Nothead, nothead, nothead. Why is it that you continually cite sources as evidence for your point, all while disagreeing with the articles or the overall views of those who wrote them? The article implied that subordinationism in the early church does not necessitate inequality and does not prove the early Christians had conflicting views with that of Trinitarians. You quote the source as proof and disagree with the source itself! It's insane!
Hanson was not denying Trinity, he just probably meant it arose as rational construct after Nicea. OR maybe he weren't as orthodox as his peers. At any rate ABSOLUTE subordiationism was the usual construct before 325 A.D. when the shared Homoousia impled equality by substance.
I don't know his exact theology. I am saying even in his day the generation before us, there was no meaning of equality as we hold to now. You were HEAD of your family since all UNDER you were prokuneowing like dojo white belts. Hoping you weren't gonna get spin kicked to submission.
You should understand that the Bible uses subordination language between a husband and wife. A wife is to "submit" to her husband. The term is a military term implying the rank of a commanding officer over his subordinates (look it up). Yet the Bible clearly teaches in many places that the husband and wife are of equal value to God and are both heirs of eternal life. The same is true with parents and children, or Christians submitting to those in governmental authority as we read in Romans. None of these have to do with innate value or inequality. So no, even in "olden times" subordination did not always mean inequality.
LONG, mister Long. Paul said a woman should be silent since her Mother ate the apple and then tempted Adam. This is no rank as you mean it.
And in the military in all ways the green recruit is inequal. All know this, especially since he ain't seen no firefight, mass charge against automatic fire, or bomb/mortars on his foxhole.
For who knows if he ain't gonna go wacko nutsco? Screaming into the night, no use to anyone even his green recruit 'equals' who DON'T panic? Pashaw. That is the sound of your paradigm going bonkers, sir.
Your paradigms do like to go bonkers, sir.
No, Trinitarians believe in a triune "God." Not three gods. Oh when oh when will it ever sink in....oh when oh when will it beeee?
Jesus is God. Father is God. Holy Spirit is God. All humble, simple directly impied inference: All three are God. All Gods are them. They are 3 Gods. How can you see otherwise?
Um yeah, it's a mystery, a conundrum and an incomprehensible something. True or not true, but whatever it is, it is not understood. I get it.
That's interesting because Jesus never comes straight out and says, "I am the Messiah" either. The only time he explicitly affirms it is when he is directly asked under trial whether or not he is the Christ, the son of the blessed One. Jesus seems to be more explicit in his claims to divinity in John 8 than he is about his self proclamations of being the Messiah in any of the Gospels.
LONG mester Long. "I AM HE" to the Samaritan woman. Abraham knew I AM HE before his day. "Who do say I am?" to the disciples. Peter: thou art Christ the Son of the Living God.
And Jesus said "My Father has revealed this unto you." This is plain and simply said. That Jesus is God is NEVER plainly and simply said.
So where does it say Jesus "reflects" the brightness of his glory? All I see is that "he is" (eimi - weve seen this word before) the brightness of his glory. Two very different concepts. God wants us to read his Word, not edit it noddy.
Yeah but where did the GLORY come from, biblically my lonely lunchkin?
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
[SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
See, the glory is given by the Father to the Son as the Father both has it to begin with, and PLANS for us and Jesus most of all to have this glory even before the world was ever made.
Yes, the author of Hebrews is showing the superiority of Jesus, the man, as the final revelation from God, heir of all things, the agent of creation, the radiance of God's glory, and the exact imprint of God's essence that holds everything together by his powerful word.
You just asked me where REFLECTION came from bro. What do YOU think 'exact imprint' means? The THING ITSELF?? Nein, herr Woormvoot.
What you need to recognize is that the author of Hebrews (I don't believe is Paul, see Heb. 2:3) is answering a specific issue that the Hebrew people were dealing with, and that issue was not centered on Christ being God. The issue had to do with the supremacy of Christ over the prophets, the angelic messengers who gave the Law, Moses, the Sabbath, the sacrifices, the Temple, etc. In this argument, the author of Hebrews shows that the man, Jesus, is purpose and active agent behind all things and in this description we see things like - essence of God, radiation of God's glory, purpose of all things, heir of all things, etc. The aim here is to show that the Law, prophets, Moses, Temple, etc do not hold a candle to Jesus and though this discussion the picture is painted that shows Jesus is not just a messenger, but the very essence, brilliance, voice, and power of God. He's not just some dude who lived an exemplary life and he's not somewhere between an angel and a king.
You were going good until you got to the last nine words and the period, dude. God's Shaliach has the characteristics of God, why, why since he is the ANNOINTED one.
Id like to see a link to this source because this is very different from the multiple sources I have studied on this matter. The distinction between ousia and hypostasis was one that developed due to Sabellianism, not Arianism. The point of emphasizing the personage of hypostasis was to counter the modalism that suggest that Jesus, the Father and the Spirit were all one person in three different forms. Thus, ousia referred to the substance (one God) and hypostasis referred to the persons (three hypostasis). The development in distinction between ousia and hypostasis had nothing to do with proving Jesus was of divine nature for both terms before and after the 4th century mean "nature, essence."
You will see that HYPOSTASIS has very LITTLE parallel to Persons, but that this is modern terp.
Since the old paradigm made so little sense. I will get back to you on references. Purity will no doubt know extensively more than both of us regarding SPECIFIC sources of data.
I start out with right paradgm and the data invariably fits. Don't know why. Just lucky I guess.
NO GUESSING INVOLVED. Shema proves you and your buddies wrong from the git-go, sir.
)
