True Go(o)d of True Go(o)d, Light of Light, One In Being...

[headheart]

History belongs to the victors, I suppose.

Thanks for the chat, but your comments lack substance.

Bye, bye,
HH

[robertb]

Thanks for the chat, but your comments lack substance.

Bye, bye,
HH

Perhaps, though they make up for it in pure wisdom, I guess.

[headheart]

Perhaps, though they make up for it in pure wisdom, I guess.

"Smoke, nothing but smoke. [That's what the Quester says.] There's nothing to anything—it's all smoke."

Ecclesiastes

Sincerely,
HH

bye bye.

[robertb]

"Smoke, nothing but smoke. [That's what the Quester says.] There's nothing to anything—it's all smoke."

Ecclesiastes

Sincerely,
HH

bye bye.

Do you think that we have an accurate understanding of Marcion and how would you know if we did?

[headheart]

Do you think that we have an accurate understanding of Marcion and how would you know if we did?

Why don't do a little research and present what you find, instead of making me do all the work.

Lazy bum.
HH

[robertb]

Why don't do a little research and present what you find, instead of making me do all the work.

Lazy bum.
HH

I actually have done quite a bit of research into Marcion. Do you have any specific questions in that regard?

[headheart]

I actually have done quite a bit of research into Marcion. Do you have any specific questions in that regard?

Ditto. No.

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

The anathema attached to some versions of the Creed is illustrative of what they meant by the words used:

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I'll list them without the word "created", because that's the word we are trying to understand (define) from their perspective:

"Condemned"..."are those who say"...

1.)'There was a time when he was not;
2.) 'He was not before he was made;'
3.) 'He was made out of nothing,'
4.) 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,'
5.) 'The Son of God is 'changeable,' or 'alterable'



Now i'll list them stated positively:

Approved are those who say:

1.) There was never a time the Son of Go(o)d did not exist. The Son is without beginning.
2.) Before the Son of Go(o)d was made, he existed.
3.) The Son of Go(o)d was made of the Father, not out of nothing.
4.) The Son is not of another substance or essence of the Father.
5.) Like the Father, the Son is unalterable...unchangeable.

How close do you think i am to positively stating what they intend to convey?

Can you see the problem they are having with the words, "made", "created" and "begotten"? The Creed is clear that the Son is "begotten not made". And yet, in the anathemas, they use the term "made" twice to describe the Son's genesis! So where does that leave the word "created"? It appears to be anathematized!

So, its unclear if these anathemas are confirming the Creed, or contradicting it...or just plain confusing us as to what is the difference between made and created and begotten. I think it's safe to say that if i'm using the term created as a synonym for the word begotten, then i am intending to agree with the Creed. If the anathemetizers are using the word made as a synonym for begotten, then they are probably the one's who are intending to convolute (badly distort) the Creed.

Does that make sense?

So, if the Son of Go(o)d was created...then the Son of Go(o)d is creation!
And if the Son of Go(o)d is creation, then what in the world is "this world"? A claymation?

[headheart]

Attachment 78604

[UrbanMonk]

It doesn't matter what it means to me--it matters to what it meant to the writers of the creed.

So here is where i stand on the various anathemas, as they have been translated into positive statements (see post above).


1.) Agreed
2.) Ambiguous.
3.) Agreed
4.) Agreed
5.) Agreed

Let's look closer at 2.) Before the Son of Go(o)d was made, he existed.

This doesn't make sense to me. First of all, the Creed tells us he was not "made", but rather "begotten". So are they using the wrong word? Secondly, i'd be willing to believe that before the Son of God was begotten, he was unbegotten. That makes sense, yes?

On the other hand, i'd be willing to believe that the reproductive processes of Go(o)d are set within an eternal (timeless) framework, where what is begotten has somehow, always been. This is simply in keeping with the general idea that there is no such thing as a beginning in "eternity". Perhaps the term unbegotten is irrelevant to an eternal time zone, so-to-speak.

And yet, we are still left with terms that strongly suggest some kind of ORDER between one Being and another Being. Those terms include:

a.) Father
b.) Son
c.) begotten, not made
d.) from

This ORDER is what i've been calling "the reproductive process of Go(o)d"...whether it is easily understood or not. I suggest that the ORDER is expressed by words better by comparing the terms Cause and Effect. So,

A.) The Father is the Cause of the Son.
B.) The Son is the Effect of the Father.



Does anybody - besides heckers - have a problem with these terms so far?

[headheart]

I thought you said you were done with turning the Titanic around. It seems like you have not even yet begun.

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

I thought you said you were done with turning the Titanic around. It seems like you have not even yet begun.

Sincerely,
HH

Ahem...

Does anybody - besides heckers - have a problem with these terms so far?

[headheart]

Does'nt Unorthodox Theology, belong in the Unorthodox Theology section.
This is Apologetics 301 not let's bludgeon the Creeds, until they bleeds.

Sincerely,
HH

[technomage]

Thanks for the chat, but your comments lack substance.

Short posts do not necessarily lack substance, though sometimes we fail to see the substance when we do not like the content.

[UrbanMonk]

Does'nt Unorthodox Theology, belong in the Unorthodox Theology section.

No it doesn't. That has already been established in the Is Apologetics 301 For Orthodox Christians Only? thread.

AP301 is full of unorthodox opinions. The difference between the two sections is that one allows atheists to participate in discussion, the other doesn't. I do not intend to exclude robertb or any other self-described atheist from participation here. Do you?

Neither has this been established as anything unorthodox. So far, i have simply agreed with three to four points of a major -orthodox - creed...and shown that i agree with an early understanding of the Creed, as evidenced by some anathemas that were published afterward. There is one point that is ambiguous, which hardly makes this "unorthodox". The ambiguous point actually confuses us as to what is orthodox or not. If you have something to add to the discussion, as technomage has done, put it on the table. Otherwise, you are just expressing an opinion.

This is Apologetics 301 not let's bludgeon the Creeds, until they bleeds.

AP301 is for defending your Creed...if you can. If you can't...

Please redirect you concerns on this matter to the linked thread mentioned above.