In the beginning was the Word.

[apollos0fAlexandria]

Here's a couple questions to ponder.

1) Did Jesus create Blood?

2) Did Jesus create man and woman?

To me according to the Bible, he did. (Heb 9:11-12) (Gen 1:26)

Amen.

(John 1:3; Col 1:16)

I must say that you are seeing things that I see, you are hearing things that I hear and when we look to Christ and open our eyes and our ears, the Holy Spirit will bless us to see and hear the Lord Jesus Christ working in our lives. ( Heb 8:11)

It's nice to hear that Stranger. I think that's the way it's supposed to work TBH. Unity in Christ doesn't come about through man's word.

Apollos

[apollos0fAlexandria]

Hi PoJ

With regards to Prov 8, you may note that I didn't state that the scripture says anything in particular. I've just found it helpful to reason on the matter by seeing what the entire chapter is saying rather than a single verse - in particular focusing on the relationship both we and the Father have to the subject of the passage.

While we've both done similar word studies, we evidently come to different conclusions. That's the way of us humans.

Shalom,
Apollos

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Hi PoJ

With regards to Prov 8, you may note that I didn't state that the scripture says anything in particular. I've just found it helpful to reason on the matter by seeing what the entire chapter is saying rather than a single verse - in particular focusing on the relationship both we and the Father have to the subject of the passage.

While we've both done similar word studies, we evidently come to different conclusions. That's the way of us humans.

Shalom,
Apollos

So it would seem

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Here's a couple questions to ponder.

1) Did Jesus create Blood?

2) Did Jesus create man and woman?

To me according to the Bible, he did. (Heb 9:11-12) (Gen 1:26)

Amen.

(John 1:3; Col 1:16)

I also agree, that Jesus made everything. I don't know anyone who would say otherwise (with exception to Unitarians).

In my view. God the Father was the "blueprint" designer, and thus the "lone creator", the mind from which all things came from. Where Jesus would be the "crafter", the constructor, like the workers in a factory that operate accordingly to the designer's instructions.

Interestingly, I came across a few early church writings, such as Origen's, which made the exact same conclusion.

[apollos0fAlexandria]

Hi PoJ

I too can relate to, and largely agree with, Origen's conclusions.

Were you aware that he affirmed the eternal nature of the Son? He even reasoned on the same issue of the Father's "wisdom" that we've been discussing here.

This might be a helpful read: https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter08.html

Apollos

[Proselytiser of Jah]

Hi PoJ

I too can relate to, and largely agree with, Origen's conclusions.

Were you aware that he affirmed the eternal nature of the Son? He even reasoned on the same issue of the Father's "wisdom" that we've been discussing here.

This might be a helpful read: https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter08.html

Apollos

This is the interesting thing.

Sometimes certain church fathers say "eternal", but we have to question what they meant by it. Because even Arians would say Jesus was eternal, but what they meant in their context, was that Jesus was begotten or created "before time was created", which made him "created in eternity".

So, it boils down to semantics.

I've slogged through Origen's writings and have archived them on my website here

https://ariansunited.wordpress.com/publications/


You'll find statements from Origen such as:

“I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own. For no one can understand how that which is said to be “Word” can be a Son. And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father, and accordingly as it, having no subsistence, is not a Son, or if he is a Son, let them say that God the Word is a separate being and has an essence of His own.” - Origen, Commentary on John Book I


“They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of his own besides that of the Father, and make him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving him a separate existence of His own, and making his sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, "That they may know You, the only true God;" but all that beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply "the" theos but rather [just] theos….” - Origen John commentary book II, Chapter 2


“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God (Ho Theos), and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods (theos) beside him, of whom God (Ho Theos) is the God [of], as it is written, ‘The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth’ . The true God, then, is ‘The God’ (Ho Theos), and those who are formed after Him are gods (theos), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of himself, but by his being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father… the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God “- Origen John commentary book II, Chapter 3


“We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father.” - Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter 6


“If you understand the words “work with His own hands” literally, then neither are they applicable to the second god, nor to any other being partaking of divinity”. - Origen, Contra Celsum, Book VI, Chapter 61


“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I…” - Origen, Contra Celsum Book VIII

It appears to me, that Origen appears to be what I'd call "Semi-Arian", as a few were before him, based on "substance theology". In that some believed that Jesus is of God’s substance, but that he was “begotten” and then “separated” from God into a newly “created” conscious being, in a manner similar to that of Eve coming from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21-22). In this sense, some Arians believe that Jesus is “eternal”, not in his personhood, but in his “nature”, and thus is “like” the Father, and some would say “of similar substance”.

Of course, others disagreed based upon their theology of "Simplicity", that God cannot be altered, muted, separated, etc.


But the key thing to take away here, is that Origen was more "Arian minded" than he ever was Trinitarian.

[apollos0fAlexandria]

But the key thing to take away here, is that Origen was more "Arian minded" than he ever was Trinitarian.

It's not clear to me how you reach that conclusion, since Arius says there was a time the Son did not exist and Origen says the opposite. They may have had other teachings in common, but on this fundamental issue (the one that actually matters here) they were not aligned.

I'm not a big fan of labels, other than "Christian". But since you have mentioned that you consider yourself Arian my question to you would be - when and what was this time that the Son did not exist? Is there some way you can identify that from scripture?

Apollos

[Proselytiser of Jah]

But the key thing to take away here, is that Origen was more "Arian minded" than he ever was Trinitarian.

It's not clear to me how you reach that conclusion, since Arius says there was a time the Son did not exist and Origen says the opposite. They may have had other teachings in common, but on this fundamental issue (the one that actually matters here) they were not aligned.

I'm not a big fan of labels, other than "Christian". But since you have mentioned that you consider yourself Arian my question to you would be - when and what was this time that the Son did not exist? Is there some way you can identify that from scripture?

Apollos

What I meant was, Origen appears as some kind of semi-Arian, in that he thinks Jesus is eternal, yet also he says he's created. In his own words ("nothing is uncreated but the Father", and Jesus is not the most high God"). It seems Origen's definition to me is that Jesus is the literal Son of God, but that his "origins" are eternal, in that he existed in God's mind before he was physically expressed into a real being, and what was in God (his substance, being, etc) was "expressed" and it "became the literal Son". That is a form of Semi Arianism.

Whereas Trinitarianism says the Son is not literal, but an allegory for "God's mind expressed and projected as his own image of himself in action", and denies the literal relationship between a loving Father and his cherished Son.

This in large part also comes from the Greek understanding of Logos, which was borrowed from Philo, or vice versa. That the "Logos" is "thought", as opposed to spoken word. Whereas, there is no indication that John meant it this way, but merely Jesus was God's "message", or "spoken word".


Arius on the other hand, did not think Jesus was of God's substance at all, and did not exist as a being "in God's mind in eternity", asserting that Divine Simplicity would not allow a literal son (as all people thought Jesus was a literal son at this point in time) to be begotten of his substance, and therefore would have to have been created by God, and used Proverbs 8, Colossians, and other verses, with the DS philosophy, to prove his point.


But both of them saw Jesus as a literal Son in a subordination to the Father. But the "eternality" isn't as straight forward as saying "Origen thinks Jesus always existed as a person", because that would contradict his other statements where he says "only the Father is uncreated". So it's a very "specific kind" of eternity that is being spoken of here, and not a carnal one. Which all just boils down to a big convolution of semantics.



As for your question on:

when and what was this time that the Son did not exist? Is there some way you can identify that from scripture?

I would say Jesus merely came into being at "some point", before anything else, though God existed forever prior to that. Indeed, I agree with Tertullian's statement, that he was not always a Father, nor always a judge. But became these things. People say this "breaks the rule of Eternity" and God cannot change and so always had to be those things, but I argue in turn that this creates Pantheism, for God would always have to be a creator also, and a ruler, and worshipped, and so if all qualities of God must be eternal, so must all of creation, and therefore, we are all eternal, making us God.


As for my scriptures, I have already cited them, Proverbs 8, Jesus was "created", "acquired", the very definition of the word means "this thing did not always existed and had to be made". It's really common sense at this point. It's like me saying "I'm a virgin", and then someone argues, "yes, but I'm asking if you've had sex", and I say "I just said... I'm a virgin", and he replies "but where does it say you haven't had sex?".

In the same manner, I find it ludicrous for anyone to claim Jesus is literally eternal, as to me, co-eternal with God, when the word... "created" is used.

Is the Earth also eternal? Is Genesis not saying the heavens and earth weren't "created" either? Because it's the same word. If Jesus is not created via Proverbs 8, then neither is anything else, because at this point we're just rejecting the plain words of the Bible.

[Proselytiser of Jah]

In turn, I challenge you Apollos, to give me a scripture where it says "Jesus is eternal and uncreated". I've shown scriptures which say the opposite verbatim.

[Stranger]

Unity in Christ doesn't come about through man's word.

How right you are Apollos! The old tabernacle couldn't do it (produce unity in Christ), the new one we are assured of will. (Heb 9:11)


One must love Christ to inherit His substance and to have their treasures filled. (Pr 8:21)



Stranger, (Heb 10:16)