tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post6655494158170315844..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: The Early Church, Trinitarianism, and the Subordination of the Son IIRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-84769799447802837152017-04-13T16:54:03.418-04:002017-04-13T16:54:03.418-04:00I haven't written anything on Trinitarianism i...I haven't written anything on Trinitarianism in a while because I am rechecking my views. But as to what they have been, see these two posts:<br /><br />http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2012/09/drake-sheltons-triadology-summary.html<br /><br />http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2013/02/behind-closed-doors.htmlRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-66908451567155934742017-04-13T01:09:07.058-04:002017-04-13T01:09:07.058-04:00From the few posts I've read I haven't got...From the few posts I've read I haven't gotten a clear picture of what kind of Christology and Trinitology (Trinitology?) you hold to. Do you adhere to a belief that "God" is 3 persons in 1 being? (In this case, I think it's definitely necessary to define what you mean by the word "God." Is God an essence? A being? A person? 3 persons? Do you mind to give a brief explanation or just post a link to a post where you've already explained your views? Thanks and take care.Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-41395907713818542852017-04-11T17:23:02.434-04:002017-04-11T17:23:02.434-04:00The reason why it can only be said to "seem&q...The reason why it can only be said to "seem" Novatian is saying different things is that several statements he makes can be interpreted in different ways. Clearly, it is different from current mainstream Reformed formulations - to what extent is difficult to say.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-75535577424649384772017-04-11T15:52:01.150-04:002017-04-11T15:52:01.150-04:00It seems clear here that Novatian was a Unitarian,...It seems clear here that Novatian was a Unitarian, if I'm reading this correctly. It also seems clear that he believed there was a time when Jesus did not exist (as a person). One thing which seems ambiguous at times is the use of the word "God." It seems that he is calling Jesus "God" to mean that Jesus has divinity which is borrowed from God, not that he is the same God as the Father. It seems to be that he believed Jesus and the Father to be 2 persons and in fact also 2 separate beings, with Jesus deriving his nature from the Father and consequently also being finite, visible, and not the one true God. Thus, he seems to indicate that the Father is the one true God, but Jesus has divinity as well and therefore can also be called "God" due to being divine and having an origin directly from God. Then again..."it seems" was used a lot there in my comment...Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-22832549700837775792013-01-04T15:28:42.896-05:002013-01-04T15:28:42.896-05:00Hi Ryan,
Tried to send you an email via your blog...Hi Ryan,<br /><br />Tried to send you an email via your blog profile, but it was returned as undeliverable. Could you forward me your email, or reply online?<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Veritas Christos et Ecclesiae<br /><br />veritaschristos@gmaildotcomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-22016416605991111002013-01-02T13:18:27.614-05:002013-01-02T13:18:27.614-05:00Ryan: I will friend you on FB. I have some thing...Ryan: I will friend you on FB. I have some things to ask you about by PM. It is so good to see you again. I also see you follow Helms Deep--awesome blog!<br /><br />See you on FB. :) Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-66709120625691282092013-01-02T00:09:31.787-05:002013-01-02T00:09:31.787-05:00Sure. How are you? I believe I'm the only Ryan...Sure. How are you? I believe I'm the only Ryan Hedrich on facebook. <br /><br />To share a post, I believe all you have to do is paste the link of the particular blog post to your status, wait for the image to show, erase the link (or you can leave it), type whatever else you want to say about it, and then post. That's it.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-2172132349675432802013-01-01T22:28:56.252-05:002013-01-01T22:28:56.252-05:00Ryan: This is Miss Mary from The Fighting Fundamen...Ryan: This is Miss Mary from The Fighting Fundamental Forums (remember me and Objective Truth?) I was wondering if you are on face book? And is there a way I can share your articles on face book? I used to have your email but lost, that is why I am asking you here. <br /><br />Mary Elizabeth Palshan Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-75984843707698036882013-01-01T20:55:03.515-05:002013-01-01T20:55:03.515-05:00Ryan,
I have vouched a lots of Whiston's patr...Ryan,<br /><br />I have vouched a lots of Whiston's patristic quotations, so far I found no problem and I highly trust his honesty and character.<br /><br />That is not what he quoted, he said it is in the 300th letter of Basil and my quote from memory is very close to the original. 徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-20316372209971272812012-12-31T23:05:45.336-05:002012-12-31T23:05:45.336-05:00The only thing I can find that sounds close to tha...The only thing I can find that sounds close to that is in what is regarded as spurious correspondence between Basil and Apollinarius, the relevant parts of which can be read on pgs. 337-341 <a href="http://ia700308.us.archive.org/14/items/letterswithengli04basiuoft/letterswithengli04basiuoft.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Basil allegedly asks Apollinarius what "substance" and "consubstantial" mean in regards to how to apply them to the Son and Father, and Apollinarius replies:<br /><br />"Substance is called one not in number alone, as you say, and as to its being confined to a single sphere, but also in a special manner, as when two men and any other person are united by class; so that in this sense both two and more are the same in substance, just as all we men are Adam, being one, and David is the son of David, as being the same as David his father; just as you rightly say that the Son is the same in substance as the Father. For not otherwise would the Son be God, since God the Father is confessed as one and only; just as, no doubt, there is both one Adam, the first of the human race, and one David, the first of a race of kings."<br /><br />Does that sound like what you read? If so, it's Apollinarius, not Basil, who would have written it, and even that is questionable.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-52734921018290743262012-12-31T21:45:24.877-05:002012-12-31T21:45:24.877-05:00Sean always mispresent the things we said. I expre...Sean always mispresent the things we said. I expressed to him my assessment about a possible shift from early Athanasius to post-exile Athanasius from the old view to a somewhat ambigous view which can possibly be understood as numerical unity. <br /><br />He then twisted my word, as if I said, Athanasius always teaches the same thing as Sean does, this is something so contrary to the general teaching of Athanasius. In his blog, the latest response he posted to refute you, is the passage contains the phrase "one essence from one essence" <br /><br />Looking forward for your coming post on Part III.<br /><br />P.S. if you can, try to locate Basil's Letter 300, Whiston's account indicated Basil said the following in 300th letter (I am quoting on memory):"One thing cannot be consubstantial with itself, it has to be two things to be consubstantial with each other." <br /><br />徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-84933847670248940052012-12-31T16:16:23.165-05:002012-12-31T16:16:23.165-05:00Well, he is having a rough time explaining Athanas...Well, he is having a rough time explaining Athanasius' thoughts on his blog, so that doesn't surprise me.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-18803090392615029232012-12-31T14:31:23.027-05:002012-12-31T14:31:23.027-05:00Great article and summary Ryan! I intend to come u...Great article and summary Ryan! I intend to come up with some good analysis that focus on Justin and Ireneaus, they teach the same fundamental doctrine. I have briefly made some quotes on Clark Forum on Facebook, but Sean is again ignoring all these historical facts and keep making assessment that is so contrary to history. <br /><br />徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.com