Second Commandment

[N/A Gone]

Good post adam


Budge, you do not seem to actually be responding to comments, rather you hit-run. Please, stay and engage.


[color="#FF0000"]All of you put too much faith in these early deceivers..[/color]

You understand that you are a bi-product of their theology mixed with an unhealthy dose of relativism, right? I would challenge that your understanding of the trinity, your understanding of the incarnation, your understanding of the fall and of simple soteriology is all non-existent without Origen. I have a hard time knowing your level of actual research and what you copy/paste, but have you heard of the term "hypostatic union" that is directly from Origen. Immutability of the divine is also directly from Origen. Also, the Idea of the Son always existing was first introduced. He termed it as "pre-existence." Origen also said "this image peserves the unity of nature and substance common to a father and a son?” Using an exegesis of the Gospel of John that has been preserved. (i have a copy if you want) Origen was strong in introducing the image language.

[color="#FF0000"]The Apostles--the real ones, warned of VERY EARLY DECEIVERS. I believe all of Romes Early Church fathers are deceivers.[/color]

I really do not know how to respond here. How can those who were taught directly by the apostles and whom often died a martyrs death UNIVERSALLY go against the teaching that was given to them? St. Clement, the 4th pope was, as Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyon writes, had known the Apostles personally and "still had their preaching in his ears and their tradition before his eyes."

Understand how lacking in credibility you present yourself here. Deceivers were always present in the church, but the church has withstood against her. You, yourself are the daughter in faith of one of these deceivers.

[color="#FF0000"]Instead of following the teachings of the REAL church fathers of Christianity the APOSTLES, Rome goes after its deceivers, failed experts, rejecters of Gods Word, and Alexandria stream {Babylonian lies promoting] charlatan's following after "vain philosophies".[/color]

Please cite that, your writing style changed. Understand that these teachers are the ones that the apostles mentored and left in charge. Catholic theology does not start with the partristic fathers, Nor the apostles, it starts in the Old test. Aspects of Judaism that your people have long forgotten.

[color="#FF0000"]Origen was more into Greek Philsophy more then Christianity. The man was prolific writing up to 2,000 books.[/color]

cite that please. So, Origen writing books makes him bad? I would argue that Origen is focused on the faith. He was one of the first christians to truly be an intellectual with the faith. Please, do some research and understand the man first. It is rather big of you to judge that he was not christian. He is the son of a martyr, who desired to be a martyr himself. Budge, really you are going over your own head here.

[color="#FF0000"]He Didnt believe in Old Testament miracles, didnt believe the Holy Spirit was eternal, and was one of the first to add the Apocrypha to scripture.[/color]

-no, that is protestant prejudice against allegorical interpretation. Origen believed in 2 part interpretation, literal and spiritual. But he affirmed both

-no, where do you even get this? There was no formal theology on the Spirit in Origen's time. YOU owe that to the cappadocians and Augustine (and perhaps Hilary)

-the apocrypha comment just shows lack of research

[color="#FF0000"]Origen also castrated himself. He brought in much error.[/color]

two seperate points, nice of you to put them together.

1.) yes, I talked about this. He was worried about what others would say about him teaching women, so he castrated himself

2.) No, he did not bring in much error. He developed a theological foundation that was strongly dependant for the first 5-700 years of the church. Any good theologian pushes the boundries, and at Origen's time there was not much for boundaries, but he helped determine many things.

[color="#FF0000"]Eusebius Ive read some of his writings at Fordham University, when I used to do posts on Constantine. Basically a boot-licker for Constantine. His true "god" seemed to be Constantine rather then God. He promoted Origen's writings who lived about 100 years earlier.[/color]

Im not promoting Eusebius, other than the fact that he used Origen fought against Marcellus and Modalism. This was a strong contributing factor to the bringing together of the Council of Nicene. Out of all the theologians I mentioned that used Origen Eusebius was the least know. But I would really be interested in your citations with him and Constantine. What I remember about him that you might be talking about is his writing "Historia Ecclesiastica" (history of the church) Book IV is about Constantine. Also, in being a historian, he wrote "Vita Constantini" this was unfinished, but perhaps it is what you were trying to insult.


what exactly was your point?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1210286' date='Mar 8 2007, 06:37 AM']All of you put too much faith in these early deceivers..

The Apostles--the real ones, warned of VERY EARLY DECEIVERS. I believe all of Romes Early Church fathers are deceivers.[/quote]
Seriously, Budge, why should anyone care what you personally beleive about the Early Church Fathers??

So we are to beleive that all the successors to the Apostles in the first centuries of the Church were deceivers, but that finally, ca. 2000 years later, Budge has finally figured out the truth??

Last I recalled, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, not Budge.

What credentials do you have that we are to put faith in your personal interpretation over that of the Early Church Fathers??
How are we to know that you are not instead a deceiver?

Really, Budge, please!

Edited March 9, 2007 by Socrates

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1210348' date='Mar 8 2007, 11:59 AM']Also, the Idea of the Son always existing was first introduced. He termed it as "pre-existence." Origen also said "this image peserves the unity of nature and substance common to a father and a son?” Using an exegesis of the Gospel of John that has been preserved. (i have a copy if you want) Origen was strong in introducing the image language.[/quote]

[b][color="#0000ff"]The son exists in glory, which is a timeless state, so once he exsisted in glory he always exsisted there.[/color][/b]

Origen seems a little confused. I find that in a lot of people who try to understand the three. I don't try to understand the three, I choose to look for the one who is in the three and is the three.

When you eyes are on God, no deception can come in.

Edited March 9, 2007 by FullTruth

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1210348' date='Mar 8 2007, 11:59 AM'](Budge,) what exactly was your point?[/quote]

Pig + cow + Celtic dance + Italian colloquialisms = whore of Babylon

Anyone catch that?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1210690' date='Mar 8 2007, 10:26 PM'][b][color="#0000ff"]The son exists in glory, which is a timeless state, so once he exsisted in glory he always exsisted there.[/color][/b]

Origen seems a little confused. I find that in a lot of people who try to understand the three. I don't try to understand the three, I choose to look for the one who is in the three and is the three.

When you eyes are on God, no deception can come in.[/quote]

are you a modalist or an Arian?

btw, you are misunderstanding Origen and his verbage of choice, by saying pre-existence, he is citing that he is before creation.