scripture to have affirmed that the Son is "PERFECT GOD"? I do not yet find anyone addressing that point - and it seems that ignoring this most crucial point is not really taking us forward. All the same, thanks again.

haha. Me I no know wetin Arius see o.  I just remembered cramming that part of the book for an exam and I posted the link when I saw u guys were discussing Arius. 

^^ No worries. . . I'm looking through my library to see if I could access the hard copy and use it in my replies with DeepSight later on. Thanks nonetheless.

Deep Sight:

Viaro - i have extracted the relevant text and i reproduce it below -


I hope you can see what i meant by the relevance of the arian heresy to the affirmation and development of doctrine. . . also note Arius' general views on this matter in refernce to the arguments i set forward in my last post.

Hello DeepSight,

Yes, I've seen your persuasions and am thankful for excerpting that text for your argument. It still misses the essential points I raised in post #82; and that again is not taking us anywhere. In all that Arius could have argued for your sake, please how do you reconcile his affirmation of the Son being "PERFECT GOD" with yet his own controversion of making Him any less than "GOD"?

I shall yet come back to that same point in subsequent replies; but in fairness, let me reproduce Arius' letter oft-quoted, which I found from another online source, The Ecole Initiative:

[list]

[center]Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia[/center]
[center]c 319 CE [/center]
[center](from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, IV. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 3, 41.)[/center]

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethern for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with the God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others the He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.

[/list]

You see, Arius leaves a whole lot of gapping holes, which if you yet desire to pursue, may yet bring you back to your initial position of unsustained assertions against the Deity of Christ. I do not want to over-reach myself on that in this reply, but perhaps you might call me out thereto - and I shall be glad to oblige.

Hi again, MyJoe. . I didn't ignore your contribution but had logged out to attend to an urgent call. Thanks for your effort, and I shall now consider it.

MyJoe:

I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit.

Yes, I'm willing to skip Arius for a bit and focus on the Bible for this subject.

My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

I should have concluded it all for DeepSight on that summary, because the affirmation that the Divinity of Christ has Biblical anchor is the very core concerns that he has argued against acridly and repeatedly on this forum.

Even if he does not understand 'Deity', what about "Divinity"? I don't remember DeepSight before now affirming the Divinity of Christ the Son of God; for that same point has been his deepest problem, whereby he'd always regarded Christ as nothing other than human. When he remarks that your entry was "brilliant", was DeepSight trying to tell us that he afterall concedes to Christ being more than a mere man?? If he yet was not doing so as such, what really is his problem on this profound subject?

However, there's more to mere affirmations of the Divinity of Christ. I shall yet come back to make a full reply to yours (especially on the points of such terms as 'begotten', etc). Some of the points you raised in yours are important nonetheless; but I don't see how that affects the Person of Christ in His essential Being as Deity.

viaro:

Hello DeepSight,

Yes, I've seen your persuasions and am thankful for excerpting that text for your argument. It still misses the essential points I raised in post #82; and that again is not taking us anywhere. In all that Arius could have argued for your sake, please how do you reconcile his affirmation of the Son being "PERFECT GOD" with yet his own controversion of making Him any less than "GOD"?

^^^ Viaro - you have not read my explanation - #83 on this thread?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Viaro - you have not read my explanation - #83 on this thread?

I have done so earlier and left you a simple request. Please kindly attend.

^^^ What did you make of this -

Perhaps if you had a son whose DNA perfectly matches yours, that son would be called “perfect viaro” – whilst a man like Arius would call him so, and yet carefully note that he is NOT Viaro.