• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I agree with what you say. However the situation with arianism became considerably complicated by politics and other factors. Some, such as Marcellus of Ancyra rejected the term homoousios in the Nicene creed, as insisted on by Constantine, not because they were arians, but just because they disliked the introduction of the novel philosophical term "homoousios" as derived from Greek paganism.
Precisely about the evident involvement politically.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First of all, the Hebrew scriptures were first written in Hebrew. Abraham did not speak Greek so proskenuo was not the word used. It was a Hebrew word that means bowed down. The Greek word that was used was in Greek in the new testament which was proskenuo which means worship. Look it up and see for your self.

Second, the WTS translates Proskyneu correctly as worship in other places like Matt. 4:10, John 4:20, and at many many other places. It just plain dishonesty on the part of the JWs bible.
If only you really knew what the Bible says and believed it. You keep getting the word God mixed up and you don't understand Psalm 82 or the prophecies or that Athanasius did not really understand who Jesus was. The more I read commentaries supporting the Athanasian Creed, the more dysfunctional it gets in application. Too bad you fell for it. And many people that go through rituals of worship don't care. Why not tell us that adherents to other religions will be saved according to your belief and the Athanasian Creed?
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I agree with what you say. However the situation with arianism became considerably complicated by politics and other factors. Some, such as Marcellus of Ancyra rejected the term homoousios in the Nicene creed, as insisted on by Constantine, not because they were arians, but just because they disliked the introduction of the novel philosophical term "homoousios" as derived from Greek paganism.
The more I read about Athanasius as well as Constantine and the situation, the more I realize how twisted it is. The true God made himself "known" particularly to certain ones, and the people known as the Israelites (descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) were particularly bound to Jehovah. It all goes back in the long run to what happened in the garden of Eden.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First of all, the Hebrew scriptures were first written in Hebrew. Abraham did not speak Greek so proskenuo was not the word used. It was a Hebrew word that means bowed down. The Greek word that was used was in Greek in the new testament which was proskenuo which means worship. Look it up and see for your self.

Second, the WTS translates Proskyneu correctly as worship in other places like Matt. 4:10, John 4:20, and at many many other places. It just plain dishonesty on the part of the JWs bible.
Bow down does not always mean worship but then in order to comprehend that, one would also have to get the way the word God is used. And unfortunately for some, this may not happen.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This argument has already been debunked. See #344
I checked, just for the fun of it. And here's what you said:

***"John 14:12 - Jesus says “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father.”

  1. Strong's Concordance states that meizon, the Greek word for greater means “larger” [not better]

  2. Vine's Dictionary says that meizon 'is the comparative degree of megas” (meaning “great” in the Greek).
We know “greater” does not refer to greater (better in nature) or more powerful than because Jesus uses the very same word to describe the greater SIZE works (greater in quantity, not better works) that His disciples will do compared to His own works. If it meant better in nature or more powerful than then we are greater (better) in nature then Jesus in nature- which would be absurd.

The Father has authority over the Son (who became a man), as the sender is over the sent one. Using Strong's and Vine's definition of “greater” and interpreting Jesus’ own words: “the Father is larger, higher in rank than I.” Jesus purposely “humbled himself' became a willing servant to the Father and mankind. His position was lower than God the Father's, thus His Father was “greater” than He. The word greater denotes a difference in rank or position.'***(end of quote)

Nothing in those comments show that the Father is EQUAL to Jesus and the entity you say is a person called the "holy spirit." Nothing, absolutely 0.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
What part are we to focus on?
Christology is important for Trinity doctrine. All Gospels acknowledge Jesus as Christ but there were different perceptions of Jesus as Christ - early Christologies. What do you think about "low Christology" as in the gospel of Mark and Ebionites?
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
I find the Trinitarian / Chalcedonian formulation of "unity in one person with two natures" deceitful, because logically the concept denoted two people, a divine person and a human person whom cannot be blended, which is an axiomatic principle for the philosophy engaged. If they cannot be blended they are two people, by definition.
Many natures in one person is not problematic in itself. For example a human is also an animal. The problem is divine nature. It can mean the nature of all superhuman beings (like for example "the giants") or the (one) source of all being. This source can be only one, simple (undispersed) and spirit (non-physical).
 

eik

Active Member
Many natures in one person is not problematic in itself. For example a human is also an animal. The problem is divine nature. It can mean the nature of all superhuman beings (like for example "the giants") or the (one) source of all being. This source can be only one, simple (undispersed) and spirit (non-physical).
I agree the problem is not multiple natures, because 2 Pet 1:4 allows humanity to put on the divine nature. The problem is with the concept of reducing a divine person to a divine nature, and a human person to a human nature, and somehow creating one person out of two, possessing all the attributes of God and man simultaneously, although supposedly the divine attributes were voluntary set aside. I just don't buy into the formula, not least because Matt 26:53 disclosed that Jesus really was powerless.

It wasn't that he set aside the powers ordinarily possessed by the divine person. It was that he didn't have those powers, and had to rely on angels and his Father and the Holy Spirit for power. This is surely because he wasn't a "divine person" as a divine person would be found in heaven, or united to such a divine person, although he himself was divine, but he was divine as a human person alone, with a divine nature, which nature was to be imparted and taken up by his brethren.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'll discuss this point now. Jesus knew who he was. He came from heaven.
The Bible does not say that Jesus was God-on-earth in human flesh equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. When he was on the earth, he was human, not equal to God.
If you look at Psalm 82:6,7, which Jesus referenced, you will see that mortals are referred to as gods.
I have said, You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fall.”
Please also look at John 16:23. "At that time you won’t need to ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, you will ask the Father directly, and he will grant your request because you use my name."
John 14:6 helps to understand this:
"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Exactly! Jesus is fully human (therefore, no more divine than any of the rest of us human beings), and is god's gatekeeper. So, please answer my question: what theological tenet allows for human beings to be God's gatekeepers? You just handed me a bunch of disparate bits of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. And you simply complicated matters. If Jesus is fully human (like the rest of us), and Jesus came from heaven, then we all come from heaven. If Jesus is fully human, in what way is he set apart from the rest of us?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Exactly! Jesus is fully human (therefore, no more divine than any of the rest of us human beings), and is god's gatekeeper. So, please answer my question: what theological tenet allows for human beings to be God's gatekeepers? You just handed me a bunch of disparate bits of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. And you simply complicated matters. If Jesus is fully human (like the rest of us), and Jesus came from heaven, then we all come from heaven. If Jesus is fully human, in what way is he set apart from the rest of us?
Since I am not God, I can only discuss it as best I know it. When the person said to be the Son of God came into Mary's womb, he was an embryo. To the best of my knowledge, embryos don't think. Make of that what you will, please.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Exactly! Jesus is fully human (therefore, no more divine than any of the rest of us human beings), and is god's gatekeeper. So, please answer my question: what theological tenet allows for human beings to be God's gatekeepers? You just handed me a bunch of disparate bits of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. And you simply complicated matters. If Jesus is fully human (like the rest of us), and Jesus came from heaven, then we all come from heaven. If Jesus is fully human, in what way is he set apart from the rest of us?
After reading the above post, since you say he was human like the rest of us, do you believe that Jesus was the only perfect (without sin) man to be on this earth (except for Adam, of course)?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Let's say you are right. Jesus is not God. You still have to see the fact that:

  1. God calls Jesus Mighty God.
  2. At John 1:1 the word is God
  3. Jesus is prayed to
  4. Jesus is worshiped

Therefore, you should call on the name of Jesus in prayer and worship and be saved.
In actuality, a proper understanding of how you say God calls Jesus God depends on several factors. One of which is the proper understanding of the meaning of the Psalm.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First of all, the Hebrew scriptures were first written in Hebrew. Abraham did not speak Greek so proskenuo was not the word used. It was a Hebrew word that means bowed down. The Greek word that was used was in Greek in the new testament which was proskenuo which means worship. Look it up and see for your self.

Second, the WTS translates Proskyneu correctly as worship in other places like Matt. 4:10, John 4:20, and at many many other places. It just plain dishonesty on the part of the JWs bible.
No it's not. It's kind of like the different ways Elohim is translated or rendered.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Since I am not God, I can only discuss it as best I know it. When the person said to be the Son of God came into Mary's womb, he was an embryo. To the best of my knowledge, embryos don't think. Make of that what you will, please.
that still doesn't answer my question.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
After reading the above post, since you say he was human like the rest of us, do you believe that Jesus was the only perfect (without sin) man to be on this earth (except for Adam, of course)?
That's immaterial. It doesn't answer my question.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Exactly! Jesus is fully human (therefore, no more divine than any of the rest of us human beings), and is god's gatekeeper. So, please answer my question: what theological tenet allows for human beings to be God's gatekeepers? You just handed me a bunch of disparate bits of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. And you simply complicated matters. If Jesus is fully human (like the rest of us), and Jesus came from heaven, then we all come from heaven. If Jesus is fully human, in what way is he set apart from the rest of us?
We all come from heaven? Exactly how do you figure? You think my mother did not have sexual relations with my father and an angel spoke to her and I just "came about"?
 
Top