|
I can't remember off the top of my head. It was when I
was researching the creeds; I probably have the source
on a floppy somewhere but would have to search for
it. I know I posted it to the list at the time. jt
Hi Judy, where did you come up with this idea
concerning bishops "who
wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted
adding an extra biblical definition"? To my knowledge, I've not
come across it before. Would you please substantiate it
referentially?
Bill
No I am not speaking of Arian JD. When I say
Berean I am talking about the Bishops who
wanted to stay true to scripture and resisted
adding an extra biblical definition. This is being
"Berean" as per Acts 17:11.
You speak of Arian when you say "the 'Berean' (whatever
that is) bishops finally caved?
JD From: Bill Taylor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It does not appear that
we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ
-- but something that is bigger and even more
important. Judy, please be careful, here, that in your
zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own
beliefs.
jt: I agree with the statement above
JD
My belief is that our disagreement most
likely goes all the way back to the council of Nicea in May
325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine God
using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural - For this reason
they had problems getting complete agreement - but the
"Berean" bishops finally caved.
jt: I don't trust your
memory Bill. I would have to see this because this does not sound
like anything I even believe...
The Arians didn't cave .. they were hunted down
as hereticks by Athanasius just like the Donatists were
hunted
down by Augustine and Servetus was hunted down
by Calvin.
If it is in response to the dialogue between
DavidM and me, then you should know that I do not advocate
Docetism,
Donatism, Arianism, or any other
ism.
That's interesting, Judy. I seem to remember you referring to the
Arian bishops at Nicea as the "Bereans," who finally caved into
Athanasius' teaching. How is this not advocating Arianism?
Bill
Thanks so much for this outline Kats (is
it?)
If it is in response to the dialogue
between DavidM and me, then you should know that I do
not advocate Docetism,
Donatism, Arianism, or any other
ism.
You write: Jesus was both divine and human but perhaps we do
not think often enough of the humanity of Jesus. Jesus came to
break down barriers between between God and us and if do not
acknowledge the humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was like us in every way except sin as the Letter to the
Hebrews says in 4:15, we are erecting barriers between God and us
once again. Also Heb 2:17-18 states. "It was essential that he
should be made completely like his brothers so that he could become
a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship
to God, able to expaite the sins of the people. For the
suffering he himself passed through while being put to the test
enables him to help others when they are being put to the
test."
jt: Just wondering if you hold to what
is known as "Orthodoxy" Kats.
"Christ Jesus... thought it not
robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation,
and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness
of men..." Philippians 2:5-7
|
