[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / loomis / radcorp / strek / sw / tijuana / u ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: ea922315b6e19ab⋯.png (691.39 KB, 1000x900, 10:9, Trinity.png)

24473d No.571951

I was comparing the Orthodox form of the Nicene creed with the Catholic form of the Nicene creed, and I found more differences than the filoque. Most were minor things that truly don't affect meaning at all, like Orthodox say it in the singular first person (I believe in one God…) whereas Catholics say it in the plural first person (We believe in one God…), and that's no big deal. But there was one difference I want to know why it's not a controversy: the Orthodox form says Jesus is "Light of Light, true God of true God," whereas the Catholic form says "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," what's the history behind this difference, and why isn't it a controversy like the filioque?

775caa No.571957

>baiting this hard

It's messed up because Jesus and God have existed forever since before the foundation of the world. Jesus was there with God too. Read 1 peter 1:20 and john 17:24.


d046d7 No.571961

It's just a variation that creeped in, like the filioque. Nothing more.

There's certainly nothing shocking - why should it be shocking to say Jesus is God from God but not to say He is True God from True God? They mean the exact same thing, except the "True God from True God" is based on John 17:3, John 20:28, and Revelation 22:13, while "God from God" seems to be based on John 1:1 and John 20:28.

On another note, your "Trinity" picture triggers me. It's completely wrong and heretical. Rublev's Trinity icon represents not "God," but "the Trinity." You can even see that by how it is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that are depicted. Your pic is saying that the divine persons are individually the Trinity, which is incorrect, and probably some kind of modalism. The Trinity is not "God," the Trinity is a description of the relation between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Taken literally, your picture is saying that the Trinity was sacrified on the Cross!


fc8f90 No.571965

>>571951

>whereas Catholics say it in the plural first person (We believe in one God…

Not since 2011


24473d No.571970

>>571957

Not trying to bait, I just don't get why it's not considered an issue

>>571961

Yeah, thinking about it more seriously I can find both Modalism and Partialism expressed in it. I didn't really think about it too hard


cc0888 No.571971

File: e8f2785cd5789aa⋯.png (238.94 KB, 1000x900, 10:9, StopMeme.png)

If I remember correctly God of God was in the 325 creed and not the 381 creed. So while it's not part of the creed that most use it is an acceptable statement theologically in the Church. I would rather no one ever change the creeds, and new creeds be produced from new councils if a change is necessary, but putting old stuff back into the creed isn't nearly as much of a problem as adding things which are unagreed upon


85a785 No.571975

>>571961

>>571971

Lmaooo I totally agree, I was completely triggered by that pic, I like your counter-meme a lot too


9a0575 No.571989

>>571971

You forgot that last one


cc0888 No.571991

>>571989

Nope, the Son has declared God. He is the image of the invisible God, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily


d046d7 No.571993

>>571989

that's the Son

the angel to the left is the Father - blue represents divinity, the white-ish purple-ish represents divinity and royalty, because the Father is, concerning the Trinity, without cause and the source of the divine persons and the divine essence, as the Son and the Holy Spirit are His two hands

the angel in the middle is the Son - blue represents divinity, red represents humanity, as He became incarnate as a man

the angel to the right is the Holy Spirit - blue represents divinity, green represents life, as He is the Giver of Life


9a0575 No.571994

>>571991

>Nope, the Son has declared God

That's about His actions, words and overall nature

>He is the image of the invisible God

That is about His eternal being

>in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily

And regardless that image depicts Him preincarnate


9a0575 No.571996

>>571993

>without cause

All three are without cause

>and the divine essence

The Father doesn't 'cause' the divine essence in any way, shape or form.


cc0888 No.571997

File: c78bb3caa1c15b2⋯.png (640.71 KB, 549x832, 549:832, iconzBook.PNG)

>>571993

> as the Son and the Holy Spirit are His two hands

People will bash this statement without knowing it's history

>>571994

Read it

>>571996

>All three are without cause

The Son is begotten of the Father eternally

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son eternally


9a0575 No.572000

>>571997

>Read it

If it is licit to depict the preincarnate Christ just because He eventually became incarnate then there is no command against depicting God at all.

>The Son is begotten of the Father eternally

>The Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son eternally

But that does not make them dependent on Him. The Son and the Holy Spirit are autotheos.


e9a2e7 No.572002

File: 33a8f5f8a6d2d54⋯.png (81.48 KB, 350x254, 175:127, ClipboardImage.png)

>>572000

Careful what you sayin


da62bc No.572003

>>571951

>god from god

no they dont. not in my missal.


a84946 No.572006

>>571971

I don't think you understand a painting is not supposed to be a photo


d046d7 No.572011

>>571996

>All three are without cause

All three are God by nature and not by grace or by participation in the Father's essence.

However, the Father is nonetheless the cause of the Son's hypostasis by generation, and of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis by procession. There is one God because there is one Father. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all individually and self-sufficiently God, then they cannot be of one essence and nature.

>But that does not make them dependent on Him. The Son and the Holy Spirit are autotheos.

Strictly speaking, only the Father is autotheos, in that He is both God by nature and the source of all divinity.

The Son and the Holy Spirit are only autotheos insofar as they are God by nature, but, somewhat paradoxally, they have this nature from within the Father. The Father really is the source of all divinity, even in relation to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. That's His hypostatic quality.

>If it is licit to depict the preincarnate Christ just because He eventually became incarnate then there is no command against depicting God at all.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared physically to Abraham. Not a true case of incarnation, but regardless, they really did appear physically in some form to him, and so we can depict them in the form they have revealed themselves.

The Father has only revealed Himself in these ways: Abraham saw Him as an angel, Moses saw His "back" and His "hand," and that's about it. As a result, canonically, He can only be depicted as a hand (also how Jews depicted Him before they went full iconoclast in reaction to the Christians) or as an angel in Rublev's icon.

The Son has revealed Himself in these ways: Abraham saw Him as an angel (and He appeared several more times as an angel in the OT), David saw Him as the Ancient of Days, He was of course incarnate as a man of flesh and bones, He also appeared to the apostles in His resurrected and transfigured body (a reality He let Peter, John, and James see some time before His death too). So that is what we can depict Him as.

The Holy Spirit has revealed Himself in these ways: as an angel to Abraham, as a dove when Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, as tongues of fire at Pentecost. So that is what we can depict Him as.

But note that these depictions are also contextual - for instance, the Father appeared as an angel to Abraham, but only in this context, so we can only depict Him that way when it is in that context. Similarly, the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at the baptism in the Jordan, but only in this context, so we can only depict Him that way when it is in that context. There's a bit more liberty with the Son since He did not appear as if in a prophetic vision, but rather He truly became a man.


e9a2e7 No.572014

>>572006

I know what an icon is, and I know that this particular icon has been terrible abused over the years, and while others love it I would rather it had never existed to save people from these errors

>>572011

Get ready for theopneustos

>The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared physically to Abraham.

broofs?


d046d7 No.572016

>>572011

Realized I was unclear on a couple things

>All three are God by nature and not by grace or by participation in the Father's essence.

>The Son and the Holy Spirit are only autotheos insofar as they are God by nature, but, somewhat paradoxally, they have this nature from within the Father.

That seems like a contradiction. I rather mean that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God simply because they are within the Father. They are truly distinct hypostases, fully persons in their own right, yet with the same essence that is the Father's, eternally given by the Father to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

>>572014

>broofs?

de truth of ordodoxy :DDDD


e9a2e7 No.572017

File: 1ae8b9a0c1aa623⋯.gif (578.41 KB, 534x534, 1:1, 84923f34360a7f80d592ff5fd7….gif)

>>572016

I don't want to be mean or anything, but I actually think you are wrong here. Do you have any support to that the Father and Spirit where present as angels (or seen as angels or however you would rather put it)? My understanding is that there where three angels there in reference to the Trinity, but it is only the Son that we can say appeared as one of the angels


d046d7 No.572020

>>572017

Just as the Son did not become incarnate before His incarnation, yet mysteriously appeared as an angel several times, so did the Father and the Holy Spirit appear as angels to Abraham along with the Son.

This is not a case of mere prophetical vision (since Abraham wasn't tripping out) nor is it a case of incarnation (it is ridiculous to say that the Son became incarnate before the Incarnation, or that the Father and the Holy Spirit ever became incarnate in any manner). Rather, it is a symbolic prefiguration - "symbolic" in the classical sense, of course. The appearance of the angels is a reflection of the heavenly, invisible reality, in which God condescends to our condition by letting our intellects understand this mystery.

I guess the most accurate way to put it would be that the angels are not bodily incarnations or prophetic visions, but "avatars" of the three divine persons.

Note that this is again contextual - in the scene in which Abraham and the three angels converse, they are the Trinity in that they are three and Abraham calls them "My Lord," but once this scene ends, the two angels who departed to Sodom are nothing more or less than angels. Abraham was temporarily blessed with the presence of not only the Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit, but the angels, the servants of God, went back to being regular angels after two of them departed and the third, still speaking as the Son, revealed that He would destroy Sodom.


e9a2e7 No.572021

>>572020

I would like to in some way re-establish that I don't mean to be rude, but as I say before, broofs?


e9a2e7 No.572023

>>572022

>Of course, but nonetheless to call this causation is an improper predication.

That's an interesting dividing line


775caa No.572025

>>572022

>The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared physically to Abraham

<That is dangerously erroneous and contrary to the explicit teaching of scripture

LOL, God is seen by Moses in a cloud in Numbers 11 and numbers 12. Jesus is seen by all of israel during the time of joshua as said in deutoronomy 31 and acts 7:45 KJV. Also don't use a corrupt version that makes God a liar if it were true of the Bible use the KJV or this is wasted on you since literally every other version says "joshua" instead of glorifying God and saying "Jesus" in acts 7:45. No one saw the Holy Ghost as far as I am aware though. I would have to investigate this further.

>John tells us that no one saw God at any time

Chapter and verse in the KJV in john, where is it? I thought the verse you refer to said no one can live after having seen Him physically if a fleshly body and unrighteous. Very key words here though.


e9a2e7 No.572030

File: 90d07974d0ac404⋯.png (1.45 MB, 1928x1076, 482:269, ClipboardImage.png)

>>572025

>God the Father is seen

>Joshua isn't the same name as Jesus

>Muh ecclesiastical text

Please desist

John1:18 (Muh KJV) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


775caa No.572032

>>572030

Eh, ok. Guess that just means there was a angel of the Lord in the cloud of numbers 11. But it doesn't change acts 7:45 saying Jesus and the leading that went on in deutoronomy 31 in which everyone of israel saw the angel of Jesus/the Lord. Also you misquoted John 1:18 and stop profaning the word of God which is above God's own name because of psalms 137:2.

>No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The semi-colon indicating a full stop like a period means that people could see the son. So acts 7:45 still can hold true because of such and numbers 11 is surely refering to an angel in the cloud or that they never saw God in the cloud. But whatever.


e9a2e7 No.572033

File: b00c137af8fb4b5⋯.png (68.74 KB, 621x378, 23:14, ClipboardImage.png)

>>572032

>Also you misquoted John 1:18

How so?

>stop profaning the word of God

pls

>The semi-colon indicating a full stop like a period means that people could see the son

No disagreement


775caa No.572034

>>572033

You forgot the semi-colon :P. Also for me

>son

Should be

>Son


f034a4 No.572062

The whole creed drama isn't actually a theological issue. We both mean the exact same thing. It's more like what this guy says

>>571971

some latins (spanish iirc) used a slightly different creed with no theological differences, greeks sperged out about it not being exactly the same, Pope antagonised them, then eventually it got out of hand.


d046d7 No.572078

>>572062

>The whole creed drama isn't actually a theological issue. We both mean the exact same thing.

Compare the pneumatologies of Thomas Aquinas and Nicolas Cabasilas to see why that's wrong.


2fcacb No.572079

>>571965

It was always on the first person of the singular, I think.

In Romance languages and Latin it was always "I Believe".


fc8f90 No.572083

>>572079

Yes. The creed in Latin uses "credo" or "I believe" in the singular.

Baptists can't into other languages though. Source: KJV




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / loomis / radcorp / strek / sw / tijuana / u ]