Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acts 2:22

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Lucian View Post

    These are pretty bold claims. What work have you done to establish them?
    When Trinitarians call Jesus anthropos, to them it means “someone with human nature,” not that he is “a human being.” This is not “my” claim, but that of Trinitarians. Read their works on this score. None of this is “my” work..

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

      You quoted me part way.
      Aye, I did.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

        When Trinitarians call Jesus anthropos, to them it means “someone with human nature,” not that he is “a human being.” This is not “my” claim, but that of Trinitarians. Read their works on this score. None of this is “my” work..
        This isn’t an answer to my question, which concerned quite specific claims.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Lucian View Post

          This isn’t an answer to my question, which concerned quite specific claims.
          So let’s get specific..

          Step one: Do you see that word anywhere in the NT ?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

            That is a theological word invented specially for the creeds which means “became human” ( that is, took on human nature). It is not saying that he became a human being.
            Well, that's wrong. It means became a human being. A body and a reasonable soul. Everything that it means to be human is included, just as everything that it means to be God is included.
            Huffabo at puffabo et domum tuam inflabo!

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Gryllus Maior View Post

              Well, that's wrong. It means became a human being. A body and a reasonable soul. Everything that it means to be human is included, just as everything that it means to be God is included.
              What is “wrong” ?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

                So let’s get specific..

                Step one: Do you see that word anywhere in the NT ?
                You can just put your case into one post, to save time. But no, it doesn’t occur there.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Lucian View Post

                  You can just put your case into one post, to save time. But no, it doesn’t occur there.
                  Good. It doesn’t occur anywhere except in that credal statement and in certain Trinitarian writings thereafter. This shows that it was an invention by the “church.”

                  Catechism 251:

                  In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

                    Good. It doesn’t occur anywhere except in that credal statement and in certain Trinitarian writings thereafter. This shows that it was an invention by the “church.”
                    To be clear, what do you define as a “Trinitarian writing” in this context?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lucian View Post

                      To be clear, what do you define as a “Trinitarian writing” in this context?
                      Greek writings of the post Nicene “church fathers.”

                      Comment


                      • How do you square this with the occurrence of the word in the Aethiopica?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lucian View Post
                          How do you square this with the occurrence of the word in the Aethiopica?
                          A 4th or 5th century writing by a pagan “bishop of the sun.” He must have picked up the word from the “church fathers.” I suspect that he was writing about the descent of the sun God with that word. You are not helping your case, I think.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

                            A 4th or 5th century writing by a pagan “bishop of the sun.” He must have picked up the word from the “church fathers.” I suspect that he was writing about the descent of the sun God with that word. You are not helping your case, I think.
                            The work is often attributed to the third century, and virtually nothing is known about the author. Your suspicion is incorrect, and it’s not clear to me why you wouldn’t just read the relevant part of the work.

                            I’m unsure what case you think I’m not helping. But certainly your prior claims about the occurrence of the word now must be revised.

                            Comment


                            • There are two dates normally given, one in the 4th century, which you forgot to mention. What exactly are you trying to prove by suggesting that it occurred once in the writings of a pagan writer at roughly around the same time that the “Christological controversies” were taking place, and the Nicene Creed was being formulated ?

                              I would like to get back to the meat of the issue — fact that Trinitarians deny that Jesus was a human being but you affirm that he was . How do you square this circle ? Because you do proclaim yourself a Trinitarian, do you not ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post
                                There are two dates normally given, one in the 4th century, which you forgot to mention. What exactly are you trying to prove by suggesting that it occurred once in the writings of a pagan writer at roughly around the same time that the “Christological controversies” were taking place, and the Nicene Creed was being formulated ?

                                I would like to get back to the meat of the issue — fact that Trinitarians deny that Jesus was a human being but you affirm that he was . How do you square this circle ? Because you do proclaim yourself a Trinitarian, do you not ?
                                I didn’t forget to mention it: you’d already suggested a fourth century dating yourself.

                                Anyway, I’m interested in examining the following, bold claims about the term ἐνανθρωπέω:

                                Originally posted by Ἰωάννης View Post

                                That is a theological word invented specially for the creeds which means “became human” ( that is, took on human nature). It is not saying that he became a human being.
                                Let’s discuss your claim about the term’s meaning. For a start, have you looked at how the term is used outwith the Nicene Creed? Do you know where it is used?
                                Last edited by Lucian; 02-14-2020, 02:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X