Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 04:48 PM

Again, your posts are recorded. We have what you wrote on file in your OP of this very thread. This is what I find extremely disturbing. Even though your statements are recorded you still attempt to divert attention from your blatant fallacies.

This is your blatant erroneous fallacy from the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

I have shown you the references to Jesus.

Jesus is referred to as Christ the Son of God.

But, I am not finished yet.

[Jesus is also referred to as God the Father in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition"

Effectively any reference to God the Father is also a reference to Jesus Christ.

The Defense of the Nicene Definition 4

Quote:

For He who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who says, 'I and the Father are one...

You seem not to have understood your cryptic language even when translated to English.

Any reference to Christ the Son is a reference to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is God in essence.

The Defense of the Nicene Definition 4

Quote:

..the Son is 'one in essence ' with the Father..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Notice this line wherein he 'encircles' the Son with a defined seat that is worthy to worship instead of the Father, and that alone flies directly in the face of the "our father" that this same Jesus taught us to pray:

Quote:

He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence?

. . . no longer the 'principle of motion' but an end in itself.

Please show me where the word "son" appears in Decretis 40:27 and how on the basis of the Greek text of this passage ( σὲ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης καθέδρας κύκλῳ περιγράφειν τολμᾷ) the referent of "you" in "he dares to circumscribe you" is the "son" (let alone Jesus).

Otherwise, please stop posting your cryptic and off topic nonsense in this thread.

Jeffrey

It is you who post cryptic passages that contradict you after they are translated into English.

It is completely fallacious that the cryptic passage does not refer to Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the "Defense of the Nicene Definition"

Please examine your intial claim. It is false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

Where does the name "Jesus" appear here?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-04-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, your posts are recorded. We have what you wrote on file in your OP of this very thread. This is what I find extremely disturbing. Even though your statements are recorded you still attempt to divert attention from your blatant fallacies.

This is your blatant erroneous fallacy from the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

I have shown you the references to Jesus.

Jesus is referred to as Christ the Son of God.

But, I am not finished yet.

[Jesus is also referred to as God the Father in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition"

Effectively any reference to God the Father is also a reference to Jesus Christ.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, your posts are recorded. We have what you wrote on file in your OP of this very thread. This is what I find extremely disturbing. Even though your statements are recorded you still attempt to divert attention from your blatant fallacies.

This is your blatant erroneous fallacy from the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

I have shown you the references to Jesus.

Jesus is referred to as Christ the Son of God.

But, I am not finished yet.

[Jesus is also referred to as God the Father in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition"

Effectively any reference to God the Father is also a reference to Jesus Christ.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jeffrey

You did not even know that Jesus was named Christ.

CHRIST is Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As can easily be seen, the name, let alone any reference to, "Jesus" appears nowhere in this section of Constantine's letter.

:Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky:

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

MrMacSon · 06-04-2013, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....

There is a reference to "Jesus" in the passsage you provided.

Quote:

....Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid...

This raises the issue of how much we can conflate pre-biblical references to Jesus or Christ ....

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....

There is a reference to "Jesus" in the passsage you provided.

Quote:

....Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid...

This raises the issue of how much we can conflate pre-biblical references to Jesus or Christ ....

I am dealing with the blatant fallacies of Jeffrey Gibson where he presented a translation of some passage found in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition" and declared there is no reference to Jesus.

Jeffrey Gibson did not know that Jesus was called Christ in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition".

The Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

....we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united.

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made [color]the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ[/color], prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

Christ is a direct reference to Jesus in the passage.

Adam · 06-04-2013, 05:25 PM

"Christ" is in the passage, yes, but "Jesus" is not. Everyone agrees that you are wrong, aa, it is irrelevant to the point here whether you or anyone considers "Christ" to mean "Jesus". It's just not Jesus! "Jesus" is not in the text!

You are quite mistaken to say someone else is mistaken. You alone are in error! I don't know why anyone bothers replying to you. You can't appeal to something outside 24-31 that Jeffrey specified, the letter from Constantine cited by mountainman.

aa5874 · 06-04-2013, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

"Christ" is in the passage, yes, but "Jesus" is not. Everyone agrees that you are wrong, aa, it is irrelevant to the point here whether you or anyone considers "Christ" to mean "Jesus". It's just not Jesus! "Jesus" is not in the text!

You are quite mistaken to say someone else is mistaken. You alone are in error! I don't know why anyone bothers replying to you. You can't appeal to something outside 24-31 that Jeffrey specified, the letter from Constantine cited by mountainman.

What absurdity you post!! The passage makes reference to Jesus when it mentioned Christ the Son.

In the "Defense of the Nicene Definition" Christ Jesus is Christ.

The Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

...we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in ChristJesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united.

The Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

O Lord, you who have the supreme authority over all things, O Father of singular power, because of this profane person your Church receives both reproaches and griefs and also both wounds and pains. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constituting – as I think – a synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. (27.) Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Or where do all persons not perceive your activity from your all-pervading laws? For you yourself encompass all things and it is not right to think of either a place or anything else outside you. Thus your power with activity is infinite.

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. (31.) What then, do you say, one more wretched than the wretched, oh, truly an adviser of evil? Understand, if you can, that in your very knavery you are destroyed as a villain. [http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/]

Your absurdity is like claiming a reference to THE PRESENT President of the United States is not a reference to Obama.

Or even more absurd that a reference to Pilate in gMark is not a reference to Pontius Pilate in the Canon.

I am extremely happy that you have responded because we now know that you also have no idea that a reference to Christ is a reference to Christ Jesus in the very same text.

Chili · 06-04-2013, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Where does the name "Jesus" appear here?

Jeffrey

It is true that the word Jesus does not appear because the essence of Christ is the principle of God in motion, as in "Christ with us" is what Constantine is defending that is made known by God's begotton son only, and thus not as created here but re-born 'to be' (to on).

τὸ ὄν to on is not an infinitive and it certainly does not me "to be".

Quote:

Plato called this a re-emergence from the parthenocapic womb

the word is parthenocarpic -- and a search of the TLG shows that Plato never uses it anywhere within his writings of anything, let alone a womb. In fact, it is not a Greek word. It's origin dates only to 1910. (see the OED entry)

Quote:

be the partheocarpic fruit of the womb with nothing human about him, masculine here in the purity of God the father who so is made known via the Son and hence Lord God 'to be' (for which there is a plural in 'ta onta' and so can happen to us).

τὰ ὄντα is not the plural of the Greek infinitive meaning "to be" εἶναι (there are no plurals for infinitives) and it is certainly not a plural of εἰμί.

Please stop this nonsense!

Jeffrey

This was not meant to be a lesson in Greek but I used it only to remove the historic element of Christ wherein 'to be' refers to son of man 'becoming' fully man (to on) in function (en-ergeia) as Christ (to einai), and that is universal to all and theretore ta onta is plural, including the pavement you walk on (and that is why it is said that all roads lead to Rome). That's all.

And I did this to show that Jesus is not Christ and never will be until crucified and raised to make presence known, and thus no longer son of man but now fully man as their "[first] principle of motion" that Constantine was defending here, as generic to all instead of being caged "by a circle of a defined seat."

And right, parthenos can mean virgin, or maiden, or young woman, while not recognizing that begotten defines what She really is.

And btw, when the Sattha hits you over the head with a 2x4 and says "this is Buddha" you know that he is talking about Christ.

MrMacSon · 06-04-2013, 09:01 PM

This is interesting -

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. ...

http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/

Seems to acknowledge fabrication and creation of 'an essence'

Chili · 06-04-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

This is interesting -

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

Defense of the Nicene Definition

Quote:

Do you, God, then hear; do you, all the people, pay attention. For this fellow is shameless and useless, who, having progressed to the height both of wickedness and likewise of lawlessness, pretends piety. (29.) He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.” Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? (30.) According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign and – as it were – a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father’s eternity, perfected all things? Now adapt, if indeed you dare, adapt I say, to God both precaution and hope of what will happen, also reflection, reasoning, declaration and articulation of considered judgment, and, in short, delight, laughter, grief. ...

http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-34/

Seems to acknowledge fabrication and creation of 'an essence'

The fabriction is the work of the mythmaker, true, but the essence is newly created as current in time, also each generation anew, wherefore Jesus said that "you shall do greater things."

It clearly is not about a historical Jesus nor Christ but the Christ among us made manifest in and by believers, that so becomes the basis for Saints and also the infallible ex cathedra voice that only means "in charge of destiny," representing the essence of Christ as Christ, which in the end is the essence of man as fully man and not, or no longer human.

So in the end, just as the first Adam is our second nature, so will the second Adam be that same second nature after a complete metanoia is made, and for this what is called divine input is needed, wherefore then Nazareth is crucial to be where 'the sinner' is from by way of tradition first and foremost, since also PhD's are liability here (that are called richess there).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2013, 05:25 PM	#26
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	"Christ" is in the passage, yes, but "Jesus" is not. Everyone agrees that you are wrong, aa, it is irrelevant to the point here whether you or anyone considers "Christ" to mean "Jesus". It's just not Jesus! "Jesus" is not in the text! You are quite mistaken to say someone else is mistaken. You alone are in error! I don't know why anyone bothers replying to you. You can't appeal to something outside 24-31 that Jeffrey specified, the letter from Constantine cited by mountainman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.