NOTHING existed before God!

[edpobre]

Friends,

ZoneChaos posted that God does NOT have a Father because NOTHING was before God!

Do you agree with Zone?

[Die Allerbeste]

You didn't give enough choices, so I couldn't vote. :lol:

[PrinceJeff]

Ed seriously give it a rest already.

[AngelAmidala]

For those of you who don't like the choices...what would your answer be then? :)

(I can't fix it so you have an "other" option...sorry!)

[BlalronResurrected]

YHWH has always existed. The Father is YHWH. The Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH.

The relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity is not quite the same as between you and your biological father, something you don't seem to grasp.

[Archieve]

Ed, funny how Jesus is God, but God doesn't have a Father.

Jesus has a Father. - Let me share his name - God

[BlalronResurrected]

The anti-trinitarians have turned "Father" into a loaded word.

God has no progenitor. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were first. That being said, the Son has a Father, but not as an ancestor.

Let me ask you a question:

Before God created anything, was He the Father? How could he always have been the Father, if he didn't always have the Son in which to fill that role? :)

[Archieve]

BlalronResurrected Wrote:

Before God created anything, was He the Father? How could he always have been the Father, if he didn't always have the Son in which to fill that role?

Blalron, what you fail to realize is that God created Jesus.

Do you know what created means?

Now Blalron, tell me was Melchisedec God?

Thankis!

Archieve

[LouisBooth]

Its kinda funny how Pslams 2 explains the relationship very well. In verse 7 and 8 it seems pretty apparent that this person that is made the Son is already there...So it cannot be a parental thing. The Father didn't have sex with mary to have Jesus. Jesus didn't have a biological father. God the Father was his Father as described in Psalm 2. I also in another thread explained this relationship for you, I guess you missed it. It is a relationship showing AUTHORITY. That is why in verse 8 it talks about inheritance. A son in Jewish culture was able to speak for the father and in regarding things of the Law (ie Jesus had authority to talk about the law because the Father made the law and Jesus fufilled it and clarified it for us). That is what the term Son implies. That is why when he said he was the Son of God (capital letters) the Jews got really [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed. He was saying, hey, I have all the authority God does, and no mere man can do that for it says that in their culture, hey, I'm God. God did not create Jesus. I know the verse you are refering to and do you know anything about the firstborn implications in Jewish culture?

[Archieve]

Louis,

Who is saying that God had sex with Mary?

Jesus existed from the beginning. God made Jesus.

[LouisBooth]

"God made Jesus. "

Prove it biblically with verses in context and I might believe you. Make sure you show the jewish culture implications of each verse you show also.

[Archieve]

Show me where the bible has a verse that reads Jesus is God.

[ZoneChaos]

Blalron, what you fail to realize is that God created Jesus.

We realize HGod created Jesus. What you fail to realize Archieve.. is that God created the human nature of Jesus.. The Divine nature however always existed.

Jesus existed from the beginning. God made Jesus.

"In the beginning" present tense, "the word was" past tense

The word here existed before the beginning.

[Archieve]

ZoneChaos Wrote:

We realize HGod created Jesus. What you fail to realize Archieve.. is that God created the human nature of Jesus.. The Divine nature however always existed.

ZoneChaos, would you say that God created God?

You realize that God created Jesus.- You say that Jesus is God. - that would mean that God created God.


God created Jesus from the beginning. Way before he created everything else.

God put Jesus in Mary, so she could give him a human birth.

[BlalronResurrected]

Jesus is God.

[edpobre]

I wholeheartedly agree with Zone. NOTHING existed before God and God does NOT have a Father. And because of this, JESUS was, is and will NEVER be God. He is the SAME yesterday, today and for ever - a MAN.

Jesus acknowledged that he "came forth and proceeded from GOD". On the other hand, GOD is from "everlasting to everlasting." That means that GOD has NO beginning and NEITHER does GOD have any ending. Jesus also acknowledged that he is the SON of God and GOD is HIS Father and HIS God.

Ed

[PrinceJeff]

False teachings from Edpobre himself. Poor Ed (a literal translation of your username).

[savinggrc]

yes, but conditionally. I agree that there was nothing before God - but only because God has always been and will always be. He doesn't operate in time as we do. Eternity past is never ending just as eternity future is never ending.

Your opener, Ed, is misleading.

Karen

[ZoneChaos]

ZoneChaos, would you say that God created God?

No.

You realize that God created Jesus.- You say that Jesus is God. - that would mean that God created God.


I didn'y say God created Jesus. I said God created the human nature of Jesus. The difference is that Jesus has always existed with a divine nature.

God created Jesus from the beginning. Way before he created everything else.

Jesus was begotten of God before the beginning, not in the beginning. And Jesus was not created by God, but has always existed as God.

God put Jesus in Mary, so she could give him a human birth.

Correct. God created Jesus' Human nature thorugh this.

[ZoneChaos]

NOTHING existed before God and God does NOT have a Father.

God, being the Triune entitiy does not have an originator.. or father.

Jesus, a part of that Triune, also has a father, as we all do, who is another part of that Triune.

Within the Trinity there is a relationship of Father Son, but that relationship does not extend beyond the Trinity.

"God" does not have a Father. There is none higher then God. God is more than the Father. God is the Son, and Spirit too. The Son ha sa Fasther, but both are God.

JESUS was, is and will NEVER be God.

Just becasue God doe sont have an originatore, doe snot mean that the Son and the Father's relationship within the trinity does not exist.

He is the SAME yesterday, today and for ever - a MAN.


Since Jesus has had his Human nature, it has never changed. He will always be a man.

Also, Jesus' Divine nature has never changed.

Jesus acknowledged that he "came forth and proceeded from GOD".

His human nature, represented in the life of Jesus.

On the other hand, GOd is form everlasting to everlasting...


Including the divine nature of the Son, Jesus Christ.

That means that GOD has NO beginning and NEITHER does GOD have any ending.

Correct.

Jesus also acknowledged that he is the SON of God and GOD is HIS Father and HIS God.


More specifically, He ackknowledges that He is the Son of the Father, and His Fathe ris God. This does not rule out The SOn also being God. They are seperate (as seen in the father/son relationship_ and they are the same (as seen in them both being God.

[nevetstrebla]

How many times and how many different scriptures will it take to prove to you all that Jesus and God are one. Every single time you all start a thread it is the same thing. The result is always the same as well. You never can win the argument because you lack proof. Why do you lack proof? Because the Bible is very clear that Jesus and God are one.

[ZoneChaos]

Everyverse I have ever seen that someone who disagrees with the Trinity Doctrine uses, only shows support for parts of the Doctrine: "Jesus is a man" The Father is God".

I have never been shown a verse that is evidence against any or all of the Trinity Doctrine.

[Archieve]

Jesus is God's son. He is not God. If you tell a child that Jesus is God's son. they would know what that mean.

[LouisBooth]

"If you tell a child that Jesus is God's son. they would know what that mean. "

If it was a jewish child that lived about 10 to 100 AD yes, he would, he would agree with what I told you ;)

Jesus is God's son, but not in the way you say.

[edpobre]

Nevetstrebla,

You wrote: How many times and how many different scriptures will it take to prove to you all that Jesus and God are one. Every single time you all start a thread it is the same thing. The result is always the same as well. You never can win the argument because you lack proof. Why do you lack proof? Because the Bible is very clear that Jesus and God are one.

Who said Jesus is God - John, Paul, Ignatius, Clement, the Pope, YOU, etc...?

Doesn't Jesus have any say about this? Why don't you ask Jesus himself? Afterall, "NO ONE knows WHO the son is except the FATHER and NO ONE knows WHO the FATHER is except the SON (Luke 10:22).

Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40). Jesus says he is the SON of God (John 10:30). Jesus says the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

What proof are you talking about? You can line up 10 milllion people to say Jesus is God but the TRUTH will always remain - Jesus is a MAN (according to Jesus) and the FATHER is the ONLY true God (according to Jesus).

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

Jesus is God's son. He is not God. If you tell a child that Jesus is God's son. they would know what that mean

Actually, they wouldn't.. they wouldn't understand the relation ship of Father to Son, as it applies to God, and would instaed thikn of it as them to their Father here on earth, which is something totally different.

[Blackhawk]

ed,
you said:
"Who said Jesus is God - John, Paul, Ignatius, Clement, the Pope, YOU, etc...?
Doesn't Jesus have any say about this? Why don't you ask Jesus himself? Afterall, "NO ONE knows WHO the son is
except the FATHER and NO ONE knows WHO the FATHER is except the SON (Luke 10:22)."

Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40). Jesus says he is the SON of God (John 10:30). Jesus says the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

What proof are you talking about? You can line up 10 milllion people to say Jesus is God but the TRUTH will always
remain - Jesus is a MAN (according to Jesus) and the FATHER is the ONLY true God (according to Jesus)."

Blackhaw:

the problem with what you are saying here is that how do you know Jesus said what you quoted? Did Jesus write it? No. John and Luke wrote it in your examples. So you are taking John's word in what he said Jesus said. Nowyou also said that John said that He was God. Why do you take John's word that He is quoting Jesus right in John 10:30 and 17:3 but He did not get John 1:1 right or other passages where He says that Jesus was God?

Blackhaw

[BlalronResurrected]

Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40).

No matter how many times you quote that, it doesn't disprove that Jesus was God. In fact, it goes very well along with this verse:

Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Phl 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Phl 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Phl 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus says he is the SON of God (John 10:30).

As we have explained numerous times, being the Son doesn't stop him from also being God. The Father calls him God, why don't you?

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

Jesus says the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3

If you are addressing one of the members of the Trinity, He could rightly be called YHWH, the name of the one true God. So yes, the Father is YHWH, the only true God. So is the Son. What you quoted disproves nothing.

What proof are you talking about? You can line up 10 milllion people to say Jesus is God but the TRUTH will always remain - Jesus is a MAN (according to Jesus) and the FATHER is the ONLY true God (according to Jesus).

See my above refutations. The early church thought of Jesus as God. Thomas thought Jesus was God, and Jesus praised him for that belief. The Bible says he is God, yet you claim to believe the Bible, but ignore passages that point to Christs deity.

Bible > Iglesia Ni Cristo

[edpobre]

Blackhaw,

You wrote: the problem with what you are saying here is that how do you know Jesus said what you quoted? Did Jesus write it? No. John and Luke wrote it in your examples. So you are taking John's word in what he said Jesus said. Nowyou also said that John said that He was God. Why do you take John's word that He is quoting Jesus right in John 10:30 and 17:3 but He did not get John 1:1 right or other passages where He says that Jesus was God?

John 8:40, John 10:30 and John 17:3 are words of Jesus which apostle John heard and wrote. Here, apostle John is testifying to the things he HEARD Jesus say and in John 21:24-25, John wrote that his testimony is TRUE.

These verses EXPLICITLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY mean what they say - that Jesus is a MAN and the FATHER is the ONLY true God and Jesus and the Father are ONE in caring for the sheep.

John 1:1 are words of apostle John which do NOT clearly say that "Jesus" was God. This verse can be INTERPRETED in ways other than how Trinitarians interpret what John said.

If what John testified to as Jesus' words is true, then there is no way he'd contradict Jesus.

Ed

[Blackhawk]

Ed,

you still did not reply to what I said.

You said:

"Who said Jesus is God - John, Paul, Ignatius, Clement, the Pope, YOU, etc...?"

Whose words did you quote from in your examples?

Luke and John.

Yeah supposedly they wrote down what He said but Why do you think that they did? I am saying this because you stated that John's words were not a good authority. only Jesus' words. But you are using John as a reference as to what Jesus said. HMMMM.

[Archieve]

Blackhaw Wrote:

the problem with what you are saying here is that how do you know Jesus said what you quoted? Did Jesus write it? No. John and Luke wrote it in your examples. So you are taking John's word in what he said Jesus said. Nowyou also said that John said that He was God. Why do you take John's word that He is quoting Jesus right in John 10:30 and 17:3 but He did not get John 1:1 right or other passages where He says that Jesus was God?

Black, who told you that Jesus is God? - your pastor?

You can't say John, because he surely didn't.

[Blackhawk]

God did.


Through the Bible. Through men that He ordained ot write it. One of them was the apostle John. I believed He was divnely inspired to write what he did. He was not perfect but God gave Him the perfect words to write. So i rely on John to give me an accurate description of what Jesus said and also truth. so even if John is not quoting Jesus I still believe that part of the Bbile as much as when He is quoting Jesus directly. Oh and yes John did say Jesus was God in the 1st cahpter.

We can use other verses though;

answer me this. How can the OT verse be true and the NT if there is only one Lord and there is not Trinity?

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:"

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[Archieve]

BlackWrote:

God did.

You do know that liars go to hell, right?

God wouldn't lie to you and tell you that Jesus is God. You have just lied on God. You better pray that God doesn't destroy you for that lie.

[Archieve]

Blackhaw Wrote:

the problem with what you are saying here is that how do you know Jesus said what you quoted? Did Jesus write it? No. John and Luke wrote it in your examples. So you are taking John's word in what he said Jesus said. Nowyou also said that John said that He was God. Why do you take John's word that He is quoting Jesus right in John 10:30 and 17:3 but He did not get John 1:1 right or other passages where He says that Jesus was God?

You better reread what you have told Ed, Blackhaw. Who words are you talking?

Remember, liars have their part in the lake of fire.

[Blackhawk]

please answer my question besides jsut saying I lied. I personally do not think you can. The Lord has to be One and Jesus is Lord. But we know that God the fahter is Lord as stated in Deut. so what do we do? Is Deut wrong and there is really 2 gods or is Phillipians wrong? Please answer.

Blackhaw

[Archieve]

Blackhaw Wrote:

please answer my question besides jsut saying I lied. I personally do not think you can. The Lord has to be One and Jesus is Lord. But we know that God the fahter is Lord as stated in Deut. so what do we do? Is Deut wrong and there is really 2 gods or is Phillipians wrong? Please answer.

Tell me how Jesus is Lord?

Trinity believers say that both Jesus and the Holy Ghost is God.

Jesus had the Holy Ghost. John had the Holy Ghost, many others in the bibel had the Holy Ghost. I have the Holy Ghost. Does that make all of us God?

Was Melchisedec God?

God made Jesus. Jesus is not God.

[Blackhawk]

Archieve ,

please just answer my question. from above. I wi ll repost it for you in case you forgot.


answer me this. How can the OT verse be true and the NT if there is only one Lord and there is not a Trinity?

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:"

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Answer this question please. Do not try and sidetrack the conversation. Blackhaw

[Archieve]

Blackhaw,

Who wanted to be equal with God? Who has gotten kicked out of heaven?

Ask yourself, if Jesus is God, why would he not refer to himself, when he talks about the Father?

Why would he think it robbery to be equal with himself?

Why would he pray to another God?

Jesus is not God.

[LouisBooth]

"why would he not refer to himself, when he talks about the Father? "

Because HE IS NOT THE FATHER. How many times have we told you this?

"Why would he think it robbery to be equal with himself?"

"because the Son of Man came to serve, not to be served."

[Blackhawk]

"Who wanted to be equal with God? Who has gotten kicked out of heaven?"

Hmmm. who could it be..hmmm SATAN. (sorry I could not help the church lady routine)

"Ask yourself, if Jesus is God, why would he not refer to himself, when he talks about the Father?"

becasue on Earth He was a man also. Thus He humbled himself even to death. even death on the cross.

"Why would he think it robbery to be equal with himself?"

He did not. Read the verse again.

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God:

"Why would he pray to another God?"

bewcause he was fully man while also being fully God. See that is the good news. God came down and became a man to save us from ourselves.

You still have not answered my question though. Are there 2 lords or 1 Lord? If there is 1 Lord only (like Deut. 6:4 says) then why would Jesus be called Lord? How do reconcile this? please answer this specific question.

Blackhaw

[edpobre]

Blackhaw,

You wrote: answer me this. How can the OT verse be true and the NT if there is only one Lord and there is not a Trinity?

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:"

Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Answer this question please. Do not try and sidetrack the conversation. Blackhaw

God is LORD to the Israelites whom He led out of Egypt.

God MADE Jesus, the man, LORD (Acts 2:36). This does NOT make Jesus God.

However, for TRUE Christians, there is ONLY ONE Lord, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

Phil. 2:6-8 is Paul's figurative way of describing Jesus' humility in that despite his awesome powers and authority, he did not boast about it and did NOT act like God which ordinary human beings would have done.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

God MADE Jesus, the man, LORD (Acts 2:36). This does NOT make Jesus God.

However, for TRUE Christians, there is ONLY ONE Lord, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

Just FYI, Ed. The Trinity Doctrine both accepts and does not contradict these two statements. :)

[LouisBooth]

"Phil. 2:6-8 is Paul's figurative way of describing Jesus' humility in that despite his awesome powers and authority, "

Ed, those verses are NOT figurative. If it is then you are saying Jesus wasn't a man because according to verse 8 it says he was a man..but if that's figurative then he really wasn't a man. Before you say, trinitarians say he isnt a man, that's not right. We say he was a man, but not JUST a man.

[BlalronResurrected]

God MADE Jesus, the man, LORD (Acts 2:36). This does NOT make Jesus God.

Why was he made Lord? Because he humbled himself and became a man. He was made Lord to restore the glory that he had before as Lord.

However, for TRUE Christians, there is ONLY ONE Lord, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

God isn't your Lord?

Phil. 2:6-8 is Paul's figurative way of describing Jesus' humility in that despite his awesome powers and authority, he did not boast about it and did NOT act like God which ordinary human beings would have done.

Why does it say that he EXISTED IN THE FORM OF GOD, and was EQUAL WITH GOD? There's no indication that what he said was figurative.

[edpobre]

Blalron,

I wrote: However, for TRUE Christians, there is ONLY ONE Lord, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

You wrote:God isn't your Lord?

No, because I am a Christian like Paul and the Corinthians.

I wrote: Phil. 2:6-8 is Paul's figurative way of describing Jesus' humility in that despite his awesome powers and authority, he did not boast about it and did NOT act like God which ordinary human beings would have done.

You wrote:Why does it say that he EXISTED IN THE FORM OF GOD, and was EQUAL WITH GOD? There's no indication that what he said was figurative.

Isn't the fact that apostle Paul referred to Jesus as a MAN in Acts 17:31 and 1 Tim. 2:5 and wrote that, for THEM (Paul and the Corinthians), there is ONLY ONE God, the FATHER (1 Cor. 8:6) enough INDICATION that Phil. 2:5-8 is figurative?

Ed

[BlalronResurrected]

Isn't the fact that apostle Paul referred to Jesus as a MAN in Acts 17:31 and 1 Tim. 2:5

Ed, I want you to do something for me. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. Would calling him a man mean that he wasn't God? No, it would not.


and wrote that, for THEM (Paul and the Corinthians), there is ONLY ONE God, the FATHER (1 Cor. 8:6)

Ed, the Trinity says there is only one God. We don't say that there are 3 Gods. No matter how hard you try, you won't find a verse that says ONLY the Father is God. You say that 1 Cor 8:6 says that. But why then is Jesus called the true God and eternal life in 1 John 5:20?

God and Lord basically mean the same thing when used in the Bible. If you don't believe me, check out this verse:

Revelations 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

[edpobre]

Blalron,

I wrote: Isn't the fact that apostle Paul referred to Jesus as a MAN in Acts 17:31 and 1 Tim. 2:5

You wrote:Ed, I want you to do something for me. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. Would calling him a man mean that he wasn't God? No, it would not.

It is as if you were asking me to pretend that night can be day at the SAME time. Just the thought of it is an impossibility.

God says MAN is FLESH (Gen. 6:3). Jesus says GOD is SPIRIT (John 4:24). Jesus says a SPIRIT (God and other SPIRIT creatures) do NOT have FLESH and bones as he has (Luke 24:39).

How can I even PRETEND that Jesus is God UNLESS I am as blind as a bat?

I wrote: and wrote that, for THEM (Paul and the Corinthians), there is ONLY ONE God, the FATHER (1 Cor. 8:6)

You wrote:Ed, the Trinity says there is only one God. We don't say that there are 3 Gods. No matter how hard you try, you won't find a verse that says ONLY the Father is God. You say that 1 Cor 8:6 says that. But why then is Jesus called the true God and eternal life in 1 John 5:20?

While it is true that there is NO verse that says "ONLY the Father is God", there is a verse that says "the Father is the ONLY true God." It is easier to PRETEND that the latter statement is the SAME as the former becuse it is true. Yet you are asking me to PRETEND to accept an IMPOSSIBILITY.

You wrote: God and Lord basically mean the same thing when used in the Bible. If you don't believe me, check out this verse:

Revelations 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

LORD means MASTER and GOD means CREATOR. God commanded the Israelites to call Him LORD or MASTER. Thus, to the Israelites, God is their CREATOR and MASTER.

Your statement that God and Lord are basically the same is FALSE. God made Jesus both LORD (Master) and Christ (Acts 2:36). God did NOT make ANOTHER God beside himself.

Ed

[LouisBooth]

"It is as if you were asking me to pretend that night can be day at the SAME time. Just the thought of it is an impossibility. "

No its not ed, its called twilight :)

"How can I even PRETEND that Jesus is God UNLESS I am as blind as a bat?"

You'd have to be blind as a bat not to think Jesus is God Col 2:9 spells it out as does John chapter 1 and Luke 5...and I could go on and on and on...

"LORD means MASTER and GOD means CREATOR. God commanded the Israelites to call Him LORD or MASTER. Thus, to the Israelites, God is their CREATOR and MASTER."

Funny how you say this and they call Jesus Lord or master..hmm....wow, yet ANOTHER hint.

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

God MADE Jesus Lord or Master (Acts 2:36). If, as you say, LORD means God, then there would DEFINITELY be two Gods. One God is the CREATOR who MADE another God who is the CREATURE.

Ed

[LouisBooth]

Umm..before that happened Ed, Jesus gave it up, see phil 2:5-8 It says Jesus gave it up THEN The Father exahaulted him. You should get that straight :)

It is very clear in the bible that Jesus was the creator, and The father created through him.

[BlalronResurrected]

God MADE Jesus Lord or Master (Acts 2:36).

Yep, he made Jesus the man (his human nature) Lord, restoring him from his lowly state in which he submitted himself and became a bondservant.

If, as you say, LORD means God, then there would DEFINITELY be two Gods.

You are making a major philosophical assumption here. You are assuming that Jesus and the Father can't both be God at the same time and still only be one God.

One God is the CREATOR who MADE another God who is the CREATURE.

Again, you are assuming that they both have to be a different God. Ever heard the saying, "To assume is to make an *** out of U (you) and ME?"

[epobre]

ZoneChaos,

I wrote:God MADE Jesus Lord or Master (Acts 2:36).

You wrote:Yep, he made Jesus the man (his human nature) Lord, restoring him from his lowly state in which he submitted himself and became a bondservant.

What you are saying Zone is merely an assumption that is not supported by the Bible. The TRUTH is, God made Jesus Lord because "He has put all things under his feet." But when He says "all things are put under him," it is evident that He who put all things under him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to him, then the son himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:27-2:cool: .

I wrote: If, as you say, LORD means God, then there would DEFINITELY be two Gods.

You wrote:You are making a major philosophical assumption here. You are assuming that Jesus and the Father can't both be God at the same time and still only be one God.

I am not assuming that Jesus and the Father CAN'T be both God at the same time and still only be one God. I am stating a fact. If you say they are BOTH God(s) yet they are only ONE God, that's a major DEVIATION from logical thinking and mathematical laws.

I wrote: One God is the CREATOR who MADE another God who is the CREATURE.

You wrote:Again, you are assuming that they both have to be a different God. Ever heard the saying, "To assume is to make an *** out of U (you) and ME?"

You are the one asssuming that God the creator is ONE God with the one He created. What I am saying is a fact. If Jesus whom God CREATED is God then there would be TWO Gods. One God who CREATED and the OTHER God who is the creature.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

Ed, I think you confused me with balron there :)

but a ouple things i want to respond to in your post above...

I am not assuming that Jesus and the Father CAN'T be both God at the same time and still only be one God.

You may not be assuming it, but you beleive the assumption. No where is your view stated in scripture. Also, by accepting that tyhey both canot be the same God, you define what is and what is not the nature of God.. something you do not have the ability to do.

If you say they are BOTH God(s) yet they are only ONE God, that's a major DEVIATION from logical thinking and mathematical laws.

First to clarify.. we say they are both "God" not "gods". Also, we know it is a major deviation from logical thinking. and we know it doe snot make sense, rationally. We, as humans cannot fully understand God, but just becasue we cannot understand, does not mean we ignore. Jesus' Divinity is clear in scripture. It can't be explained, but it is there none the less. I do not understand how they bpoth can be the same God and also be seperate. I do not understand how Jesus can be 100% a man and 100% God, but He is.

You are the one asssuming that God the creator is ONE God with the one He created. What I am saying is a fact. If Jesus whom God CREATED is God then there would be TWO Gods. One God who CREATED and the OTHER God who is the creature.

God did not "create" Jesus. So... that assumpion no longer exists.

[epobre]

ZoneChaos,

I wrote: I am not assuming that Jesus and the Father CAN'T be both God at the same time and still only be one God.

You wrote:You may not be assuming it, but you beleive the assumption. No where is your view stated in scripture. Also, by accepting that tyhey both canot be the same God, you define what is and what is not the nature of God.. something you do not have the ability to do.

I am not defining what is and what is not the nature of God. The Bible does. The Bible says God is SPIRIT (John 4:24) and man is FLESH (Gen. 6:3). Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40) WITH flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Therefore, Jesus is NOT God.

I wrote: If you say they are BOTH God(s) yet they are only ONE God, that's a major DEVIATION from logical thinking and mathematical laws.

You wrote: First to clarify.. we say they are both "God" not "gods". Also, we know it is a major deviation from logical thinking. and we know it doe snot make sense, rationally. We, as humans cannot fully understand God, but just becasue we cannot understand, does not mean we ignore. Jesus' Divinity is clear in scripture. It can't be explained, but it is there none the less. I do not understand how they bpoth can be the same God and also be seperate. I do not understand how Jesus can be 100% a man and 100% God, bu

What you are IGNORING or REJECTING is Jesus' own words that the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). You don't have to unerstand how God works wonders. Nobody is expecting you to do that. You don't have to understand how God created the universe. Understanding God doesn't have anything to do with KNOWING WHO God is. It's all in there.

Jesus says that nobody knows WHO the son is but the Father and nobody knows WHO the Father is but the son (Luke 10:22). The Father has identified Jesus as His son (Matt. 3:17; Matt. 17:5). Jesus has idntified the FATHER as the ONLY true God (John 17:3). What mystery are you talking about?

I wrote: You are the one asssuming that God the creator is ONE God with the one He created. What I am saying is a fact. If Jesus whom God CREATED is God then there would be TWO Gods. One God who CREATED and the OTHER God who is the creature.

You wrote:God did not "create" Jesus. So... that assumpion no longer exists.

Gal. 4:4 says God sent His son "BORN of a woman..." Rev. 4:11 tells us that the Lord God Almighty who SAT on the throne, CREATED all things. And in Rev. 5:13, we see the one who SAT on the throne and the Lamb being worshipped together.

Malachi 2:10 says we have ONE Father and only one God CREATED us all. And Jesus says he proceeded forth and came from God whom he calls HIS Father (John 8:42).

Since the Bible doesn't LIE, then you must have gotten your idea that God did not "create" Jesus from a FALSE teacher.

Ed

[LouisBooth]

Jesus is God col 2:9 says that very clearly.,

"Malachi 2:10 says we have ONE Father and only one God CREATED us all. "

That's right God did create us. In John 1:3 it also shows that the Logos created us and the Logos is God. Then John chapter 1 goes on to say Jesus is the Logos. Jesus is God through him all things were made.

[ZoneChaos]

I am not defining what is and what is not the nature of God.

Yes you are. The Bible says Jesus is a man. You say Jesus is a man. Good so far. The Bible doe not say Jesus is just a amn. You say Jesus is just a man. thus you are defining what is ANd is not the natre of God, with views unsupported in scripture.

What you are IGNORING or REJECTING is Jesus' own words that the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

No, I am ignoring your interpretation that "Only the Father is the only true God."

[Tesseract]

Originally posted by PrinceJeff
Ed seriously give it a rest already.

lol.

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Tesseract


Originally posted by PrinceJeff
Ed seriously give it a rest already.

lol.

Tesseract,

I'm sorry I was not able to get on the board for a while so I ws not able to acknowledge your "hello."

Plese tell me what made you laugh out loud.

Thanks.

Ed

[hwd007]

re; " I wholeheartedly agree with Zone. NOTHING existed before God and God does NOT have a Father"

Can someone please explain what Nothing actually is ?

[TOmNossor]

This looks like a long ago resurrected thread.

Of course as you might notice, this reminds me of Arius vs. Athanasius. But the thing is Justin Martyr and Christians before him knew that Genesis did not speak of creation ex nihilo. Tatian and Theophilus seemed to abandon tradition and postulate creation ex nihilo. When all Christians accepted this, the dual errors of Nicea were inevitable. So as Nicea said, Jesus is homoousian with God. But Athanasius and the term co-equal was too far, and Augustine explained the Trinity in a way that produced an illogical unity and distinctness.

Without this error that Joseph Smith removed these big problems dissolve away in the bright dawn of the restoration.



Charity, TOm

[Der Alter]

This looks like a long ago resurrected thread.

Of course as you might notice, this reminds me of Arius vs. Athanasius. But the thing is Justin Martyr and Christians before him knew that Genesis did not speak of creation ex nihilo.

Nonsense! Presumption and assumption not backed up with historical evidence. Who were the “Christians” before Justin?

Tatian and Theophilus seemed to abandon tradition and postulate creation ex nihilo.

You have NOT proved any tradition for them to abandon!


When all Christians accepted this, the dual errors of Nicea were inevitable. So as Nicea said, Jesus is homoousian with God. But Athanasius and the term co-equal was too far, and Augustine explained the Trinity in a way that produced an illogical unity and distinctness.

”dual errors,” NOT proven! “Athanasius," NOT proven! "Augustine –illogical unity and distinctness," NOT proven! Just one unproven assertion on top of another!

Without this error that Joseph Smith removed these big problems dissolve away in the bright dawn of the restoration.

”Error”, NOT proven! And of course Smith “restored” the “true gospel,” and the, what is the term, “plain and simple parts.” Again no proof, assumptions, presumptions, and presuppositions. No evidence. What has never existed CANNOT be restored!

Perhaps you can explain to us how over 300 presiding Bishops who had only recently come out of empire wide persecution, facing torture and death, because they would not compromise their faith, stood silently by and said nothing and did nothing while the so-called "dual errors, were supposedly forced on the church?

[TOmNossor]

Nonsense! Presumption and assumption not backed up with historical evidence. Who were the “Christians” before Justin?



You have NOT proved any tradition for them to abandon!




”dual errors,” NOT proven! “Athanasius," NOT proven! "Augustine –illogical unity and distinctness," NOT proven! Just one unproven assertion on top of another!



”Error”, NOT proven! And of course Smith “restored” the “true gospel,” and the, what is the term, “plain and simple parts.” Again no proof, assumptions, presumptions, and presuppositions. No evidence. What has never existed CANNOT be restored!

Perhaps you can explain to us how over 300 presiding Bishops who had only recently come out of empire wide persecution, facing torture and death, because they would not compromise their faith, stood silently by and said nothing and did nothing while the so-called "dual errors, were supposedly forced on the church?
Der Alter,

Let my start by asking if you really think it wise to throw around the word “Nonsense.” The last time you said such things to me, you only responded to half of my assertions and in my opinion inadequately (but certainly not to the point of proving that what I said was “Nonsense.” Just so you remember I was able to show where my statement that pre-Nicea Orthodox was subordinationism according to five scholars. You at least engaged me on this aspect. The other aspect of my post associated the majority of the delegates at Nicea being Arian or Semi-Arian you never even engaged. Again of course I showed historical reference for this and you never showed your historical reference that the majority were not Arian nor that Constantine was an Arian. So here we go again. While I do not imagine that I will overcome your preconceived conclusions with my solid references, I assure you I again have not put forth “Nonsense.”



Der Alter:

Nonsense! Presumption and assumption not backed up with historical evidence. Who were the “Christians” before Justin?



TOm:

Let us start with Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:

Chapter LIX.-Plato's Obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so." So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.



It is pretty clear this fine Catholic Saint does not believe in Creation ex Nihilo.



Let me quote Blake Ostler concerning Clement of Rome in his response to The New Mormon Challenge.

Also writing at the beginning of the second century, Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God "made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin)."** Now Clement is important because he is at the very center of the Christian Church as it was then developing. Clement's view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate. Indeed, he created by "making manifest" what already existed in some form. The lack of argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting to establish a philosophical position; he was merely stating a generally accepted position that is more tacit than explicit. However, the fact that such a view as assumed is even more significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument for this view, then we can assume that it was either a contested doctrine or a new view. However, because he accepts it as obvious, it appears to be a generally accepted belief in the early Christian Church.

** 1 Clement to the Corinthians, 60, 1. See, Oscar de Gebhardt and Adolphus Harnack, Patrium Apostolicorum Opera: Clemenits Romani (Lipsiae: J.C. Hinrichs, 1876), 8 vols., 1:100.

Blake also points to a number of other writings that point to creation from pre-existing material.

Hermogenes (who worked with the apostle Paul in Asia-Minor) as evidenced by Tertulians and Theophilus’ refutation of his ideas believed in creation out of pre-existent matter.



How is that for Christians that went before Justin Martyr who believed in creation from pre-existent matter. It is certainly not “Nonsense.” You may apologize if you wish.



Der Alter:

”dual errors,” NOT proven! “Athanasius," NOT proven! "Augustine –illogical unity and distinctness," NOT proven! Just one unproven assertion on top of another!



TOm:

What I am saying is that both Athanasius and Arius believed in creation ex nihilo. As a result of this belief there was a conflict between Jesus as God or Jesus as creation. Without the mistaken belief that all things are either God or created, Athanasius and Arius have much less to fight about. A LDS has no trouble recognizing that Jesus Christ is eternal, God, and not created out of nothing; but Jesus Christ is also subordinate to the Father. A social Trinitarian structure has room for this belief and this subordination. The term “co-equal” is not necessary.

Also, Augustine would say:



The Father is God

Jesus is God.

The Father and Jesus are different persons.

There is only one God.



This is of course what many Christians call a mystery, but it is more than just that. It violates the principles of logic. Catholic Transubstantiation is a mystery, but it does not violate the principles of logic.



So, here you have what I call the “dual errors” of Arius and Athanasius. We also see the “illogical unity and distinctness” of Augustine.



Make sense?



Der Alter:

”Error”, NOT proven! And of course Smith “restored” the “true gospel,” and the, what is the term, “plain and simple parts.” Again no proof, assumptions, presumptions, and presuppositions. No evidence. What has never existed CANNOT be restored!



TOm:

Now we see that the idea of creation out of “eternal matter” was something that existed in the Early Church. Again an amazing thing that Joseph Smith the uneducated farm boy brought back to the world. Here we have another of the unexplainable coincidences of the Restoration. Unless of course Joseph Smith was just as he claimed to be. Wow!



Der Alter:

Perhaps you can explain to us how over 300 presiding Bishops who had only recently come out of empire wide persecution, facing torture and death, because they would not compromise their faith, stood silently by and said nothing and did nothing while the so-called "dual errors, were supposedly forced on the church?



TOm:

Virtually all Christians had embraced this creation ex nihilo belief. The Bishops choose from between two flawed positions. I believe that they choose the best option(assuming Arius really thought Jesus was not divine which we may never know since his writing were burned and we only know about what he said from those who disagreed with him), but pure truth was not an option.



Der Alter, I hope you will not be so condemning as you respond to me and other posters in the future. I doubt very many people intentionally post “nonsense.” I have seen you ridicule the ideas of others in the past. I am really not married to my ideas, so I do not get too offended. Some people are pretty tied to their ideas so you risk offending these people. Also, even when you are not shown to be mistaken when you shout “NOT proven” or “Nonsense,” I think you add very little to your position by this type of response.



Charity, TOm

[Der Alter]

Der Alter,

Let my start by asking if you really think it wise to throw around the word “Nonsense.” The last time you said such things to me, you only responded to half of my assertions and in my opinion inadequately (but certainly not to the point of proving that what I said was “Nonsense.” Just so you remember I was able to show where my statement that pre-Nicea Orthodox was subordinationism according to five scholars. You at least engaged me on this aspect. The other aspect of my post associated the majority of the delegates at Nicea being Arian or Semi-Arian you never even engaged. Again of course I showed historical reference for this and you never showed your historical reference that the majority were not Arian nor that Constantine was an Arian. So here we go again. While I do not imagine that I will overcome your preconceived conclusions with my solid references, I assure you I again have not put forth “Nonsense.”

Five scholars and absolutely zero citations of the works which these conclusions were based on. And how many of them had you actually read?

I do recall you posted one statement which listed three different groups at Nicaea; Arian, Semi-Arians, and Eusbians but nothing that assigned a percentage.

Part of the “nonsense” is posting assertions without support or evidence.

TOm:
Let us start with Justin Martyr.
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:
Chapter LIX.-Plato's Obligation to Moses.
And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so." So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

It is pretty clear this fine Catholic Saint does not believe in Creation ex Nihilo.

Indeed, let’s do start with Justin and see if this fine Catholic saint does or does not believe in Creation Ex Nihilo. I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain passages. What exactly is Justin saying? “[T]he very words spoken through Moses. . .signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world.” and “by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.”

What, according to you preexistent, substance/material did Moses say the world was made from? Here is the entire quote by Justin, above. Would you be so kind as to show us precisely what "preexistent" material Moses says God made the world from? And note Justin says God made the world, not the universe, from this substance.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so."
Here is J.N.D. Kelly’s summation.
In Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism (5) of the day. It was apparently his sincere belief (6) that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses. So God is everlasting, (7) ineffable and without name, (8) changeless and impassable (9) and ‘ingenerate’(10) (agennhtoV: a technical term stressing His unique unorginateness in contrast to creatures). He is also ‘the creator of the universe’ the maker of and Father of all things, Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence, (11) [emphasis added] and Marcion was wrong in drawing a distinction between God and the Demiurge (12)’We have learned’, he states, (13) “that, being god, He created all things in the beginning out of formless matter.’ This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus(14) which Justin supposed (1) to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal, but it is improbable the Justin acquiesced in the implied dualism; what seems clear (2) is that he regarded the heaven and earth which, according to Moses , had been created first as the material out of which God formed the cosmos. [emphasis added]

Fn. (11)1 Apol. 13, I; dial.56,I; 3,5;4, I
(12)1 Apol. 58,I
(1) Ib. 59
(2) Cf. ib. 59.5.

Early Christian Doctrines J.N.D. Kelly, Harper and Row, 1978, pp. 84-85.
And just for fun let’s consider other writings of Justin and see if this fine Catholic saint ever indicates that God made the world out of preexistent material. Along with links to the primary sources, not blind second hand quotes from secondary sources.
The First Apology of Justin

And reckon ye that it is for your sakes we have been saying these things; for it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie. For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we seek the abode that is with God, the Father and Creator of all, and hasten to confess our faith, persuaded and convinced as we are that they who have proved to God by their works that they followed Him, and loved to abide with Him where there is no sin to cause disturbance, can obtain these things.

For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed.

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967

The Second Apology of Justin

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works. when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all thing; through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation "God" is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained.

Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

"`Is what you say, then, of a like nature with that which Plato in Timoeus hints about the world, when he says that it is indeed subject to decay, inasmuch as it has been created, but that it will neither be dissolved nor meet with the fate of death on account of the will of God? Does it seem to you the very same can be said of the soul, and generally of all things? For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible. For this reason souls both die and are punished: since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin, nor be filled with folly, nor be cowardly, and again ferocious; nor would they willingly transform into swine, and serpents, and dogs and it would not indeed be just to compel them, if they be unbegotten. For that which is unbegotten is similar to, equal to, and the same with that which is unbegotten; and neither in power nor in honour should the one be preferred to the other, and hence there are not many things which are unbegotten: for if there were some difference between them, you would not discover the cause of the difference, though you searched for it; but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all. Did such escape the observation of Plato and Pythagoras, those wise men, ' I said, `who have been as a wall and fortress of philosophy to us? '

Again, when He said, `Thou art my God; be not far from me, 'He taught that all men ought to hope in God who created all things, and seek salvation and help from Him alone; and not suppose, as the rest of men do, that salvation can be obtained by birth, or wealth, or strength, or wisdom.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325

You may apologize if you wish.

[TOmNossor]

[/size]

Five scholars and absolutely zero citations of the works which these conclusions were based on. And how many of them had you actually read?

I do recall you posted one statement which listed three different groups at Nicaea; Arian, Semi-Arians, and Eusbians but nothing that assigned a percentage.

Part of the “nonsense” is posting assertions without support or evidence.

[/size]

Indeed, let’s do start with Justin and see if this fine Catholic saint does or does not believe in Creation Ex Nihilo. I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain passages. What exactly is Justin saying? “[T]he very words spoken through Moses. . .signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world.” and “by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.”





What, according to you preexistent, substance/material did Moses say the world was made from? Here is the entire quote by Justin, above. Would you be so kind as to show us precisely what "preexistent" material Moses says God made the world from? And note Justin says God made the world, not the universe, from this substance.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so."

Here is J.N.D. Kelly’s summation.


In Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism (5) of the day. It was apparently his sincere belief (6) that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses. So God is everlasting, (7) ineffable and without name, (8) changeless and impassable (9) and ‘ingenerate’(10) (agennhtoV: a technical term stressing His unique unorginateness in contrast to creatures). He is also ‘the creator of the universe’ the maker of and Father of all things, Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence, (11) [emphasis added] and Marcion was wrong in drawing a distinction between God and the Demiurge (12)’We have learned’, he states, (13) “that, being god, He created all things in the beginning out of formless matter.’ This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus(14) which Justin supposed (1) to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal, but it is improbable the Justin acquiesced in the implied dualism; what seems clear (2) is that he regarded the heaven and earth which, according to Moses , had been created first as the material out of which God formed the cosmos. [emphasis added]

Fn. (11)1 Apol. 13, I; dial.56,I; 3,5;4, I
(12)1 Apol. 58,I
(1) Ib. 59
(2) Cf. ib. 59.5.

Early Christian Doctrines J.N.D. Kelly, Harper and Row, 1978, pp. 84-85.

And just for fun let’s consider other writings of Justin and see if this fine Catholic saint ever indicates that God made the world out of preexistent material. Along with links to the primary sources, not blind second hand quotes from secondary sources.


The First Apology of Justin

And reckon ye that it is for your sakes we have been saying these things; for it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie. For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we seek the abode that is with God, the Father and Creator of all, and hasten to confess our faith, persuaded and convinced as we are that they who have proved to God by their works that they followed Him, and loved to abide with Him where there is no sin to cause disturbance, can obtain these things.

For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed.

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967

The Second Apology of Justin

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works. when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all thing; through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation "God" is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained.

Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

"`Is what you say, then, of a like nature with that which Plato in Timoeus hints about the world, when he says that it is indeed subject to decay, inasmuch as it has been created, but that it will neither be dissolved nor meet with the fate of death on account of the will of God? Does it seem to you the very same can be said of the soul, and generally of all things? For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible. For this reason souls both die and are punished: since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin, nor be filled with folly, nor be cowardly, and again ferocious; nor would they willingly transform into swine, and serpents, and dogs and it would not indeed be just to compel them, if they be unbegotten. For that which is unbegotten is similar to, equal to, and the same with that which is unbegotten; and neither in power nor in honour should the one be preferred to the other, and hence there are not many things which are unbegotten: for if there were some difference between them, you would not discover the cause of the difference, though you searched for it; but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all. Did such escape the observation of Plato and Pythagoras, those wise men, ' I said, `who have been as a wall and fortress of philosophy to us? '

Again, when He said, `Thou art my God; be not far from me, 'He taught that all men ought to hope in God who created all things, and seek salvation and help from Him alone; and not suppose, as the rest of men do, that salvation can be obtained by birth, or wealth, or strength, or wisdom.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325


You may apologize if you wish.Der Alter:


Five scholars and absolutely zero citations of the works which these conclusions were based on. And how many of them had you actually read?



TOm:

I thought we established that I had only read 3 of the 5. Of course we also established that I am not a scholar nor do I try to be one. I acknowledge that you have either a Masters or a PhD in some form of religious study. I of course have never taken a religion class except from the local church. Often sitting side by side with adolescents and children. And original works were sited by those authors and pointed to by me.

The thing that I do always seem to recognize and that you have yet to acknowledge is that I understand bias. We will discuss this more latter.



Der Alter:

I do recall you posted one statement which listed three different groups at Nicaea; Arian, Semi-Arians, and Eusbians but nothing that assigned a percentage.



TOm:

Actually, the two men named Eusbius were semi-Arians. Perhaps you might not dismiss what I say to such an extent that you misread it. The term majority was used too (perhaps it was a limited majority, but I can provide more info for you if you like).



Der Alter:

Part of the “nonsense” is posting assertions without support or evidence.



TOm:

By this I suppose you mean “posting assertions without simultaneously posting the support or evidence for those assertions.” I have never posted assertions without support of evidence. I have also always provided that support and evidence.

It is actually you who have not done so. You have said that Constantine was an Arian. I have provided evidence that Constantine had to be appealed to by both men named Eusbius to be prevented from expelling Arius before he was able to complete his appeal to the council of Nicea. I challenged you to provide “support or evidence” for your “assertions.” Unless I missed it you have not done so, but certainly you posted this without simultaneously posting your evidence. Do you post “nonsense?”



Now, Kelly seems to assign to Justin Martyr a creation ex nihilo position. Perhaps this is based on all the quotes you put forth or the mistaken thought that Moses speaks of creation ex nihilo.

I of course can provide you with the more correct understanding of Genesis. I can back this up with more than one scholar who honestly AGAINST THEIR BIAS explain that the Bible does not put forth creation ex nihilo despite what translators and BIASED Christians choose to assert.



One should remember that a painter creates paintings, but does not do so “ex nihilo.” With this understanding, you see that the rest of Justin’s quotes do not demand an “ex nihilo.” Also, as Kelly pointed out Justin was intentionally embracing a view that linked to eternality of matter. I submit that Kelly was so disturbed by this linking that he refused to allow Justin to say what Justin said.

Now, still you said for me to provide pre-Justin Christians. I did this.

I also effectively explained what I meant when I said “dual errors of Nicea” and what is illogical about Augustine’s Trinity.



Der Alter:

You may apologize if you wish.



TOm:

I am really confused as to what you want me to apologize for. If you will explain to me what you think I have done, I will certainly apologize either for doing what I did or for giving you reason to call for my apology.



If you are subtly trying to point out to me that I was not clear as to why I thought you should apologize, I will be clearer. You said my post was “nonsense.” I provided evidence that it was not “nonsense.”

And I still submit to you that your commonly employed tactic of impugning the quality of the posts you respond to is not as productive in my opinion as it would seem (in my opinion) you think it is. Perhaps you could avoid such words as “nonsense” and just state that you disagree and explain why.



Charity, TOm

[JVAC]

BlalronResurrected Wrote:



Blalron, what you fail to realize is that God created Jesus.

Do you know what created means?

Now Blalron, tell me was Melchisedec God?

Thankis!

Archieve
Archieve, I didn't see anyone correct you here so I am going to. The correct term is 'begotten'. Jesus is begotten before all worlds not made. You can't make a child, you 'essence' has to go into it. God begat Jesus with His divine essence eternally. Jesus is not a weak creation but God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.

I am not balron but I will tell very truly that Melchisedec was not God. He was no where near, God. From all that we know from him is that he was king and Priest of Salem. It is mentioned later, because the order of Melchisedec is not a priest forever, as some of you might think, but a priest and king, for Jesus was Priest and King and he will be it forever.

[Der Alter]

Let me quote Blake Ostler concerning Clement of Rome in his response to The New Mormon Challenge.

Also writing at the beginning of the second century, Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God "made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin)."** Now Clement is important because he is at the very center of the Christian Church as it was then developing. Clement's view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate. Indeed, he created by "making manifest" what already existed in some form. The lack of argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting to establish a philosophical position; he was merely stating a generally accepted position that is more tacit than explicit. However, the fact that such a view as assumed is even more significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument for this view, then we can assume that it was either a contested doctrine or a new view. However, because he accepts it as obvious, it appears to be a generally accepted belief in the early Christian Church.

** 1 Clement to the Corinthians, 60, 1. See, Oscar de Gebhardt and Adolphus Harnack, Patrium Apostolicorum Opera: Clemenits Romani (Lipsiae: J.C. Hinrichs, 1876), 8 vols., 1:100.

”Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God "made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin).” I have searched Clements’s entire letter to the Corinthians this phrase does NOT exist. In fact the letter does not have a chapter 60, the last chapter is 59. But let us review this letter and see what Clement actually says about creation.
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Wherefore, having so many great and glorious examples set before us, let us turn again to the practice of that peace which from the beginning was the mark set before us; and let us look stedfastly to the Father and Creator of the universe, and cleave to His mighty and surpassingly great gifts and benefactions, of peace.

For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works.

The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841


I of course can provide you with the more correct understanding of Genesis. I can back this up with more than one scholar who honestly AGAINST THEIR BIAS explain that the Bible does not put forth creation ex nihilo despite what translators and BIASED Christians choose to assert.

No you cannot provide me with the more correct understanding of any Bible passage, I read both Biblical languages, you do not. All you can do is go to your favorite “Mormons-Я-Us” database and copy/paste some bits and pieces that in isolation and out-of-context seem to support your assertion.

There is that old knee-jerk response anything that refutes whatever you post is “biased.” You have posted some sources which seem to assert that some early church fathers were subordinationist. But you have NOT posted anything which clearly supports the view that the Bible does not teach creation Ex Nihilo.

One should remember that a painter creates paintings, but does not do so “ex nihilo.” With this understanding, you see that the rest of Justin’s quotes do not demand an “ex nihilo.” Also, as Kelly pointed out Justin was intentionally embracing a view that linked to eternality of matter. I submit that Kelly was so disturbed by this linking that he refused to allow Justin to say what Justin said.

Not interested in painters or what you submit or surmise. Kelly cited his sources in the footnotes, which I provided, prove him wrong from the primary sources. I will not hold my breath.
He is also ‘the creator of the universe’ the maker of and Father of all things, Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence. . .

FN 1 Apol. 13, I; dial.56,I; 3,5;4, I,
I notice you did NOT respond to my question, “Where did Moses speak of some preexisting material or substance?” Justin twice said that Moses described the material/substance from which God created the world and listed the verse from which he concluded this. Describe for me, from Justin, exactly where Moses stated that God created from preexisting matter?

Knee jerk, knee jerk, “the rest of Justin’s quotes do not demand an “ex nihilo.” What part of, “All, All things, the universe, all other things,”, do you not understand?These phrases are highlighted in the above quotes from Justin's two Apologies, and Dialogue.
• God, the Father and Creator of all,
• the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all;
• God, the Creator of all things,
• God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth,
• the Creator of all,
• the Father and Creator of the universe.
• He created and arranged all things
• God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
• one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all.
• God who created all things
Now, still you said for me to provide pre-Justin Christians. I did this.

Try again please. One quote for a nonexistent source and one reference to, but no quotes from, another alleged early father, is NOT "providing pre-Justin Christians."

I thought we established that I had only read 3 of the 5. Of course we also established that I am not a scholar nor do I try to be one. I acknowledge that you have either a Masters or a PhD in some form of religious study. I of course have never taken a religion class except from the local church. Often sitting side by side with adolescents and children. And original works were sited by those authors and pointed to by me.

Scholarship has little to do with degrees and diplomas. Some one with little or no higher education can demonstrate very good scholarship, and another person with multiple degrees can demonstrate not so good scholarship.

I have never been to law school but I've had a 9th Circuit Federal ADA compliment me on my legal briefs. He said they were better written and researched than many attorneys.

[Der Alter]

It is actually you who have not done so. You have said that Constantine was an Arian. I have provided evidence that Constantine had to be appealed to by both men named Eusbius to be prevented from expelling Arius before he was able to complete his appeal to the council of Nicea. I challenged you to provide “support or evidence” for your “assertions.” Unless I missed it you have not done so, but certainly you posted this without simultaneously posting your evidence. Do you post “nonsense?”

Some people know when to leave well enough alone.Constantine died A.D. 337 shortly after the death of Arius had prevented the solemn restoration of the latter to the fellowship of the church.

After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was permitted to return; but Constantius carried out in the East the ecclesiastical policy of the last years of his father’s life. Athanasius was again, A.D. 339, compelled to fflee and proceeded to Rome. The Eusebians (Eus. Of Nic. Had meanwhile become bishop of Constaninople) were now in control of the East.

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg.Baker Book House, 1978, p. 219.

"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica

Indeed, for more than 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire.

To cite this page:
"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=109633&seq_nbr=2&page=n&pm=1
[Accessed December 8 2001].
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.


Catholic Encyclopedia-Arianism

Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

”Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God "made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin).” I have searched Clements’s entire letter to the Corinthians this phrase does NOT exist. In fact the letter does not have a chapter 60, the last chapter is 59. But let us review this letter and see what Clement actually says about creation.

TOm:

I am sorry you had trouble. It did take me about 5 minutes to find the proper passage on the web site that you and I reference for the ECF, so it was not just totally simple. Let me help you out:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-26.htm#P5282_755095 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-26.htm#P5282_755095)



Der Alter:

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Wherefore, having so many great and glorious examples set before us, let us turn again to the practice of that peace which from the beginning was the mark set before us; and let us look stedfastly to the Father and Creator of the universe, and cleave to His mighty and surpassingly great gifts and benefactions, of peace.
For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works.
The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01....htm#P171_20841 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841)



TOm:

I will address your misunderstandings all at once.



Der Alter:

No you cannot provide me with the more correct understanding of any Bible passage, I read both Biblical languages, you do not. All you can do is go to your favorite “Mormons-Я-Us” database and copy/paste some bits and pieces that in isolation and out-of-context seem to support your assertion.

There is that old knee-jerk response anything that refutes whatever you post is “biased.” You have posted some sources which seem to assert that some early church fathers were subordinationist. But you have NOT posted anything which clearly supports the view that the Bible does not teach creation Ex Nihilo.



TOm:

I respect the fact that you can read both Bible languages. That is impressive. It does not prevent you from introducing BIAS into your translation. I will introduce you to the prevailing (or at least quite prevalent) scholarship on creation ex nihilo shortly. I am surprised you are not aware of the amount of people who can read both Bible languages who completely disagree with you. I have found it very helpful to read from those who I agree with and those who I disagree with BOTH.



Der Alter:

Not interested in painters or what you submit or surmise. Kelly cited his sources in the footnotes, which I provided, prove him wrong from the primary sources. I will not hold my breath.


He is also ‘the creator of the universe’ the maker of and Father of all things, Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence. . .

FN 1 Apol. 13, I; dial.56,I; 3,5;4, I,

I notice you did NOT respond to my question, “Where did Moses speak of some preexisting material or substance?” Justin twice said that Moses described the material/substance from which God created the world and listed the verse from which he concluded this. Describe for me, from Justin, exactly where Moses stated that God created from preexisting matter?

Knee jerk, knee jerk, “the rest of Justin’s quotes do not demand an “ex nihilo.” What part of, “All, All things, the universe, all other things,”, do you not understand?These phrases are highlighted in the above quotes from Justin's two Apologies, and Dialogue.


• God, the Father and Creator of all,
• the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all;
• God, the Creator of all things,
• God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth,
• the Creator of all,
• the Father and Creator of the universe.
• He created and arranged all things
• God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
• one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all.
• God who created all things



TOm:

As promised let us talk about what you are saying here. The Bible calls God the Father. The Bible calls God the Creator. The problem is that the Bible never says that God created ex Nihilo. This had to be invented after the Apostles died. After the Church no longer claimed supernatural revelation. After men took over the defining of doctrine and the Holy Spirit no long inspired the words of men. Hermogenes who walked with Paul knew the truth. Clement knew the truth. Justin Marytr knew the truth. Two of these three of course had the voices of the apostles ringing in their ears. But most of Christendom walks by the light of men, Tiatian, Tertulian,Theophilus, and others even farther removed from the revelation of God. Thank you, but I will take the earlier witness and the Bible over these men’s ideas.

So, I am sure you will admit that the Bible does not say ex Nihilo. That would make “ex Nihilo” extra Biblical which is a problem for a sola scriptura person. But let us talk about what the Bible does say.



A creator is not a creator ex nihilo. A creator could be, but does not have to be.

Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter.



Unlike you, Der Alter, Father Jaki as a Catholic priest does not speak from his bias when he tells the truth of the Bible. We can know this because Father Jaki as a Catholic believes in creation ex nihilo.



How about someone else who believes this. James A. Atwell, "An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1," Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 51, Pt. 2 (October 2000), 441, n. 1.:

[the verb bara] “has a deliberate and considered significance when it occurs in P [the Priestly document], but this falls short of creatio ex nihilo. It is best understood in the context of the alternative verbs 'separate' and 'make'."



You asked, “where is the material?”

Well I guess the answer is that when separates and makes on is using material to do so, but Speiser will go farther than this. How about the Anchor Bible’s translation of the Genesis.

E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:

When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas...- God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

E.A. Speiser also said:

To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter



Der Alter, I do not claim to know all the things that you know, but were you really unaware that so many Catholic’s and Protestants recognize that creation ex nihilo is at best just one of the interpretation of the Bible and at worst (for your position) a less straight forward interpretation.



Here is a list of others you can look to. Jewish, non-LDS Christian, and LDS:



See e.g., Shalom Paul, "Creation and Cosmogony: The Bible," Encyclopaedia Judiaca 5 (1972), 1056; David Winston, "The Book of Widsom's Theory of Cosmogony," History of Religions 11:2 (1971), 187-91; Francis Young, "'Creatio Ex Nihilo': A Context for the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation," Scottish Journal of Theology 44 (1991), 139-51; Gerhard May, Shopfunf aus dem Nichts (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1978); Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity," BYU Studies 17:3 (Spring 1977), 291-318.



Der Alter:

Try again please. One quote for a nonexistent source and one reference to, but no quotes from, another alleged early father, is NOT "providing pre-Justin Christians."



TOm:

I am glad you choose to call my source nonexistent. It exists and it established non-creation ex nihilo in the 1st century. Concerning Hermogenes, I only assumed that you were aware of at least Tertullian Against Hermogenes. It is very clear from Chapter XVII that the man Hermogenes who walked with Paul believe in pre-existent matter and that Tertullian who wrote 150 years latter does not.

So, we have Christians pre Justin who believe did not believe in creation ex nihilo. Hardly “nonsense.”



Der Alter:

Scholarship has little to do with degrees and diplomas. Some one with little or no higher education can demonstrate very good scholarship, and another person with multiple degrees can demonstrate not so good scholarship.

I have never been to law school but I've had a 9th Circuit Federal ADA compliment me on my legal briefs. He said they were better written and researched than many attorneys.



TOm:

You are clearly a smart man. And while I may not be as smart as you are, I can read. You alluded to Mormon-R-Us. Well, the fact is that as Owen and Mosser say, LDS have refuted all the arguments you use to try and say we are illogical. And I would hold some of these scholars up against you in the smart department.



Also, while you are clearly smart, I think you have failed to understand what BIAS is. It took me a long time to see through the eyes of a Catholic and not think that they were ridiculous for believing as they do. You at least recognize that everyone who does not agree with you is not spouting “nonsense” or somehow less intelligent/worthy than you.



Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Some people know when to leave well enough alone.Constantine died A.D. 337 shortly after the death of Arius had prevented the solemn restoration of the latter to the fellowship of the church.


After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was permitted to return; but Constantius carried out in the East the ecclesiastical policy of the last years of his father’s life. Athanasius was again, A.D. 339, compelled to fflee and proceeded to Rome. The Eusebians (Eus. Of Nic. Had meanwhile become bishop of Constaninople) were now in control of the East.

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg.Baker Book House, 1978, p. 219.

"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica

Indeed, for more than 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire.

To cite this page:
"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=109633&seq_nbr=2&page=n&pm=1
[Accessed December 8 2001].
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.


Catholic Encyclopedia-Arianism

Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

I will work on your Constantine ideas tomorrow. I believe I will try to show that at the time of the Council of Nicea is far more important than at Constantine’s death long after he left Rome.

Also, since you did not simultaneously post this with your original assertions, does this mean you posted “nonsense?” I would say no, but this seems to be your definition.



Charity, TOm

[Der Alter]

I will work on your Constantine ideas tomorrow. I believe I will try to show that at the time of the Council of Nicea is far more important than at Constantine’s death long after he left Rome.

Also, since you did not simultaneously post this with your original assertions, does this mean you posted “nonsense?” I would say no, but this seems to be your definition.

I was waiting for you to do exactly what I thought you would, make an issue of it. I said before do not assume just because I do not give you an answer 30 nanoseconds after you post, that I do not have one. Another approach would have been to do some serious searching online to make sure one does not get ambushed.

"I believe I will try to show that at the time of the Council of Nicea is far more important than at Constantine’s death long after he left Rome." The Nicaean council was in 325 AD, Constantine died 337 AD. Twelve years is not that long time. Also he was very friendly with Eusebius from the first. What did you say Eusebius' Christology was?

[Der Alter]

Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God "made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin).

I am sorry you had trouble. It did take me about 5 minutes to find the proper passage on the web site that you and I reference for the ECF, so it was not just totally simple. Let me help you out:


http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-26.htm#P5282_755095 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-26.htm#P5282_755095)[/size]

Your previous post identified the quote as from chapter 60 chapter. The letter does NOT have a chapter 60, the last chapter is 59. And the phrase “God ‘made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world,” does NOT occur in the letter. If you claim that it does then cite the paragraph number. I already have the link to the writing. I gave, it to you.

I seem to be having a problem communicating with you. You made assertions about J.N.D. Kelly but you did NOT address my response and you did NOT address my questions about Justin. At this point I am not interested in any scholars, of any stripe, you may dig up.

Posted previously and largely ignored.

Not interested in painters or what you submit or surmise. Kelly cited his sources in the footnotes, which I provided, prove him wrong from the primary sources. I will not hold my breath.
He is also ‘the creator of the universe’ the maker of and Father of all things, Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence. . .

FN 1 Apol. 13, I; dial.56,I; 3,5;4, I,

I notice you did NOT respond to my question, “Where did Moses speak of some preexisting material or substance?” Justin twice said that Moses described the material/substance from which God created the world and listed the verse from which he concluded this. Describe for me, from Justin, exactly where Moses stated that God created from preexisting matter?

Knee jerk, knee jerk, “the rest of Justin’s quotes do not demand an “ex nihilo.” What part of, “All, All things, the universe, all other things,”, do you not understand?These phrases are highlighted in the above quotes from Justin's two Apologies, and Dialogue.
• God, the Father and Creator of all,
• the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all;
• God, the Creator of all things,
• God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth,
• the Creator of all,
• the Father and Creator of the universe.
• He created and arranged all things
• God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.
• one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all.
• God who created all things
As promised let us talk about what you are saying here. The Bible calls God the Father. The Bible calls God the Creator. The problem is that the Bible never says that God created ex Nihilo. This had to be invented after the Apostles died. After the Church no longer claimed supernatural revelation. After men took over the defining of doctrine and the Holy Spirit no long inspired the words of men. Hermogenes who walked with Paul knew the truth. Clement knew the truth. Justin Marytr knew the truth. Two of these three of course had the voices of the apostles ringing in their ears. But most of Christendom walks by the light of men, Tiatian, Tertulian,Theophilus, and others even farther removed from the revelation of God. Thank you, but I will take the earlier witness and the Bible over these men’s ideas.

Once again, “What part of, ‘All, All things, the universe, all other things,,, do you not understand? I was NOT talking about the word “create” or “creator.” I have not found your alleged quote from Justin. But I did post several passages, from Justin, above and previously, which clearly do NOT speak of creation from preexistent matter. How can you interpret Justin saying God created out of preexistent matter when Justin clearly says several times, God created “all things?”

So, I am sure you will admit that the Bible does not say ex Nihilo. That would make “ex Nihilo” extra Biblical which is a problem for a sola scriptura person. But let us talk about what the Bible does say.


Don’t even think about going there. I do not want to have to point out all the words you will use which are also NOT in the scripture, such as, e.g. "Bible" and "sola scriptura.

You asked, “where is the material?”

Well I guess the answer is that when separates and makes on is using material to do so, but Speiser will go farther than this. How about the Anchor Bible’s translation of the Genesis.

Don’t guess! You made an assertion about Justin based on the passage you quoted. Read the passage and answer the questions. The Anchor Bible and all those other scholars, you mentioned, are irrelevant!

Der Alter, I do not claim to know all the things that you know, but were you really unaware that so many Catholic’s and Protestants recognize that creation ex nihilo is at best just one of the interpretation of the Bible and at worst (for your position) a less straight forward interpretation.

Bullfeathers!

Here is a list of others you can look to. Jewish, non-LDS Christian, and LDS:

Irrelevant! You have not addressed my previous post. Here is a Jewish source you can verify.
[b]Jewish Encyclopedia-Creation

Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see Cosmogony), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in accordance with the Deity's purposes (see Dragon; Darkness), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doctrine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desinated as "He who spake and the world sprang into existence" (see Baruk She-Amar and 'Er. 13b; Meg. 13b; Sanh. 19a, 105a; id. 31a; ul. 63b, 84b; Sifre to Num. § 84; Gen. R. 34b; Ex. R. xxv.; Shab. 139a; Midrash Mishle, 10c). God is "the author of creation," ("bereshit" having become the technical term for "creation"; Gen. R. xvi.; Ber. 54a, 58a; ag. 12a, 18a; ?ul. 83a; Ecclus. [Sirach] xv. 14).

The belief in God as the author of creation ranks first among the thirteen fundamentals (see Articles of Faith) enumerated by Maimonides. It occurs in the Yigdal, where God is called, "anterior [because Himself uncreated] to all that was created "; in the Adon 'Olam; and it is taught in all modern Jewish catechisms.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C


Try again please. One quote for a nonexistent source and one reference to, but no quotes from, another alleged early father, [Hermogenes] NOT "providing pre-Justin Christians."

I am glad you choose to call my source nonexistent. It exists and it established non-creation ex nihilo in the 1st century. Concerning Hermogenes, I only assumed that you were aware of at least Tertullian Against Hermogenes. It is very clear from Chapter XVII that the man Hermogenes who walked with Paul believe in pre-existent matter and that Tertullian who wrote 150 years latter does not.

So, we have Christians pre Justin who believe did not believe in creation ex nihilo. Hardly “nonsense.”

No we do NOT have Christians pe-Justin who did not believe in creation ex nihilo. I have searched “Tertullian Against Hermogenes,” the name of Paul does NOT appear in it and see footnote #1, below, nothing is known of Hermogenes. There is zero documentation that he was a contemporary of Paul. From this writing he appears to be a contemporary of Tertullian, ca. 225 AD. Thus you have NOT provided any definitive proof that creation from preexisting matter even existed in the first century.
¹ Compendii gratia. [The reference here to the De Proescript. forbids us to date this tract earlier than 207 a.d. Of this Hermogenes, we only know that he was probably a Carthaginian, a painter, and of a versatile and clever mind.]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/footnote/fn81.htm#P8169_2317805

You are clearly a smart man. And while I may not be as smart as you are, I can read. You alluded to Mormon-R-Us. Well, the fact is that as Owen and Mosser say, LDS have refuted all the arguments you use to try and say we are illogical. And I would hold some of these scholars up against you in the smart department.

I said before. Owen and Mosser are irrelevant! They are unknown and do NOT document or prove the conclusions they asserted. And they do NOT say all counter LDS arguments. Find some scholars with some credentials, who document, and support their arguments and conclusions and you might have something.

Also, while you are clearly smart, I think you have failed to understand what BIAS is. It took me a long time to see through the eyes of a Catholic and not think that they were ridiculous for believing as they do. You at least recognize that everyone who does not agree with you is not spouting “nonsense” or somehow less intelligent/worthy than you.

I fully understand what BIAS is, and I realize that everyone has some, to some degree. It is one thing to state that everyone has some sort of bias and to dismiss something written, sight unseen, as being biased, because it may hold a different view than you, which you did. A statement which, OBTW, contradicts your contention that some scholars do write contrary to their assumed biases.

[TOmNossor]

Some people know when to leave well enough alone.Constantine died A.D. 337 shortly after the death of Arius had prevented the solemn restoration of the latter to the fellowship of the church.


After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was permitted to return; but Constantius carried out in the East the ecclesiastical policy of the last years of his father’s life. Athanasius was again, A.D. 339, compelled to fflee and proceeded to Rome. The Eusebians (Eus. Of Nic. Had meanwhile become bishop of Constaninople) were now in control of the East.

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg.Baker Book House, 1978, p. 219.

"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica

Indeed, for more than 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire.

To cite this page:
"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=109633&seq_nbr=2&page=n&pm=1
[Accessed December 8 2001].
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.


Catholic Encyclopedia-Arianism

Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Der Alter:

Constantine died A.D. 337 shortly after the death of Arius had prevented the solemn restoration of the latter to the fellowship of the church.

After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was permitted to return; but Constantius carried out in the East the ecclesiastical policy of the last years of his father’s life. Athanasius was again, A.D. 339, compelled to fflee and proceeded to Rome. The Eusebians (Eus. Of Nic. Had meanwhile become bishop of Constaninople) were now in control of the East.

The History of Doctrines, Reinhold Seeberg.Baker Book House, 1978, p. 219.

"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica



Indeed, for more than 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire.

To cite this page:
"Constantine I" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?art...r=2&page=n&pm=1 (http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=109633&seq_nbr=2&page=n&pm=1)
[Accessed December 8 2001].
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.



TOm:



According to Hefele, Histoire des Conciles:

“…this council [Nicea] was, for Constantine, much more an affair of the state than an affair of the Church.”



Before I said:

Constantine was not a Christian until close to the end of his life. I actually do not think he really cared who won the conflict. According to Boulenger, Constantine used Christianity to unify his empire. One thing is clear he called the council of Nicea and he financed it.

Here is one historian’s breakup of the council attendees.

Albers-Hedde, Manual d’Histoire Eclesiatique, vol 1 p.153 (translated Barker):

“The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine (Athanasian) – Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but hesitated to recognize his perfet equality with the Father; about twenty adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature.”

Also, according to Mourret, both Eusibuis (there were two with the same name) had to intervene with Constantine to prevent him from taking measures again Arius. So I would be interested to see what your source say about Constantine being an Arian.



TOm (now):

Here is the from Mourret, Les Peres de l’Englise, p. 45:

The two Eusebius had to intervene with Constantine to prevent the emperor from taking measures against the person of the heretic [Arius].



TOm:

You see, Arius was not a Bishop and he did not have a seat on the council. Athanasius did have a seat on the council so he was present for all discussions. After Arius was first allowed to speak it was obvious to Constantine that for the purposes of unifying the church he could not support Arius. Constantine would have banish Arius then because this was expedient. This of course was what I said.



Now to understand what you said we must see why Athanasius was banished. At the conclusion of the Council of Nicea, Constantine banished Arius. Three years later, Eusibius convinced Constantine to reinstate Arius. Athanasius objected. Constantine banished Athanasius.



Eusibius was a semi-Arian (which was ultimately heretical, was called Arian after Nicea, but was not necessarily heretical after Nicea). So if Constantine ultimately had leanings it seems likely they were semi-Arian leanings, not full Arian leaning.



Der Alter:
Catholic Encyclopedia-Arianism

Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm)



TOm:

The words “Constantine now favoured none but Arians.” Shows that there was either a change or a move from indecision to decision.



This who controversy started because you stated:

Der Alter (before):

As I said in one post, above. Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything. Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.



TOm:

I have shown that Constantine called the council. He did. I agree with you that he did not technically preside over the council.

I have shown that Constantine may have ultimately leaned towards semi-Arianism, but if he acted from religious conviction (which I doubt) at the Council of Nicea, it was conviction against Arius.

I have explained your banishment and reinstatement ideas.

You have provide your reasons that you think Constantine was an Arian (or rather semi-Arian). This is good, but it does not explain away his influence on the Council of Nicea (which was the original point of this whole discussion).



As I stated, coming out of the council of Nicea the church was moved towards a co-equal position that had never existed before. To be a knowledgeable Catholic is to believe that the current dogma of the Catholic Church (which to my knowledge does not include the term “co-equal”) is at the bitter edge of pre-Nicea Tradition and thus does not result in new and different doctrine without revelation from God.



To be a knowledgeable Catholic is to recognize that Constantine is responsible for the invocation of the council and the near total acknowledgement of the results of the council, because the Pope was neither present nor well represented. The Papacy was still in development at this time.



And, coming out of the Council of Nicea the semi-arian position still had room to breath. In fact as you pointed out as Constantine and his successors embraced the semi-arian position it gained a lot of following. At one point in time post Nicea virtually all Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome although probably under threat from the e