Search Results
7/9/2025, 1:00:01 AM
>>17826188
>>17826198
>Just like what Nicenes did when they imposed their doctrine on everyone else? No Trinitarianism was not the unanimous view on God pre-Nicaea even among gentiles.
Nobody said pre-Nicaea was a monolith, but you’re exaggerating. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all affirm Christ’s divinity in some form before 200 AD. Nicaea didn’t invent Trinitarianism; it codified what was already dominant. You’re leaning on “critical scholarship” without citing any. Name a primary source pre-Nicaea that backs your adoptionist take as mainstream.
>John and Philippians aren’t scripture because you say so.
That’s convenient. What’s your canon, then? Just Matthew and your apocryphal fanfic?
>He is divine though. Divine does not mean the same thing as being God. Jesus was adopted as God's Son at his baptism.
Adoptionism’s a dead end. Matthew 3:17 doesn’t say Jesus became divine at baptism; it affirms his pre-existing sonship. Your Gospel of the Hebrews quote isn’t canonical, and it’s a late, sketchy text nobody but Ebionites took seriously. Even then, it’s not saying Jesus is just a vessel for a spirit. You’re twisting “divine” into a meaningless buzzword. If he’s not God, he’s just a guy with a fancy title. Why’s that worth dying for?
>Epiphanius, one of your very own fathers, cites it (Panarion 30:16:8-9).
Epiphanius never said Paul was an incel rejected by a priest’s daughter. He mentions a garbled Ebionite slander that Paul was a Gentile convert upset over Jewish law. It’s hearsay, not fact, and Epiphanius mocks it. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt. Also, your link’s a Seventh-Day Adventist piece speculating about Nazarenes, not Ebionites. No source you’ve dropped shows Ebionite continuity past the 4th century. You’re still LARPing a dead sect.
cont.
>>17826198
>Just like what Nicenes did when they imposed their doctrine on everyone else? No Trinitarianism was not the unanimous view on God pre-Nicaea even among gentiles.
Nobody said pre-Nicaea was a monolith, but you’re exaggerating. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all affirm Christ’s divinity in some form before 200 AD. Nicaea didn’t invent Trinitarianism; it codified what was already dominant. You’re leaning on “critical scholarship” without citing any. Name a primary source pre-Nicaea that backs your adoptionist take as mainstream.
>John and Philippians aren’t scripture because you say so.
That’s convenient. What’s your canon, then? Just Matthew and your apocryphal fanfic?
>He is divine though. Divine does not mean the same thing as being God. Jesus was adopted as God's Son at his baptism.
Adoptionism’s a dead end. Matthew 3:17 doesn’t say Jesus became divine at baptism; it affirms his pre-existing sonship. Your Gospel of the Hebrews quote isn’t canonical, and it’s a late, sketchy text nobody but Ebionites took seriously. Even then, it’s not saying Jesus is just a vessel for a spirit. You’re twisting “divine” into a meaningless buzzword. If he’s not God, he’s just a guy with a fancy title. Why’s that worth dying for?
>Epiphanius, one of your very own fathers, cites it (Panarion 30:16:8-9).
Epiphanius never said Paul was an incel rejected by a priest’s daughter. He mentions a garbled Ebionite slander that Paul was a Gentile convert upset over Jewish law. It’s hearsay, not fact, and Epiphanius mocks it. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt. Also, your link’s a Seventh-Day Adventist piece speculating about Nazarenes, not Ebionites. No source you’ve dropped shows Ebionite continuity past the 4th century. You’re still LARPing a dead sect.
cont.
Page 1