True Christianity

I will respond to people’s questions and posts in more detail in the near future. I am using a cellphone to make these current entries, so it is somewhat tedious to make long responses.

I will make an entry tomorrow, when I have more time.

God bless.

We can intuitively sense the existence of God through the beauty and grandeur of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. This spiritual intuition I like to call “The mystic’s eye”. It is the sense that the universe is not an accident, that there is a cosmic purpose for it, and that there is a divine force of unimaginable scope and power responsible for it. These spiritual intuitions occur during clear nights, when you can see the stars, or during great sunsets, and from seeing images of outer-space. From beautiful experiences of the world and the sky, one realizes that this whole existence is truly divine, that the divine is real, that God is real.

tertullian.org/articles/beth … tantia.htm

[quote]
TERTULLIAN’S USE OF SUBSTANTIA, NATURA, AND PERSONA.

IN a notice in the JOURNAL (vol. iii p. 291) of my inquiry into the meaning of Homoousios in the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed (Texts and Studies vii i), Dr. Strong took exception to what I had written in regard to Tertullian’s usage of the words substantia, natura, and persona, and to my acceptance of the tradition that ὁμοούσιος was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 269.

As I am repeating the same statements in a Short history of the development of Christian Doctrine to the Council of Chalcedon, which is now in the press, it seems desirable to ask for a little space in the JOURNAL in which to consider the passages to which Dr. Strong refers; lest I should seem to ignore the criticism of one who has made a special study of the matter. My short history is intended as an introduction to the subject for students beginning their work, and therefore does not afford a suitable opportunity for such a discussion.

That Tertullian’s use of the words is ‘philosophical’ as well as ‘juristic’ I do not think any one would be inclined to deny. I stated clearly my own opinion that it was. Perhaps I should have said that he passed from the philosophical to the juristic, rather than from the juristic to the philosophical, sense of the terms. But I think Tertullian was a jurist first, and a philosopher second : so I do not conceive that I wronged him much, or really misrepresented the dominant bias of his thought.

With regard to the two passages to which appeal is made by Dr. Strong, |p441 I think that his criticism misses the true force of Tertullian’s argument, and that, if they are taken as a test, it will be found that Tertullian’s usage is clear and consistent, as I stated it.

(1) In the passage de Anima 9, he is definitely distinguishing 'substances ’ from their characteristics or attributes. He has argued that the soul must be corpus. Every corpus has, as one of its properties, ‘colour.’ The ‘colour’ of the soul must be aerial and bright (aerius and luridus). But this does not mean that the ‘substance’ of the soul is ‘air’ or ‘light.’ And he takes two examples of precious stones–the ‘ceraunia’ and the beryl–to illustrate the point. No one would say that the substantia of the ‘ceraunia’ is fire (substantia ignita), just because it gleams with a reddish glow of colour : nor that the materia of beryls is water (aquosa materia), because there are waves of pure lustre in them (quod fluctuent colato nitore). For there are any number of things that are associated together in colour, and dissociated from one another in natura (Quanta enim et alia color sociat, natura dissociat?).

The resemblance of these last words to the expression in ch. 32 ’ duritia communicat, substantia discordat’ is merely superficial, and the apparent interchange of natura and substantia is illusory. It is not the case that in ch. 9 natura is used as substantia is used in ch. 32. There is no dispute as to the meaning of substantia in either place. And the context shows that natura here is used in the same general sense as in ch. 32, though here it is found in its widest and most inclusive usage-- of the sum total of the attributes or properties of a thing, and is contrasted with a particular attribute or property which is comprised in it.

The soul is a substantia with certain properties, some of which it shares with other substantiae. One of its properties is to be ‘aerial,’ but its substance is not air. And then comes the illustration. There is fire, and water, and precious stone. Each is itself a substantia; each has its own natura. Viewed absolutely in its fullness, the natura of each of the three distinguishes it from the others. But one precious stone has some of the characteristics of fire, and another precious stone has some of the characteristics of water. Substances, so far as they share in the same characteristics, are associated together by this similarity of nature, relatively, so far as it goes; but at the same time the difference of nature, absolutely, as a whole, dissociates them. They are alike in one attribute, but in the sum total of attributes they are not alike.

The argument is only intelligible if the distinction between substantia and natura is kept clear, and if the contrast between the relative likeness and the absolute unlikeness of the things which are compared is recognized.

(2) In the passage adv. Praxean ch. 7, the confusion between substantia and persona, of which Dr. Strong speaks, is not Tertullian’s. |p442 Tertullian is quite clear. He is discussing the Scriptural and theological use of the term sermo, and is only concerned to maintain that it is no mere appellation or personification that is meant by it; it is nothing airy and meaningless and unsubstantial; but, on the contrary, it is a real existence, a substantia. ‘This substantia of the Word,’ he says, ‘whatever it is, I say is a person (persona), and I claim for him the name of Son.’ That is to say, the Word, to which reference is made in Scripture, is a real existence : one and the same with the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. If there were no substantia, there could be no persona. The use of terms is strict, and in keeping with Tertullian’s use elsewhere.

With regard to the other question which Dr. Strong raises, my argument does not depend on the accuracy of the tradition that the word ὁμοούσιος was condemned at Antioch. (All that I am concerned to maintain is that it was generally distrusted in the East, while its Latin equivalent was as generally approved and used in the West. That this was so does not require argument.) But the matter is of antiquarian interest, at all events. What Dr. Strong says about the evidence is of course true. The statement that the Council of Antioch recommended that the word be withdrawn from use comes to us from Arian sources. It would not be likely to come from Nicenes. But the Nicenes accepted the Arian statement, and only argued that it did not matter. The term was rejected by the former Council in one sense, and used by the later Council and themselves in another sense. Now these references do not amount to positive proof that the term was considered at the Council of Antioch and–for whatever reason–condemned. But, if it were not so, how could the belief that it was so ever have originated ? Not even Arian ingenuity and daring would have been capable of such an invention, in the absence of justification for it; and there is prima fade probability that Paul of Samosata did use the term in a sense inconsistent with the Catholic interpretation of the Person of Christ. Against this evidence there can only be set the fact that the extant Acts of the Council contain no reference to the matter. It is easy to see why the reference should have been omitted.

Finally, though the purpose of this note is fulfilled, I may perhaps be allowed to say that I much regret the slip of the pen which led me to cite a passage from the de Mundo as one from the Metaphysics of Aristotle. But so far as concerns my statement of the history of ὑπόστασις, if Aristotle did not use the term as I said he did, so much the better for my argument. The fact that the exposure by Dr. Strong of what he styles ‘a somewhat serious inaccuracy’ strengthens my argument is to me at least a satisfaction. [/paste]

Adversus Praxean
tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm

The Stoic Concept of the City (discusses God = Love)
pl.scribd.com/mobile/doc/228792 … f-the-City

Numenius of Apamea
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numenius_of_Apamea

Bishop Nemesius wrote a theory on evolution in 6th century
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesius

Obviously Christ was not the first angle created, as Christ was born during the Roman Empire. Creation linearly involves Ex Nihilo linearity, of mundane matter that can be doubted and empirically verified, Christ’s body was created. Angels are not created nor do they coexist with nature. Fundamental misunderstandings in this thread about the nature of Jewish, Greek, and Roman philosophical and theological terminology. Can’t be rectified in a single thread, as this would require a few years studying Greek, Hebrew, and Latin philosophical concepts as well as First and Second Order Logic, and most people here on this site post as if they have been educated at a ignorant nazi rally. Obviously the blame must be laid on the feet of the site administrator for creating a second Stormfront website. If people are interested in the questions posed, those links will send you to a solution, in every author, but you have to back it up with actual reading and actually trying to learn something about philosophy. I don’t intend to post again on this site, I hope this helps. Tried to PM Erik this, but the site forbids PMing unless I post a bunch of Social Nationalist garbage apparently. Sad what philosophy sites have come to, very very sad.

The Seriphot obviously are inherent in everyone, it was a Alexandrian school of philosophy that mixed the ideals of the cult of the muses from Greece with that of the Egyptian Thrice Great Hermes, and further inducted both Pagan and Christian Neo-Platonic concepts, until it reached it’s final form in 11th Century Spain. It presumes God would have every element of it’s consciousness (seriphot are supposed to be literal nodes of consciousness). God in the Old Testament testified he was conscious just like us, but no individual is conscious in exactly the same way. Seriphot merely tries to map out the variation. You can’t by default map out branches of a trinity as a trinity doesn’t branch observed qualities of god into types, see my very first link. It is a description of a basic typology of God, that predates Christianity and Plato, but has obviously been much informed by platonic leaning theologians ever sense. Even Numenius of Apamea admitted this, and he was a great Pagan philosopher who wrote on Pagan trinities. A Trinitarian system does not break down into a Kabbalistic system, and Kabbalistic systems are archaic psychology at best, using very antiquated presumptions that aren’t based on anatomical or behavioralist verification. Christians also were early pioneers of evolutionary theory, we also discovered DNA, walked on the moon (only Christians have so far) and developed the idea of black holes in the 20th century. We are hardly incompatible with intellectual pursuits. After all, we defeated the Nazi Empire and broke the back of Marxism. We must know something to of done all that. I’m not opposed to the exploration of Jewish mysticism, but also encourage people to be aware of the limitations of aspects of it as well.

First and last post. Really sad to see a philosophy site so rotten and single minded oh devoted to hatred and ignorance like this one is. Clearly is a sick administrator and some bad moderators. All my years and I’ve never seen a site so far gone down the drain. I hope the best for you Erik.

Is that you, Ferguson? Thank you for the excerpt.

I hope you decide to return to the site. God bless and Jesus be with you.


One of forms of evidence for the existence of God, that I like pointing people to, is the overwhelming number of near death experience accounts. They are very consistent with each other and very beautiful and profound. Skeptics will claim that it is just hallucinations from a dying brain, but if that were the case, one would expect random hallucinations that don"t really make any sense. It is illogical to think that a brain, which is dying, becoming weaker and not at full capacity, could produce profound, intricate and vivid life changing experiences of being in the presence of a being of infinite beauty and love. Also, many of the people report observing their dead bodies, as a point of awareness in the room. They report being outside of their body and witnessing what occurs in the ER room, seeing that they flatlined and passed away.

The accounts are very consistent with each other. They report encountering a being of profound, infinite love, who radiates brilliant light and power. They report seeing angels. They report going through a life review, where everything they ever did was shown to them. And many of them report meeting Jesus, being embraced by him.

People describe their experiences as being extremely vivid and life-changing. They are not mere dreams - people recognize dreams for what they are, already being familiar with them. But, no, these near death experiences are different; they penetrate to the very core of the person’s soul and completely change their lives. This is because they are real, because God is real.

I recommend that you guys watch some NDE testimonies on youtube. They are very beautiful.

Jesus bless you all.

Erik,

I wish you’d visit us more. O:)

Why not astral project to Heaven yourself? Why be stuck with someone else’s NDE word for it?

On my astral travels, I have visited Peace, I have visited Hopelessness, I have visited the etheric realm but not long enough to really investigate any of them as I would have liked to.

Souls appeared ghostlike in the realm of Hopelessness. Didn’t see any souls in the Peace realm and I wasn’t able to stay long in the etheric realm, however it looks like the Earth realm while your soul is out of your animal body.

Don’t stay away for so long, Mister!

Had my image removed by mod? Laughs

Jesus is a Jew on a stick. Any god crucified on a cross is a weak pitiful god not worthy of worship beyond slaves.

Erik,

True Christianity rejects the theory of evolution.

I am totally confused by what you write. What’s going on?

The Genesis account can be interpreted literally or metaphorically. There are, actually, many Christians who interpret it allegorically. The book of Revelation is full of symbolism and metaphor, so it’s not anything new for a book to be interpreted from this lens. Evolution being true does NOT mean that God does not exist; it just means that God, Yahweh, is the guiding force behind evolution.

Wendy, Good to hear from you. I will be posting more regularly. I find other people’s NDE accounts very illustrative and convincing. It’s not the same as experiencing it for yourself. But the accounts are still very amazing to listen to.

I hope you have been well. Jesus bless you and Shieldmaiden.

A very weak god crucified on a cross. Are you looking forward to Jew heaven in the afterlife?

Christianity is universal, it’s not merely about racial Judaism. To be honest, it really has nothing to do with race at all; “There is neither Jew, nor Greek” - all are one in Christ. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but if that is all you see, then you are being plagued by the toxicity of racism. Stop these trolling antics of yours and seek Jesus in prayer, from your heart. You are on a philosophy site, a place where people want to discover truth. You will discover the Truth of Christ, if you are serious about it. Jesus bless you.

Universalism and globalism is Judaism my shaboy goy.

Are you mad bro? I don’t need your Jewish blessing, save them for the synagogue, err… church.

how would you know this is the truth, and not, lies whispered by lucifer?

lucifer was the lightbringer, jesus said “i am the light” see the resemblance? lucifer was cast down from the heavens because he wanted to exalt himself above god, so we possessed jesus in the desert ending up exalting himself above god in the churches, “thou shalt not make graven images and bow down before them” yet both christians and muslims does that, the great deceiver has fall these religious people.

Lucifer can be deceived by a Faust, his illumination as a fraud, is easily exposed, for what it is by greed of souls. Those who can recognize deceit, can also immediately recognize hypocracy.

Where are your proof?

Erik wrote:

The biblical narrative of Genesis 1 is very clear.

“God is Creator of all things”, and has revealed in Scripture the account of His creative activity.

In six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.

The first man and woman were made in the image of God and given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it.

When the world was finished it was ‘very good’.

There is no need for evolution. Evolution is a religion that does not give satisfactory answers which is not a fact but a theory. It operates on the basis that things are getting better and is teaching the exact opposite of what we scientifically observe in the universe.

This whole evolutionary religion is to undermine the teachings of truth that you find in the Bible, that God is the creator.

He made you in His image. You did not evolve. This idea of evolutionary religion only lowers the standard and make us act like beasts.

I never stated that God was not the creator of all things.
I simply hold to the stance that the Genesis account is allegorical. The book of Revelation describes a monster coming out of sea with seven heads and ten horns. Does this mean a beast will literally come out of the ocean with seven heads, or is this rather symbolic of some sort of Earthly ruler or event? The book of Genesis, like the book of Revelation, has a symbolic narrative.

Believing in evolution does not lower standards. We are still created in the image of God. Even though we evolved, we are still distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. We have transcended, reached a higher level of existence.

Jesus bless you, Shield. I hope you have been well.

Erik wrote:

There are people who enjoy rational thought and tend to despise the emotions, they prefer the experience of a kind of euphoria from the purity of intelligence and the satisfaction of rational thinking. The mind enjoys immensely the way it is logical and controlling but above all makes sense of disorder, one could say almost mathematical. So it would not be unreasonable to say by comparison that emotions are all over the place, they are not precise and they can quickly get out of control, so why would an educated person, a scientist, for example, believe in creation. It seems quite reasonable that they would gravitate and defend Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution, a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The biblical account of Genesis has been deduced to a religious myth and only those uneducated in scientific methods, would seriously entertain any validity in such a “myth”, yet there are scientists who have doubts about evidence for evolution and based on the two thermodynamic laws of nature, (the two most basic laws in the entire science realm), one could rationally present as being wholly consistent with biblical creation.

The Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind”, which perhaps could explain the experience or power religion has on some.

The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life.

The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. In other words, everything deteriorates, breaks down and becomes less ordered with time. Ultimately death itself is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation implies that the universe did not start up by itself. Energy decay further implies that this universe cannot last forever. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature.

Sometimes we over-spiritualize basic things in the Bible, never letting the words just plainly speak for themselves. Of course, there are many spiritual symbols in Scripture, but when the Bible says, “the first man and woman were made in the image of God and given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it”, some people might agonize over this phrase, trying to squeeze some spiritual abstract meaning out of a straightforward verse.

Where in the Scriptures does it refer to this?

Genesis’ “days” are cycles, and Darwin believed in God.

Jesus was Jewish, not Judaist.

Same thing, Jesus was a Judaist reformer. He didn’t seek to abolish Judaism but instead merely reform it in his image.

The name and label of Christianity was concocted by Paul.