aa5874

Please, allow Jeffrey to translate the passage because he may not agree with you.

Jeffrey appears to be arguing that Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition" is not about Jesus.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...#P3189_1249661

Jeffrey did state that there is no reference to Jesus in the passage when it clearly says "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"

Again, mountainman is perfectly right, absolutely right, when he claimed that there is reference to Jesus in the passage of the "Defense of the Nicene Definition" and Jeffrey was absolutely wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

I already have. You've quoted it.

Quote:

Jeffrey appears to be arguing that Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition" is not about Jesus.

Appears is correct. What I'm noting -- and what you are inexplicably not understanding -- is that within the letter to Arius from Constantine that appears in Decritis (Book 40. See here), and especially in the section that Pete refers to (sections 24-31), Constantine does not use the word Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) nor is the one whom Constantine speaks of as having been diminished, circumscribed, called a figment, foreign, etc. etc. by Arius Jesus, as Pete claims. Rather, as the text plainly shows, it is God the father.

Now please answer my question: Of whom is Constantine (note, Constantine) speaking when at Decretis 40:26-27 Constantine says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. Is it Jesus?

Yes or no?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Again, the passsage makes reference to Jesus Christ.

Are you not aware that Jesus Christ is referred to as the Son of the Lord God?

Please read " The Defense of the Nicene Definition".

Defense of the Nicene Definition" This is an excerpt from the very passage you posted.

"Your son Christ, born from you" is a reference to Jesus Christ in "The Defense of the Nicene Definition".

The Nicene Creed is fundamentally about the nature of Jesus Christ.

Jeffrey Gibson

But does the passage from Book 40 use the word Ἰησοῦς?

Yes. But that's not the issue. The issue is who it is that Constantine is speaking of at Decretis 40:26-27 Constantine says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησίαs.

I have. Please read what I actually wrote.

Well, at least part of it is. There's those pesky sections about God the Father, the spirit, and the church.

But again, the issue is not what the Creed is about, but of whom Constantine speaks when at Decretis 40:26-27 Constantine says διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία

Will you please answer that question?

<edit>

Jeffrey

Chili

It is just a fatal definition problem as I see it, wherein Jesus from the Gospels had a dual nature as Jesus and Christ, and also a brother called James to identify 'who is who' in this argument here, wherein now James was both Jesus and anti-christ.

First to note is that Jesus died in all four gospels, so obviously he was not 'it', with 'it' being the Christ or anti christ to be set free when he died.

So to isolate Jesus as equal to the essence of Christ may just leave the reader with the anti-christ instead, just as it happened in Matthew and Mark who was not from the beginning as clearly is shown in the lineage of Matthew as different from the lineage in Luke. And please do not call this a contradiction because that is why they different = to compliment each other with this in mind.

And let me tell you here that "back to Galilee" now as empowered imposter (who is worse that the first as per Mat:27:64) that the chief priest knew all about, and 'still die nonetheless' equals hell on earth, as I see it, to also count in this argument here.

And it is also wrong of aa to say that because JC is the Son of God as Lord God himself to be . . . when finally Thomas as twin in faith and doubt could exclaimed: "my Lord and my God!" and thus was not son of Lord God (omitting the mystery of faith wherein the child becomes the father of man).

Notice that the 'essence of Christ' does not make reference to a material man to be universal among Catholics here, and this only so that they can be a Christ [in their own right], (Rev.14:13), instead of a worshiper of Jesus by pointing at Jesus the material man as son of Lord God who so would be 3rd cause here now empowered from upon high to make hell known on earth (that Plato called the difference between syn-ousia and sy-zen, wherein both synousia and syzen are fed by the same infinite source while different only in 'seeing' as opposed to 'being' one with the same infinite source (Seventh Epistle 341C).

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:

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

no longer the manifested but an end in itself.

. . . and so a 'Jesus worshiper [as Christian] is being addressed in this letter, and that would make any Catholic puke even today when they do their string of "Hail Mary's" with an Our Father" in between, and where never a prayer to Jesus is heard.

Jeffrey Gibson

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

aa5874

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.

Jeffrey Gibson

Where does the name "Jesus" appear here?

Jeffrey

Chili

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). Plato called this a re-emergence from the parthenocapic womb to 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).

Let me drag you again to Gal.5:4 where "any of you who seek justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor" [the Herodian way] is the message here, which he must see in the material of Arius in clinging to Jesus (that is like a swear word for Catholics, or should be) for Constantine to write what he did.

Look at the transformation in this:

From Joseph to Jesus to Christ to Christ Jesus to Jesus Christ, to finally John (in Patmos to say).

Jeffrey Gibson

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

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)

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!


:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jeffrey