Cynic - I may not be "eruditely Van Tilian" (LMAO), but I can see that one doen't have to accept the presupposition of the trinity for the idea of "proof" to exist.
The point is, if you presuppose the trinity, then you can never use the same system of logic to PROVE the trinity.
I challenge you to logically prove that the trinity is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] non-contradictory, without winding up in a recursion.
In the past, you have fabricated facts. You have made assertions you could in no way support.
You mean like the fact that Calvin was directly responsible for Servetus murder? (Yes Virginia, I WILL post that here, and I WILL call it murder, despite your desire for me not to, as that is relevent to your accusation against me) Never mind that you yourself has so much admitted that that incident took place, and still tried to whitewash his reputation about it. Never mind that I *did* give you a link leading to a site showing Calvin's 'darker side'. ... Or, like Steve said, read your history, and no, church propaganda does NOT qualify.
Tell me something chief, why is it that defending the trinity in such a virulent manner is so damned important to folks like you? As if folks who dare to question it are to be treated as tho' they are at the same moral level as a child molester. Hell, it has only been in the last 100-200 years that putting them to death has *finally* been made illegal (and with hardly any initial support by most orthodox churches I might add ). You would think that if it is so true, not ONLY would it be so plain that "not even a child need ere therein", but its proponents would be so confident in its solidity that they definitely wouldn't be so anal about it like you are demonstrating here.
Why is it that it has usually been (if not always) that orthodoxy has been one of the chief opponents to independent critical thinking and the free expression thereof? Yeah, yeah, I know. According to you, because I reject your orthodox ((cough)) 'gospel' ((GAG)), I am now incapable of independent critical thought. ((snort)) If you can't see something seriously wrong with that line of 'logic', you are definitely a terminal case.
And (according to you) I might not be 'Van Tilian' enough to determine what constitues proof, but then again, what authority is this Van Til the theologian to be THE Final Answer to what constitutes proof anyway? ... Sounds like Yet Another Religious Authority whose serious followers take this guy way too seriously. (Which eerily reminds me of one Smikeol doing the same re: VPW and PFAL, ... y'think? ;)-->
At least Smikeol sounds more cheerful when he goes into his spiel.
I challenge you to logically prove that the trinity is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] non-contradictory, without winding up in a recursion.
Steve,
I don't think I understand you. By recursion do you mean some sustained generation of categories or terms within a Trinitarian view of God which support such a view of God and allow for its being intelligible? If so, your challenge is bizarre. That a Trinitarian view of God has its own categories and terms that are supportive of and non-contradictory within that view of God only makes obvious that such a view of God is inherently non-contradictory.
You would seem merely to be asking me to tie my shoe without tying my shoe.
I am going to resist, for now, the urge to get appropriately nasty, because I hope to do something more robustly exploratory about Calvin, bloodletting in Geneva and your polemical character.
I've not read this whole thread, in part due to the fact I don't understand some of the words, plain and simple.
But I have one question, maybe it's answered in here somewhere, I've no idea.
Since God predates Mary then how could "Mary be the mother of God?" To a small degree I understand the trinity and have no problem with "God being in holy spirit" or "God being in Jesus Christ." As I see it there is no way of separating the three. So my question is why isn't it stated "Mary the mother of Jesus Christ?"
1. By fair/unfair, I meant that you deliberately compare my decision to give a certain amount with the compulsory/guilt tripping of TWI's ABuSe, which detracts from the value of your argument.
I apologize for impuning your decision, Raf.
After the first mass exodus from TWI in the late-'80s, many ex-wafers wanted to stay in touch and to continue exploring their relationship with God and the Bible. There was no internet back then. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser formed CES (Christian Educational Services) to do the drudgery. It was an open organization. Most time at the annual meeting was devoted to open floor discussions, with a lot of give and take. The regular publication was Dialogue, and genuine dialogue actually did occur.
Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser began bringing outsiders in to speak at the annual meetings. Some of them were really good, like Anthony Buzzard, and United Marriage Encounters. Some were competing splinter group leaders like Dale Sides. Unfortunately, some of the outsiders were very bad, like the personal prohecy movement and Momentus.
In the transition between the early- and the mid-'90s, the leaders of CES received a personal prophecy that the nature of CES was going to change radically, and that three separate individuals were going to contribute $1,000,000 apiece to CES.
Things started to change.
Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser decided to make CES a full-service ministry on its own.They began to regard themselves as professional religious leaders again, and they unconsciously reverted to the old definitions and principles of religious leadership that they had internalized as professional religious leaders in TWI.
For all the cosmetic changes and doctrinal differences, the new improved CES looks and acts an awful lot like the old TWI.
True, CES' carnality runs to legalism (see their code of conduct) instead of license, but it's still carnality.
The differences in understanding of the word "partner", as between your own and that of the corporate owners of CES, may well be greater than you realize, Raf.
Cynic what language are you writing here? Because your words read like a form of religious legalese. Quit beating around the bush. If you have something to say come out with it man.
Cynic I remind you that this is the Trinity thread. Thou mayest freely speak the Trinitarian gospel here. Speak it like many good Roman Catholics that have gone before you. Speak it forth because the religiously anointed one, the Pope himself, has said that you could. The good pontiff has straightened the path that you may follow it. He, along with his forefathers, have called you and others of the masses since the fourth century when he captured the political heart of the Christian/Pagan Church. So speak it forth Cynic my good man. Speak it forth like only you on Grease Spot Caf?an. And glory be to not only Jesus, but God’s mommy Mary. For out of her womb came God himself and this truly makes her God’s mommy. For this we are thankful and blessed for ever and at least a day. Amen!
Oh man, Mark. Whatever you do, *don't* refer to Cynic as tho' he's Roman Catholic. He's a staunch Calvinist, and they do NOT like to be identified in any way with being Catholic.
Okay I assumed there was maybe one Roman Catholic, or had been at one time when I asked my question. It's not addressed to anyone specifically.
I honestly would like someone to help me understand why it would not be stated differently (Mary mother of Jesus Christ rather than Mary mother of God).
Really Garth? You mean a good Calvinist like Cynic is not suppose to associate with that which is Roman Catholic? Then why is he such a staunch apologist for Roman Catholic originated doctrine? Sounds like a closet Roman Catholic faithful to me.
Hey Cynic, will you be quoting from the Nicean Creed anytime soon. Because ChattyKathy has a question about God's mommy, Mary. Is this the written work that covers that? I seem to have misplaced my copy. Or should we look to another written work?
Please excuse me if I don't spell the Greek words just right, but I'm winging it here!
One of the countless theological debates "back in the day" was whether Mary should be called christotokos (bearer of Christ) or theotokos (bearer of God). Since the debate was between two factions that both believed that Jesus was God, any consideration that Jesus maybe wasn't God did not enter into the discussion. The translation of "-tokos as "mother" somewhat muddies the watwers regarding the position of the theotokos fans, who wanted to honor Mary for being one who bore God in her womb. The term in no way suggested that Mary was literally God's mother, insofar as she predated him, but merely that she gave birth to God in human form.
I am by no means a trinitarian, but suggesting that trinitarians believe that Mary was the mother of the eternal God, rather than the human aspect of God, misrepresents their actual belief.
Thank you! That gives me some substance to consider. And I sincerely appreciate your closing paragraph.
I can understand the protection thinking, so to speak, towards Mary. From a perspective of respect should have been how she was seen. The mother of God, well it makes more sense it would not be literal, still why not just call....oh nevermind, I'm gone now. :)-->
I'm still trying to figure out who this guy Van Til is. Is he a so-so unitarian also?
'So-so unitarian'? :D--> Hehehehehe. N-o-o, I don't think so. He is a very well known (in Reform Church circles anyway) theologian and scholar. Well, at least, that's what his supporters say. And he most likely is an expert (such as they are) in his field of theology and apologetics.
I honestly would like someone to help me understand why it would not be stated differently (Mary mother of Jesus Christ rather than Mary mother of God).
Chatty,
I never have been inside a Roman Catholic Church, and I hold Catholics’ Marian religious fetish in utter contempt, but the Christology involved in Mary being referred to as the theotokos (i.e. God-bearer or Mother of God)--at least as it surfaced during the Nestorian controversy--seems sound.
Although there is disagreement concerning what Nestorius himself actually believed, Nestorianism was a heresy characterized by a notion that Jesus Christ was two separate (divine and human) persons. The orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is a single divine person within whom the divine and a human nature were forever joined—without any composition of those natures—at his incarnation.
According to what I remember of a piece I read a while ago (I wish I could find it and post a link to it), Nestorius might have or might not have held a full blown version of two-persons Nestorianism. Nestorius objected, nonetheless, to Mary being referred to as “theotokos,” and maintained something to the effect that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ. If Nestorius did not hold that Jesus Christ was two persons, he nonetheless began speaking of the divine and human natures in Christ as if they were persons or quasi-persons.
His chief opponent was Cyril of Alexandria. I think Cyril’s position basically was that what is said of Christ is said of a person rather than of one of two natures in him. It is wrong to say that the human nature of Christ died. It is proper to say that Christ died in his human nature.
Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is the eternal Son. He is the eternal Word. At Christ’s incarnation, Mary became the bearer of that divine person, though she contributed towards that incarnating person only his temporally beginning human nature.
The theological term involved with the idea that Jesus Christ is referred to personally whether what is said about him concerns his divine or human nature is the communicatio idiomatum (i.e. communication of idioms).
It is a sound theological notion. Scripture itself does not separate what is proper to Christ's divine and what is proper to Christ's human nature from Christ himself. It declares that he was crucified, that he died, that he rose from the dead, and it also declares that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
You put an effort into making your post to me reader friendly and I appreciate it. I'm on the tired side tonight so ask you pardon me for my short reply for now.
I have now learned that this was a safeguard of the Church's to protect that Christ had come from a human birth of Mary's. And it sounds like for them to have chosen mother of Jesus Christ would have lessoned both of their importances somehow.
I can't deny her life was unique, who else bore such a child?! But I don't begin to understand fully why it couldn't have been dealt with without having to term it as they do.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
Steve Lortz
Cynic - I may not be "eruditely Van Tilian" (LMAO), but I can see that one doen't have to accept the presupposition of the trinity for the idea of "proof" to exist.
The point is, if you presuppose the trinity, then you can never use the same system of logic to PROVE the trinity.
I challenge you to logically prove that the trinity is inherently [from within the framework of your own logical system] non-contradictory, without winding up in a recursion.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Uhmmm, I think Cynic's upset.
-->
You mean like the fact that Calvin was directly responsible for Servetus murder? (Yes Virginia, I WILL post that here, and I WILL call it murder, despite your desire for me not to, as that is relevent to your accusation against me) Never mind that you yourself has so much admitted that that incident took place, and still tried to whitewash his reputation about it. Never mind that I *did* give you a link leading to a site showing Calvin's 'darker side'. ... Or, like Steve said, read your history, and no, church propaganda does NOT qualify.
Tell me something chief, why is it that defending the trinity in such a virulent manner is so damned important to folks like you? As if folks who dare to question it are to be treated as tho' they are at the same moral level as a child molester. Hell, it has only been in the last 100-200 years that putting them to death has *finally* been made illegal (and with hardly any initial support by most orthodox churches I might add
). You would think that if it is so true, not ONLY would it be so plain that "not even a child need ere therein", but its proponents would be so confident in its solidity that they definitely wouldn't be so anal about it like you are demonstrating here.
Why is it that it has usually been (if not always) that orthodoxy has been one of the chief opponents to independent critical thinking and the free expression thereof? Yeah, yeah, I know. According to you, because I reject your orthodox ((cough)) 'gospel' ((GAG)), I am now incapable of independent critical thought. ((snort)) If you can't see something seriously wrong with that line of 'logic', you are definitely a terminal case.
And (according to you) I might not be 'Van Tilian' enough to determine what constitues proof, but then again, what authority is this Van Til the theologian to be THE Final Answer to what constitutes proof anyway? ... Sounds like Yet Another Religious Authority whose serious followers take this guy way too seriously. (Which eerily reminds me of one Smikeol doing the same re: VPW and PFAL, ... y'think?
;)-->
At least Smikeol sounds more cheerful when he goes into his spiel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Steve,
I don't think I understand you. By recursion do you mean some sustained generation of categories or terms within a Trinitarian view of God which support such a view of God and allow for its being intelligible? If so, your challenge is bizarre. That a Trinitarian view of God has its own categories and terms that are supportive of and non-contradictory within that view of God only makes obvious that such a view of God is inherently non-contradictory.
You would seem merely to be asking me to tie my shoe without tying my shoe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
I am going to resist, for now, the urge to get appropriately nasty, because I hope to do something more robustly exploratory about Calvin, bloodletting in Geneva and your polemical character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I've not read this whole thread, in part due to the fact I don't understand some of the words, plain and simple.
But I have one question, maybe it's answered in here somewhere, I've no idea.
Since God predates Mary then how could "Mary be the mother of God?" To a small degree I understand the trinity and have no problem with "God being in holy spirit" or "God being in Jesus Christ." As I see it there is no way of separating the three. So my question is why isn't it stated "Mary the mother of Jesus Christ?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Remember that link I posted? Start with that. And remember: outside of your church history, my man. _Outside_
Polemic, you mean? I'm sorry, but I thought that that horse has already gotten out of the barn.
;)-->
And don't worry about exploring my polemical character. It's doing just fine w/o any interference from you, thank you very much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
To call Him a "Him", when you believe He is a "They" is contradictory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Cynic,
If you've something of substance to offer in this discussion-
as you insist you do, and moreso than all your detractors-
can you please offer it and try to keep the
"argumentum ad your momium" to a minimum?
I'm not even asking you to STOP it- just to present your case
and TRY to stick to that.
Mind you-
this is not intended as a trick.
I WANT to read your "argument" if it's got something compelling,
or at least worthy of consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Cynic,
Why are you a trinitarian?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I apologize for impuning your decision, Raf.
After the first mass exodus from TWI in the late-'80s, many ex-wafers wanted to stay in touch and to continue exploring their relationship with God and the Bible. There was no internet back then. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser formed CES (Christian Educational Services) to do the drudgery. It was an open organization. Most time at the annual meeting was devoted to open floor discussions, with a lot of give and take. The regular publication was Dialogue, and genuine dialogue actually did occur.
Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser began bringing outsiders in to speak at the annual meetings. Some of them were really good, like Anthony Buzzard, and United Marriage Encounters. Some were competing splinter group leaders like Dale Sides. Unfortunately, some of the outsiders were very bad, like the personal prohecy movement and Momentus.
In the transition between the early- and the mid-'90s, the leaders of CES received a personal prophecy that the nature of CES was going to change radically, and that three separate individuals were going to contribute $1,000,000 apiece to CES.
Things started to change.
Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser decided to make CES a full-service ministry on its own.They began to regard themselves as professional religious leaders again, and they unconsciously reverted to the old definitions and principles of religious leadership that they had internalized as professional religious leaders in TWI.
For all the cosmetic changes and doctrinal differences, the new improved CES looks and acts an awful lot like the old TWI.
True, CES' carnality runs to legalism (see their code of conduct) instead of license, but it's still carnality.
The differences in understanding of the word "partner", as between your own and that of the corporate owners of CES, may well be greater than you realize, Raf.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - Hope you had a good time in New York!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Cynic what language are you writing here? Because your words read like a form of religious legalese. Quit beating around the bush. If you have something to say come out with it man.
Cynic I remind you that this is the Trinity thread. Thou mayest freely speak the Trinitarian gospel here. Speak it like many good Roman Catholics that have gone before you. Speak it forth because the religiously anointed one, the Pope himself, has said that you could. The good pontiff has straightened the path that you may follow it. He, along with his forefathers, have called you and others of the masses since the fourth century when he captured the political heart of the Christian/Pagan Church. So speak it forth Cynic my good man. Speak it forth like only you on Grease Spot Caf?an. And glory be to not only Jesus, but God’s mommy Mary. For out of her womb came God himself and this truly makes her God’s mommy. For this we are thankful and blessed for ever and at least a day. Amen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh man, Mark. Whatever you do, *don't* refer to Cynic as tho' he's Roman Catholic. He's a staunch Calvinist, and they do NOT like to be identified in any way with being Catholic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Okay I assumed there was maybe one Roman Catholic, or had been at one time when I asked my question. It's not addressed to anyone specifically.
I honestly would like someone to help me understand why it would not be stated differently (Mary mother of Jesus Christ rather than Mary mother of God).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Really Garth? You mean a good Calvinist like Cynic is not suppose to associate with that which is Roman Catholic? Then why is he such a staunch apologist for Roman Catholic originated doctrine? Sounds like a closet Roman Catholic faithful to me.
Hey Cynic, will you be quoting from the Nicean Creed anytime soon. Because ChattyKathy has a question about God's mommy, Mary. Is this the written work that covers that? I seem to have misplaced my copy. Or should we look to another written work?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
High road Mark. High road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Cathy:
Please excuse me if I don't spell the Greek words just right, but I'm winging it here!
One of the countless theological debates "back in the day" was whether Mary should be called christotokos (bearer of Christ) or theotokos (bearer of God). Since the debate was between two factions that both believed that Jesus was God, any consideration that Jesus maybe wasn't God did not enter into the discussion. The translation of "-tokos as "mother" somewhat muddies the watwers regarding the position of the theotokos fans, who wanted to honor Mary for being one who bore God in her womb. The term in no way suggested that Mary was literally God's mother, insofar as she predated him, but merely that she gave birth to God in human form.
I am by no means a trinitarian, but suggesting that trinitarians believe that Mary was the mother of the eternal God, rather than the human aspect of God, misrepresents their actual belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thank you! That gives me some substance to consider. And I sincerely appreciate your closing paragraph.
I can understand the protection thinking, so to speak, towards Mary. From a perspective of respect should have been how she was seen. The mother of God, well it makes more sense it would not be literal, still why not just call....oh nevermind, I'm gone now.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm still trying to figure out who this guy Van Til is. Is he a so-so unitarian also?
-->
I've not seen any posts by Van yet, but I think his brothers Fu and Hos post here at GS frequently.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
'So-so unitarian'?
:D--> Hehehehehe. N-o-o, I don't think so. He is a very well known (in Reform Church circles anyway) theologian and scholar. Well, at least, that's what his supporters say. And he most likely is an expert (such as they are) in his field of theology and apologetics.
But unitarian he ain't. Not by a long shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Sanguinetti,
You write like a girlie man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Chatty,
I never have been inside a Roman Catholic Church, and I hold Catholics’ Marian religious fetish in utter contempt, but the Christology involved in Mary being referred to as the theotokos (i.e. God-bearer or Mother of God)--at least as it surfaced during the Nestorian controversy--seems sound.
Although there is disagreement concerning what Nestorius himself actually believed, Nestorianism was a heresy characterized by a notion that Jesus Christ was two separate (divine and human) persons. The orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is a single divine person within whom the divine and a human nature were forever joined—without any composition of those natures—at his incarnation.
According to what I remember of a piece I read a while ago (I wish I could find it and post a link to it), Nestorius might have or might not have held a full blown version of two-persons Nestorianism. Nestorius objected, nonetheless, to Mary being referred to as “theotokos,” and maintained something to the effect that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ. If Nestorius did not hold that Jesus Christ was two persons, he nonetheless began speaking of the divine and human natures in Christ as if they were persons or quasi-persons.
His chief opponent was Cyril of Alexandria. I think Cyril’s position basically was that what is said of Christ is said of a person rather than of one of two natures in him. It is wrong to say that the human nature of Christ died. It is proper to say that Christ died in his human nature.
Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is the eternal Son. He is the eternal Word. At Christ’s incarnation, Mary became the bearer of that divine person, though she contributed towards that incarnating person only his temporally beginning human nature.
The theological term involved with the idea that Jesus Christ is referred to personally whether what is said about him concerns his divine or human nature is the communicatio idiomatum (i.e. communication of idioms).
It is a sound theological notion. Scripture itself does not separate what is proper to Christ's divine and what is proper to Christ's human nature from Christ himself. It declares that he was crucified, that he died, that he rose from the dead, and it also declares that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Mark, if you have a real argument to make, I'd love to hear it. Something other than points meant to incite & demean...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Cynic,
You put an effort into making your post to me reader friendly and I appreciate it. I'm on the tired side tonight so ask you pardon me for my short reply for now.
I have now learned that this was a safeguard of the Church's to protect that Christ had come from a human birth of Mary's. And it sounds like for them to have chosen mother of Jesus Christ would have lessoned both of their importances somehow.
I can't deny her life was unique, who else bore such a child?! But I don't begin to understand fully why it couldn't have been dealt with without having to term it as they do.
Okay all for now, good night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
communicatio idiomatum
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.