I understood the point. It’s aimed at Catholicism by comparing the large and mainstream to the few and outcast. My point was that it would be unintelligent to use ones lack of success or the widespread non-acceptance of their ideas as a proof of their veracity.
With respect to the your statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses “think a construct of two Aramaic/Hebrew terms for God is His real name,” that is simply not true. But, before I go on, this comment might prove to be interesting:
I found out this quote came from the Longer version of Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephsians ch 7, note the context:There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, … …
I found this quote in his Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 1. There is no problem here
.
Dear fhansen,
Iinterestingly I found out this was under listed under his “Spurious Epistles” (ie scholars question if he actually wrote it). THAT being said check out the context:Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.” John 1:3 “When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily.” And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: “Sit at My right hand?” And how, again, could such an one declare: “Before Abraham was, I am?” John 8:58 And, “Glorify Me with Your glory which I had before the world was?” John 17:5 What man could ever say, “I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me?” John 6:38 And of what man could it be said, “He was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not?” How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, John 1:1 and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.” -To Tarsesians ch 6
This is found in Ignatius’ Spurious Epistle to the Ephesians, but look at what that quote leaves off:For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;” 1 Corinthians 8:6 and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;” 1 Corinthians 8:6 and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought 1 Corinthians 12:11 in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; …
I addressed this quote at the top.
This doesnt hurt our claims one bit. In fact it is your presumption that it “desnt necesarily mean equality with Almighty God” when the context of such passages (eg Jn 1) says otherwise. The fact Jesus is co-creator is enough to show Jesus is not a mere man.
Those proofs were less than convincing, especially because of the clear testimony to the Son’s Divinity in Ignatius’s work which I showed above.
That is a false argument starting with the presumption that it can NEVER mean true equality. That is not how those Father quotes portray it however.
I dont know who you are talking to, but I just looked up each of those quotes myself while you just cut and pasted without verifying context or anything else. On top of that many of your quotes are misleading.
Dear Catholic Dude,
You seem to be misled as to WHO the minister of the word is. If just anyone presumes to be, this is where they are in error. The Church has always known itself to be that “pillar and foundation of truth” spoken of in 1st Timothy, rather than impostors who came centuries later and picked up a book, the bible, which the Catholic Church had compiled and had a part in creating. This notion that individuals or groups outside of that Church which God established can pick up a book and magically know what Christianity means-what God wishes for us to know- is quite fanciful and the fact that whole churches, institutions, or societies, however big or small, successful or unsuccessful, have been built around this notion in no way lends credence to it.
Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding. Had a popular vote prevailed, it would be as if those “Catholics” who promote abortion were to bring that issue to the table and then proceed to have a pro-abortion stance voted into Catholic dogma. In the case of Arianism, the vote was taken by those who had rightful authority and God, the one who established His Church, His “pillar and foundation of truth” ensured that a popular myth called Arianism would not prevail.
Dear Catholic Dude:
Dear fhansen,
You need to realize the understanding developed over time but the essence and truth was certainly there. They held that the Son was Divine, and that terms like “only begotten” and “Son” signified a special and very unique relationship with the “Father”. Just because they didnt yet come up with terminology like “one God in three Persons” and “Three Persons, One Divine Nature”, etc doesnt mean they didnt hold to the essentials like the Divinity of the Son.
You are assuming developing the truth is the same as inventing a new truth, that is incorrect. The Apostolic Fathers quoted places like Mat 28:19f, as I showed above Ignatius says that the three possess “equal honor”.
](http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html) That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, – this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.
Yes, you are right, I should have been more careful in my quoting of the work. As to what is included between pages 299 and 304, as I stated before, if you wish for me to send you the complete photo-copy of the "Trintiy" portion of the *New Catholic Encyclopedia*, email me your address and I'd be more than happy to send it to you.
With respect to the portion that I had left out, first, this still does not change the force/implication of their having admitted a "negative," that is, in that they establish the fact that, when it comes to the Trinity doctrine:
"Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."
Secondly, with respect to their claim:
"...the triadic mystery is at least *implicitly* the word of God."
I would ask your consideration of the following:
"…the doctrine of inference [within the Bible] ought never to be placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of direct and explicit revelation."
Taken from: Carlile, James (b.?-d.?). *Jesus Christ, the Great God our Saviour: Being a View of the Doctrine of Scripture Respecting the Deity of the Son as Connected with the Deity of the Father and of the Holy Ghost.* (Dublin, Ireland: Westley and Tyrrell, 1828). OCLC: 9715335.
"It cannot be too often repeated that, in the proper sense of the terms, no creed, confession or formula of faith can be found in the New Testament….What is manifest on every page is a common body of doctrine, definite in outline and regarded by everyone as the possession of no individual but of the Church as a whole."
Taken from: Kelly, John Norman Davidson (b.1909-d.1997). *Early Christian Creeds.* 2nd Edition. (London, England: Longmans, 1960), pp. 24-25. BT990 .K4 1960 / 60-05180.
And, to this, I would also add, there is no teaching of any Trinity doctrine (that is, as had been eventually composed by a minority, some 300+ years later) within the Bible.
On that note, again, I would invite serious consideration of the contents within the following weblink:
[Some Powerful Reasoning's About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed](http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html)
Contained therein, are these very insightful remarks:
"Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God’s unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens it that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said implying that objections were brought against the gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on the cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity on that account reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity."
As taken from: Channing, William Ellery (b.1780-d.1842), D.D. *Unitarian Christianity; A Discourse on Some of the Distinguishing Opinions of Unitarians, Delivered at [the Ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks (b.1789- d.1866) in The First Independent Church of] Baltimore, May 5, 1819.* Centenary Edition. “Introduction” signed by: E. M. W. [Wilbur, Earl Morse (b.1866-d.1956)]. (Boston, Massachusetts: American Unitarian Association, 1919), Heading II [2], Subheading 1. BX9843.C5 S55 1919 / 21-017181.
Agape, Alan.
[email]john1one@earthlink.net[/email]
"What About John 1:1?"
[Good Companion Books](http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com)Dear Catholic Dude,
Dear marlo,
Dear marlo (and any others interested),