FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2013, 06:26 AM   #11
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The translation is in the OP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
...

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:


Quote:
ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. . . .
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. . . .
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:00 AM   #12
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The translation is in the OP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
...

Here's the Greek of this section of Athanasius' work and a translation of it:


ὦ τῶν πάντων ἔχων τὸ κῦρος [40.26.2]δέσποτα, ὦ τῆς μονήρους δυνάμεως πάτερ, διὰ τουτονὶ τὸν ἀνόσιον ὀνείδη τε καὶ μώλωπας καὶ μέντοι καὶ τραύματα καὶ ὀδύνας ἡ σὴ ἔχει ἐκκλησία. . . .
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. . . .
Please, allow Jeffrey to translate the passage because he may not agree with you.
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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 09:25 AM   #13
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

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"
Quote:
In truth, when Paul says that `all things are from God,' he immediately adds, `and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things143 ,' in order to shew all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be[i][b] through His Son...
This is an excerpt from the very passage you posted.

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"....
"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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 10:23 AM   #14
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Again, the passsage [sic] makes reference to Jesus Christ.
But does the passage from Book 40 use the word Ἰησοῦς?

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

Quote:
Please read " The Defense of the Nicene Definition".
I have. Please read what I actually wrote.

Quote:
Defense of the Nicene Definition"
Quote:
In truth, when Paul says that `all things are from God,' he immediately adds, `and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things143 ,' in order to shew all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be[i][b] through His Son...
This is an excerpt from the very passage you posted.

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"....
"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.
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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 10:49 AM   #15
Chili
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

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

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.

Quote:
He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place,
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.
Chili is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 11:43 AM   #16
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 12:24 PM   #17
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
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/]
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 01:24 PM   #18
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
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 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 03:16 PM   #19
Chili
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
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). 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).
Chili is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 04:31 PM   #20
Jeffrey Gibson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
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!


Quote:
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.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.