Viaro - And Arius aside: take the following on its own -

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.

Does it not shatter the Trinity doctrine? What explanation would you use to escape this one?

Deep Sight:

^^^ What did you make of this -

Deep Sight:

Viaro - And Arius aside: take the following on its own -

Does it not shatter the Trinity doctrine? What explanation would you use to escape this one?

You seem to be deliberately evading my simple request, which is not quite helpful on your part. Please let me know if you're going to attend that request or not. As you can see, I've been online for a while now - because I was patiently waiting to see how you proceed: whether or not you would kindly reconcile your problems and then we proceed with a coherent whole, or you would be given to skipping pertinent issues and wasting our time here. I noted earlier that I would oblige indeed if "perhaps you might call me out" on the Deity of Christ based on what you have sourced. If you're not going to be coherent and consistent, please let me know.

I don't understand? What was your request?

I thought #83 had dealt with that?

Am confused.

^^ No worries, I'll oblige and repost my request.

In response to your rejoinders, I had summed it down thus:

[list]

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.

[/list]

Then my request:
[list]

viaro: 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"?[/list]

. . . then I noted also:
[list]

viaro: 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.

[/list]

Deep Sight:

Viaro - And Arius aside: take the following on its own -

Does it not shatter the Trinity doctrine? What explanation would you use to escape this one?

since i was born i hav neva seen a vague concept like dat of trinity.and yet xtian waste time displayin their dumbness xplainin it.

Punkinmusty:

since i was born i hav neva seen a vague concept like dat of trinity.and yet xtian waste time displayin their dumbness xplainin it.

Please let it be. I still don't see any coherence in someone so dumb as to refer to Christ as "PERFECT GOD" and then saying that He is a 'less God'. That is what I'd like the dumb fellows controverting themselves to sort out before deriding anyone.

^^^ I already explained that that controversion is exactly what the "mystery" of the Trinity leads to!

I am doubtful that you read #83 carefully, Viaro.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I already explained that that controversion is exactly what the "mystery" of the Trinity leads to!

Your explanation evaded the salient point of Arius affirmation - are you missing that yet?

I am doubtful that you read #83 carefully, Viaro.

I did - carefully - and I saw far too many holes, which is why I'm trying to be patient with you. If you are far too reluctant to face up to my single request, please let me know. I don't mean for you to repost anything, rather just attend my request. Thanks.

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 my guy, sorry to trouble you. I don't know when you're going to see this, but could you confirm for me if that link is to Daniel L. Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology? I have a worn-out hard copy (Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2004 edn.) I just fetched from my library, since I could not access that link from my browser. If it is the same resource by said author, could you recommend the chapter or page in particular? Nothing biggy, just curious - and many thanks.

viaro:

@Krayo my guy, sorry to trouble you. I don't know when you're going to see this, but could you confirm for me if that link is to Daniel L. Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology? I have a worn-out hard copy (Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2004 edn.) I just fetched from my library, since I could not access that link from my browser. If it is the same resource by said author, could you recommend the chapter or page in particular? Nothing biggy, just curious - and many thanks.

haha. No be trouble o. . . I just didn't see your post. I woulda responded ages ago. Yes it is. Same book title, same author, same edition. It was the textbook for an Intro to Christian Theology course I took in my 1st year. The stuff on Arianism is in Chapter 8, pages 169-171, and u can find stuff on the Biblical roots of the Trinity on page 68 (Chapter 4). 

This is a link to page 68 on the trinity for whoever wants to read it. http://books.google.ca/books?id=QVYOagUrvcgC&pg=PA68&dq=faith+seeking+understanding+biblical+roots+trinity&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

^^ Thanks so much, my good man!