Trinity and the Church Fathers

[tschmidt]

How do those who deny the deity of Christ respond to the fact that the entire early church, including those who knew the apostles, believed that Jesus was God? And that those who were native speakers of anceint Greek clearly read the New Testament, specifically John 1:1 as claiming that Jesus was God? Here is the evidence:


Clement of Rome (c96AD)

“Moreover, ye were all distinguished by humility, and were in no respect puffed up with pride, but yielded obedience rather than extorted it, and were more willing to give than to receive. Content with the provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, ye were inwardly filled with His doctrine, and His sufferings were before your eyes’” (1 Clement 2, bold emphasis mine)

Please note that grammatically "His Sufferings" must be referring to God in the original Greek.

Clement knew the apostles:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles… From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.” (Irenaeus c120-202AD, Against Heresies, 3.3, wrote c180-190AD,)

Ignatius (30-107)

“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
(Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:2)

“Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life…”
(Ignatius to the Ephesians 19:2)

“I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit, and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ…” (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 1:1)

Ignatius knew the apostles:

“And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.36)

Polycarp (69-155)
“If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and "we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every one give an account of himself.” Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord.” (Polycarp to the Philippians, 6)

Here it can be seen that Jesus is the one who is called "Lord and God." Jesus is also the only one to receive the title of "Lord" in the epistle.

Polycarp also received letters from his fellow Pastor Ignatius, in which Jesus was called God:

“Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes” (Letter to Polycarp 3:2)

“I bid you farewell always in our God Jesus Christ; may you remain in him, in the unity and care of God.” (Letter to Polycarp, 8:3)

Polycarp knew the apostles:
“I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.” (Fragments From the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 2 c180-188AD)

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time…”
(Irenaeus c120-202AD, Against Heresies, 3.3.4, written c182-188AD)

Anonymous letter to Diognetus or Mathetes (c100-130AD)

“But perhaps he sent him, as a man might suppose, to rule by tyranny, fear, and terror? Certainly not! On the contrary, he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king; he sent him as God; he sent him as a man to men.” (Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 7:4)

The author of this letter knew the apostles:

“I am not talking about strange things, nor am I engaged in irrational speculation, but having been a disciple of apostles, I am now becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. To those who are becoming disciples of the truth try to minister in a worthy manner the teachings that have been handed down. Indeed, does anyone who has been rightly taught and has come to love the Word not seek to learn exactly the things openly made known by the Word to the disciples? To them the Word appeared and revealed these things, speaking quite plainly as he did so; though not understood by unbelievers, he explained them to disciples who, being regarded as faithful by him, learned the mysteries of the Father. This is why he sent the Word, namely, that might appear to the world; though dishonored by the chosen people, he was preached by apostles and believed by Gentiles… Then the reverence of the law is praised in songs, and the grace of the prophets is recognized, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the joy of the church exults.” (Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 11:1-3,6)

Aristides of Athens (c125)

“The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.” (Aristides, 2)

Justin Martyr (100-165)

“For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology 63:15)

Justin Martyr says that the Father is not Jesus, but that Jesus is God, not “a god” but in fact God, which agrees with Trinitarian doctrine. Justin surely would have been living with people who knew the Apostles because he lived in Rome and Ephesus, the same places where the Apostles lived and traveled.

Irenaeus (120-202)

“The Church, though dispersed through the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father” Bold emphasis mine.
(Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 10, Section 1)

Here Irenaeus states clearly that Jesus is Lord, God, Savior, and King. And not only does Irenaeus say this while he is giving a statement of faith, but he also says that the entire Church believes it as well.

Clement of Alexandria (153-193,217)

“Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God.”
(The Instructor Book I, Chapter II, Section I

Clement is very clear here. He says that Jesus is God three times, but yet also talks about how he is at the Father’s right hand. It also is clear that he interprets the beginning of the Gospel John as saying "The Word is God" and not "The Word is a God". This exactly corresponds to the idea of the Trinity.

Tertullian (160-?)

Against Praxeas I

This entire book is about the trinity, especially part of the beginning of chapter two which I quote.

“We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth, believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her -- being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas”


Tertullian agrees with Trinitarian doctrine exactly here and does so in a statement of faith! He calls Jesus Man and God. He also clearly speaks of the Paraclete or Holy Ghost (both are names for the Holy Spirit) adding that these beliefs are the oldest around. Throughout the rest of the treatise “Against Praxeas” Tertullian talks about we must always investigate heresies to make sure that they are not true, rather than just dismissing them without investigation, implying that he himself had investigated the heresies that claimed that Jesus was not God and concluded that they were simply untrue.

Hippolytus (?-236)

“These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit.” Bold emphasis mine.
(Against the Heresy of One Noetus. 14)

“Now Christ prayed all this economically as man; being, however, true God.”
(Expository Treatise Against the Jews. 4)

Hippolytus wrote in Greek and read and interpreted the beginning of the Gospel the same way that Christians read it today. He even goes so far as to say that there are not two Gods but one. It is clear that he believes that Jesus is a person of God and that the Holy Spirit is a person of God.

Origen (185-232)

“With God, however, He is God, just because He is with Him. And perhaps it was because he saw some such order in the Logos, that John did not place the clause "The Word was God" before the clause "The Word was with God." The series in which he places his different sentences does not prevent the force of each axiom from being separately and fully seen. One axiom is, "In the beginning was the Word," a second, "The Word was with God," and then comes, "And the Word was God." The arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first "In the beginning was the Word," then, "And the Word was with God," and thirdly, "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.”
(Commentary on John, Book 2, Chapter 1)

Origen, a true scholar of the Greek language and highly educated, unmistakably reads the beginning of the Gospel as claiming that Jesus is God. At the start of Chapter 2 Origen delves very deeply into the grammatical structures of Greek in order to find greater meaning in the beginning of the Gospel of John, even saying that John does not speak of two gods, but of one.

[Socrates]

See also Melito, Bishop of Sardis, affirmed Trinitarian Christology in Passover sermon AD ~170 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=229260#post229260).

[tschmidt]

Thanks for pointing that out! Here is a quote from Melito about Christ's deity and humanity.

“For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.”
(Fragments: VII, or see Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, ch. 13.)

[WebToaster]

Moses was also called God (Elohim) in Exodus 7:1 by God himself. And the Judges of Psalms 82 were called gods by God himself. So, if calling someone God means another person is added to trinity, then you should add Moses and the judges as well, and you end up with a multiplicity, not a trinity.

The NT and none of the ECF's before Tertullian ever state that God is three and only three persons.

[tschmidt]

Moses was also called God (Elohim) in Exodus 7:1 by God himself. And the Judges of Psalms 82 were called gods by God himself.

I don't know what this has to do with my post above. Clearly the Church Fathers above are calling Jesus "God" in the literal and not figurative sense.


So, if calling someone God means another person is added to trinity, then you should add Moses and the judges as well, and you end up with a multiplicity, not a trinity.

What does this have to do with my question? Yes, if someone is literally calling someone God, than that means that they are literally calling them God, what else could it mean? The two places you quote in scripture are not literally calling Moses or the judges God, but are figuratively calling them gods. So that means that Moses and the judges are figuratively gods. Jesus, however, is called "God" in a very literal sense by these Church Fathers.



The NT and none of the ECF's before Tertullian ever state that God is three and only three persons.

What does this have to do with my question? I was asking about the deity of Christ, not about all persons in the Trinity. Please do not avoid my questions. So far you have only implied one weak explanation, and that is that these church fathers were speaking of Jesus as God in a figurative way, yet clearly they were speaking of Jesus in a very literal way.

Besides, no where in the NT nor in ANY of the early church fathers does it say that "Jesus is not God". Yet both the NT and the Church Fathers repeatedly affirm the deity of Christ.

In the future, do not throw up smoke screens and avoid the issues at hand. Here, again, are my questions.

"How do those who deny the deity of Christ respond to the fact that the entire early church, including those who knew the apostles, believed that Jesus was God? And that those who were native speakers of anceint Greek clearly read the New Testament, specifically John 1:1 as claiming that Jesus was God?"

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280104#post280104)
bahai_guy:

Moses was also called God (Elohim) in Exodus 7:1 by God himself.

Elohim means far more than "god" The authority weilded by someone on behalf of God (ie. judging according to the Law) in Hebrew was sufficient to call someone an Elohim. It also means something perceived as blessed by God.

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (elohim) ascending out of the earth.


1Sa 14:15 And there was trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people: the garrison, and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very great (elohim) trembling.

Referring to Nineveh
Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding (elohim) great city of three days' journey.

Referring to Abraham:
Gen 23:6 Hear us, my lord: thou [art] a mighty (elohim) prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.

Gen 30:8 And Rachel said, With great (elohim) wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali.




And the Judges of Psalms 82 were called gods by God himself. So, if calling someone God means another person is added to trinity, then you should add Moses and the judges as well, and you end up with a multiplicity, not a trinity.

You need to update your understanding of elohim...

[WebToaster]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280312#post280312)
Bill the Cat:

Elohim means far more than "god" The authority weilded by someone on behalf of God (ie. judging according to the Law) in Hebrew was sufficient to call someone an Elohim. It also means something perceived as blessed by God.

Exactly! Just as the descriptions of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God, on God's behalf. This is precisely what the ECFs are saying.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 07:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280460#post280460)
bahai_guy:



Exactly! Just as the descriptions of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God, on God's behalf. This is precisely what the ECFs are saying.

You are comparing Hebrew to Greek, and it doesn't match. Theos is only used of God, never of someone weilding His Authority (IE the Apostles were NEVER called Theos, EVER)

[spl_cadet]

Uh, no.

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" Justin Martyr (First Apology 13:5–6)


"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 1)



"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1:10:1)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280104#post280104)
bahai_guy:

Moses was also called God (Elohim) in Exodus 7:1 by God himself. And the Judges of Psalms 82 were called gods by God himself. So, if calling someone God means another person is added to trinity, then you should add Moses and the judges as well, and you end up with a multiplicity, not a trinity.

The NT and none of the ECF's before Tertullian ever state that God is three and only three persons.

God called Moses, "elohim," a generic term for any type of god or idol. God did NOT say "Haelohim", i.e. The God. And this is variously translated, "as god," "like god," and "in God's stead."
NIV Exo 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

NASB Exo 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

JPS Exo 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "(1) See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

RSV Exo 7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Here are some ECF writing before Tertullian and before Nicaea, who seem to preclude there being more than a Trinitarian Godhead. Will you be moving your arbitrary date back from Tertullian now?
100 AD Ignatius of Antioch (225 years before Nicea), a follower of John. "

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." (Letter to the Philadelphians 2).

The First Apology of Justin, (150 AD) (175 years before Nicea)

"But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the onlybegotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the onlybegotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"

A Plea For the Christians By Athenagoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian [177 AD] (148 years before Nicea)

while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words, provided we arrive at it pure from all wrong-doing; who, moreover, carry our benevolence to such an extent, that we not only love our friends ("for if ye love them," He says, "that love you, and lend to them that lend to you, what reward will ye have? ",-shall we, I say, when such is our character, and when we live such a life as this, that we may escape condemnation at last, not be accounted pious?

http://www.piney.com/FatAthenPleaChr.html

180 AD (145 years before Nicea) Theophilus of Antioch

Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day.

"On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are [I]types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom." And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments." (180 AD, Theophilus of Antioch Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus 2:15)

190 AD (135 years before Nicea) Clement Of Alexandria

"I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14)

[WebToaster]

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280493#post280493)
Bill the Cat:

You are comparing Hebrew to Greek, and it doesn't match. Theos is only used of God, never of someone weilding His Authority (IE the Apostles were NEVER called Theos, EVER)

I am comparing a passage in Hebrew calling Moses a God, to someone in Greek calling Christ a God. They are the same.

The only reason you say it is NEVER used in this manner is because of your preconception. If you drop the preconception, and get back to monotheism, the descriptions of Christ as God can only be viewed as representing God's manifestation in Christ. A manifestation which also appears in Moses.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280535#post280535)
bahai_guy:



I am comparing a passage in Hebrew calling Moses a God, to someone in Greek calling Christ a God. They are the same.

Quick question: Just how many languages have you studied in your life?

[WebToaster]

Yesterday @ 11:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280238#post280238)
tschmidt:

I don't know what this has to do with my post above. Clearly the Church Fathers above are calling Jesus "God" in the literal and not figurative sense.

Clearly not! The only reason you discern one as literal and one figurative is to match your preconception. God made Christ our God precisely as he made Moses the Pharaoh's God.



What does this have to do with my question? Yes, if someone is literally calling someone God, than that means that they are literally calling them God, what else could it mean? The two places you quote in scripture are not literally calling Moses or the judges God, but are figuratively calling them gods. So that means that Moses and the judges are figuratively gods. Jesus, however, is called "God" in a very literal sense by these Church Fathers.

What does this have to do with your question? Everything! You've created a thread named "Trinity and the Church Fathers" and then went on to list incidents in which Christ is called God by the ECFs to purportedly support the trinity. None of the quotes support the trinity. The best you can say is that they don't disagree with the doctrine of the trinity.

[WebToaster]

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280554#post280554)
spl_cadet:

Quick question: Just how many languages have you studied in your life?

We're not discussing my credentials. If you want to actually discuss the premise and conclusions, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Bill the Cat]

Excerpted from "Are Christians Monotheists? The Answer of St. John's Gospel"

James McGrath

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5490/6thform.htm

For the Jewish philosopher Philo, as for many philosophers of the time, God's Word or Logos bridged the gap between God and creation. In fact, Philo describes the Word as "neither created nor uncreated." This may sound like gibberish to us today, but for Philo, and probably for many others in his time, it made sense in terms of their worldview. The Word was part of God, since it existed within him before it came forth, and yet it was distinct from God and could come into contact with the material world. The Word bridged the gap between the transcendent God and the creation. And so, although certain religious practices, such as cultic worship, distinguished Israel's one God from all other beings, no clear separation was made, no hard and fast dividing line was drawn, between God and creation. The Word was the only boundary marker, but the edges were blurred, since the Word was "neither created nor uncreated", being both the Word of God himself, and yet also being described as if a separate being. There was thus, in the mind of first century Jews and non-Jews alike, a hierarchy of being, with God on top, then his Word or Wisdom or powers, then angels and heavenly beings, then humans, lions, slugs, mosquitoes, and whatever else, but without a clear-cut, sharply-drawn dividing line being drawn to distinguish God from creation or even different levels on the hierarchy from one another. In a sense, the Word was the dividing line, and as such stood on both sides of the gap between the transcendent God and his creation.

To sum up, then, first century Jews believed that there was one God who was above all, the creator of all, who was distinguished from other beings in being alone worthy of worship and in being the sole ruler of all things, whose will, ultimately, is always realized.

Johannine Monotheism

With these things in mind, we may now turn to St. John's Gospel, to compare it with the writings of some of his Jewish contemporaries. The best place to begin is usually at the beginning, and so in turning to John we may look first of all at the prologue, the hymn-like passage found in John 1:1-18. The opening line, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is obviously of crucial importance for answering the question which we are examining, namely the question: was the author of St. John's Gospel a monotheist, and is his portrait of Christ monotheistic? What is immediately striking, when we read the prologue of the Gospel of John, is the paradox which John asserts: he says both that the Word was with God and that the Word was God. This paradox is comparable to what Philo asserts concerning the Word: "neither created nor uncreated". This understanding of the Word is crucial to the role which the Word fulfils, as the one through whom the creation of all things takes place. God's transcendence was so emphasized in Hellenistic thought that it was felt to be inappropriate to suggest that God created directly, or came directly into contact with the material world. The idea of the Word thus made it possible both to regard God as creator, and at the same time to maintain his transcendence.

Thus Philo and John both speak of the Word as mediator of creation, as one who is part of the reality of God and yet distinct from and subordinate to God. Both refer to the Word as 'God', and yet both emphasize that the Word is subordinate or inferior to the one true God who is above all. Philo makes this point by referring to the Word as a 'second God', while John makes this point by portraying Jesus as calling the Father "the only true God" in John 17:3. For both, then, the Word is an expression of the reality of God himself, and yet distinct from and subordinate to God, in a way that can only be described as paradoxical. Yet in spite of this paradox, it is clear that if Philo fits our portrait of what a first-century Jewish monotheist looks like, then so also does John: both held that there was one God above all who was uniquely worthy of worship, who created all things through his Word. There is unambiguous evidence that Philo understood himself to be a monotheist: he wrote the following words: "Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honour one God who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and goodness" (Decal. 65). This comes from the pen of the same Philo who speaks of the Word as a 'second God'! It thus becomes clear that both Philo and John - and many other Jews of their time - felt that belief in one God who is above all is compatible with belief in a second figure who reveals and represents God. John's belief was different from Philo's in that he identified this Word with Jesus, but on the question of the oneness of God, it seems that they would have both agreed.

A second passage of key importance for understanding the Fourth Gospel's portrait of Jesus, and the way St. John understood the relationship between Jesus and God, is chapter 5 of the Gospel. There Jesus is depicted as healing a paralyzed man on the Sabbath. The Jewish authorities object to this, and Jesus is presented as justifying his action by saying: "My Father is always at work even until this very day, and I too am working" (John 5:17). To understand this response, we need to know that Jewish tradition claimed that God continued to work even on the Sabbath, since it was clear that even on Saturdays someone was busy upholding the universe. This was explained in various ways by Philo and by the later rabbis, but it is clear that already in the first century it was thought that God worked on the Sabbath, and that this was a prerogative of God alone. For Jesus to claim to do what God alone does was for this reason understood as a claim to be 'equal to God.'

When we read this passage, we might be tempted to backtrack on the conclusion we reached when looking at the first chapter of John's Gospel: After all, if John had not abandoned monotheism, what was all this fuss and fighting about that we har about in John chapter 5? If John had believed in one God, why was it necessary for him to defend himself against the accusation that Jesus had 'made himself equal to God'?

In order to understand this, we need to understand that Jesus - and also the heavenly Word - were understood in terms of what we may call 'agency': these figures, like the Old Testament prophets, angels and many others, were 'agents' of God. Now when we use this term we don't mean that they sold houses for God or booked gigs for God to perform at local clubs on Saturday nights. When we speak of 'agency' we are speaking of what in Greek would have been called 'apostleship' - the situation in which someone is sent to represent someone else. In the days before mobile phones, fax machines, the internet and telecommunications, this was an essential part of life. If a king wanted to make peace with another nation, he did not go in person - or at least not in the first instance - but sent his ambassador. When a wealthy person wanted to arrange a property purchase or sale in another region, he sent a representative. When God wanted to address his people, he sent a prophet or an angel. Agency was an important part of everyday life in the ancient world.

Now there were certain basic rules or assumptions connected with agency in the ancient world. The most basic of all was that, in the words of later Jewish rabbis: "The one sent is like the one who sent him." Or, in words which are probably better known to those of us familiar with the New Testament, "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives not me but the one who sent me." These are words which the Gospels record Jesus as saying to his apostles, and as I've already said, 'apostle' is simply the Greek word for 'one who is sent', an 'agent.' When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding; it was just as if the person who sent him had made it in person. Conversely, if someone rejected an agent, he rejected the one who sent him. The agent was thus functionally equal to the one who sent him, precisely because he was subordinate and obedient to, and submitted to the will of, him who sent him.

This helps us to understand what is at issue in John 5. The issue is not whether there is really only one God - John affirms explicitly that he believes that there is only one true God. Rather the debate centres around Jesus' relationship to the one God. Jesus claims to do what God does. If he is God's appointed agent, then there is no reason to regard this as illegitimate: it would not be the first time that God had appointed one of his agents to speak or act on his behalf, to proclaim his message and do his works. However, 'the Jews' as they are presented in the Gospel of John do not recognize Jesus as one who has been appointed by God. They thus accuse him of "making himself equal to God." That is to say, the problem is not 'equality with God' in and of itself, but whether Jesus acts in this way as God's agent. The issue is whether Jesus has been sent by God and is obedient to God, or whether he is a rebellious, glory-seeking upstart who claims divine prerogatives for himself. 'The Jews' accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God - that is to say, they accuse him of putting himself on the level of God, by claiming to do what God does when he has not in fact been appointed by God. They thus feel that Jesus has committed blasphemy: by making these claims, he is felt to have insulted God.

How is Jesus portrayed as responding to this charge? He adamantly denies it. Listen to the words which are used: "The Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing...By myself I can do nothing...I seek not to please myself but him who sent me" (John 5:19,30). Jesus is emphatically said to be God's obedient Son and agent. In the ancient near east, the eldest son was usually the principle agent of his father. A son was also expected to learn his father's trade, watching him carefully and learning to imitate his Father. John has this in mind when he uses this type of language to justify the actions and claims of Jesus: Jesus does what God does, and as one who shares in a Father-Son relationship with God, that is precisely what should be expected. Only if Jesus were a disobedientson would he not imitate his Father and do what he sees his Father doing. There is thus no problem of monotheism in John 5. The issue is about whether Jesus is putting himself on a par with God, seeking his own glory in a way that detracts from the glory and honour due to God alone. John emphasizes that Jesus is in fact God's appointed agent, and because this is the case there is nothing illegitimate about his behaviour: he does what God does not as a second co-equal God, but as God's obedient Son and agent whom he sent into the world.

The same applies to John 10:33, where the same sort of language is used: Jesus is accused of "making himself God." This would, in the view of his opponents, be blasphemy, precisely because they regard him as a rebellious upstart rather than as an appointed agent. Other figures had at times sought to claim divine prerogatives without being appointed by God: Adam grasped at equality with God; the king of Babylon in Isaiah's time was accused of blasphemy for exalting himself. Perhaps most relevant for John 10 is the figure of Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes was the king of Syria in the period when Israel was under the dominion of Syria - this was in the so-called 'intertestamental period.' If you want to find out more about Antiochus, the second half of the Book of Daniel has quite a bit to say about him, particularly in ch. 11, although he is not mentioned by name. Antiochus Epiphanes claimed to be 'god manifest,' and for various reasons which we can not go into now, he outlawed the observance of the Jewish law, and began a severe persecution of the Jewish people. The dialogue in John 10 is set at the feast of Dedication or Hanukkah, which celebrated the rededication of the temple after it had been desecrated by Antiochus. It is interesting to note that the books of the Maccabees, which describe the desecration of the temple by Antiochus and its subsequent rededication, contain more than a third of all the occurrences of the word 'blasphemy' in the Old Testament. The books of the Maccabees would have been part of John's Bible, since he appears to have used the Greek version which we know today as the Septuagint. Most striking of all is 2 Maccabees 9:12, where Antiochus Epiphanes is presented as repenting on his death bed, and asserting that "no mortal should think that he is equal to God," a phrase very reminiscent of the language used in John 10, and also in John 5:18. The issue once again is whether Jesus is a glory-seeking rebel against God's authority like Antiochus, or rather an obedient agent who does the will of him who sent him.

Finally, we may consider the dialogue with Jewish opponents depicted in John chapter 8. This part of John is famous because it presents Jesus as using the phrase 'I am' absolutely - Here (and in one or two other places in John), Jesus does not say "I am such and such" (for example, "I am the good shepherd" or "I am the light of the world"), but rather simply says "I am." Most scholars think that this use of 'I am' reflects the occurrence of this phrase in the Septuagint version of Isaiah as a name for God. This in turn appears to have been based on an interpretation of the name 'Yahweh' revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15. So, even if everything we have said so far is true, someone will probably ask: surely when Jesus is presented as saying 'I am' the meaning is 'I am Yahweh,' and if that is the case then Jesus is clearly claiming to be none other than the God revealed in the Old Testament, and is thus redefining monotheism.

This logic would be convincing except for one crucial problem. As C. K. Barrett has rightly pointed out, it is simply intolerable to suggest that John presents Jesus as saying "I am Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and as such I do exactly what I am told". Yet the Johannine Jesus says in John 8:28: "When you have 'lifted up' (that is to say, "When you have crucified") the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing of myself, but speak just what the Father has taught me." Thus, whereas the king of Babylon is accused in Isa. 47:8 of blasphemously claiming "I am, and there is no other," Jesus claims something very different: "I am, and I do nothing of myself, but only the will of him who sent me." Jesus' use of 'I am' thus appears to be connected with him being the agent who has been sent by God, and there are contemporary Jewish writings which can help use to understand a little bit of what is going on here.

In a first century Jewish writing entitled "The Apocalypse of Abraham," Abraham is described as being granted a visit to heaven, in much the same way that John is said to have done in the New Testament's "Apocalypse" or "Book of Revelation." Sent to guide him on his heavenly visit is an angel, who identifies himself as "Yaoel." The name Yaoel is made up of the two main names for God in the Old Testament, "Yah" or "Yahweh" (rendered in some English versions as "Jehovah") and "El." The angel thus has the same name as God. This is not because that angel is really God himself or is confused with God. No; it is because God has given his name to the angel in order to empower him. This is explicitly stated in the book itself. This is thus one of a number of examples from Jewish thought of God's agent being given God's name in order to empower him for his mission. In later times, the Samaritans made much the same sort of claims for Moses. The early Christians applied these ideas to Jesus. The clearest example of this is in the quotation from an early Christian hymn preserved in Paul's letter to the Philippians (2:6-11), which says Jesus "humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Lord here is thought of as God's name, since the name "Yahweh" was for the most part not actually pronounced by Jews in this period, and in the Septuagint translation they translated the Hebrew name of God with the Greek word for Lord. This practice has been followed by most modern English versions of the Bible, which is why the name "Yahweh," which occurs so frequently throughout the Jewish Scriptures, is not found there: it has been replaced by LORD in capital letters. At any rate, here once again we see Jesus exalted to heaven to a place second only to God himself, and given God's very own name. This was a way that, in this period of Jewish history, God was believed to honour and empower his agents, and it is a continuation and development of this idea that is found in John. This is particularly clear in John chapter 17, where Jesus prays for his disciples saying, "Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one." The name 'I am' which Jesus bears is the Father's name, and the Father gave it to him because he is the Father's agent. Seeing as these ideas were so widespread in first century Judaism, there is no reason to think that John was any less a Jewish monotheist than others of his Jewish contemporaries.

Thus, in answer to the question which we posed, if John was asked in his day and age, "Are Christians monotheists?" I think he would have answered with an unhesitating "Yes." However, in the centuries after John wrote, other issues arose, and when it was felt necessary to draw a firmer and clearer line between God and creation, it also became necessary to place God's Word clearly on one side or the other of that line. It was thus the development of the doctrine of 'creation out of nothing' which was largely responsible for what is today considered orthodox Christian belief. Of course, we would love to know what John would have said if he had lived in that time, when it became necessary to choose between equality and subordination, between continuity with God and distinction from God. But it is somewhat unfair to ask John questions which only arose quite some time after he had lived and died. John doesn't answer these questions that are so important to us, and were so important to the early Church, because in his worldview, it was still possible to hold that the Word was "neither uncreated nor created" or - in John's terms - both 'God' and 'with God.' As we have said, it was only after significant changes in worldview had taken place, and the doctrine of creation out of nothing developed, that suddenly it became urgent to sort out exactly where the dividing line between God and creation should be drawn. Arius said: between God and the Logos; Athanasius said: between the Logos and creation. I personally think that if John had been confronted with this question he would have chose the latter option: for John, Jesus is not the revelation of a lesser god who does not even himself really know the one true God, but rather he is the revelation of God himself. Yet as we have already said, to expect John to answer a question that was only raised later is somewhat unfair. Yet it was this very question which led to the redefinition of monotheism by Christians in the trinitarian terms we are familiar with today, and by others in monistic terms. Prior to this there was no problem. Justin Martyr, a Christian from the second century, describes a conversation which he had with a Jewish man named Trypho. Here too we find no debate about monotheism; in fact, one of Trypho's companions who was himself Jewish agrees with Justin, just as Philo and many other Jews would have, that there is a second figure, who is called by God's name and who appeared in the Jewish Scriptures. Even for some time after John, monotheism was not an issue of controversy between Jews and Christians.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280560#post280560)
bahai_guy:



We're not discussing my credentials. If you want to actually discuss the premise and conclusions, I'll be happy to oblige.

I never said I was referring to Biblical language.

But, anyone who has studied another language will know that simple because one word has a certain meaning in one language doesn't mean that it's main correspondant will as well.

Take the Germand word bitte for example. It means: Please, you're welcome, what/pardon? (as in: I didn't catch that, could you repeat?), and here you go. But, please, though analogous to bitte in main meaning, doesn't have the other meanings that bitte has. That's why your saying that Theo and Elohim are the same is fallacious. Different languages automatically mean different context.

[tschmidt]

Clearly not! The only reason you discern one as literal and one figurative is to match your preconception. God made Christ our God precisely as he made Moses the Pharaoh's God.

Did you even read what I posted? You are acting irrationally. Your definition of God precludes anything being called God. Using your definition I could call anyone God and not be committed blasphemy. But even with your definition of God, I can still disprove your point with these quotes

Ignatius says, “Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life…”


Aristedes says, "And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. "

How could your definition of God possibly apply to what Aristedes said? He said that God assumed and clothed himself with flesh, he does not say that Jesus was made or appointed to be God.

Take Clement of Alexandria

“Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God.”

Clearly Clement says that GOD was in the form of man, not that man was in the form of God, as your view implies. Please read the quotes and address them.


What does this have to do with your question? Everything! You've created a thread named "Trinity and the Church Fathers" and then went on to list incidents in which Christ is called God by the ECFs to purportedly support the trinity. None of the quotes support the trinity. The best you can say is that they don't disagree with the doctrine of the trinity.

And I suppose if I made a thread entitled "Jesus and the Church Fathers" that would mean that EVERYTHING about Jesus would be open for discussion? Clearly not. I limited the scope of the discussion with my questions, both of which you have not addressed. Here they are again:

""How do those who deny the deity of Christ respond to the fact that the entire early church, including those who knew the apostles, believed that Jesus was God? And that those who were native speakers of anceint Greek clearly read the New Testament, specifically John 1:1 as claiming that Jesus was God?"

[WebToaster]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280733#post280733)
tschmidt:

Did you even read what I posted? You are acting irrationally. Your definition of God precludes anything being called God. Using your definition I could call anyone God and not be committed blasphemy. But even with your definition of God, I can still disprove your point with these quotes


Instead of calling me irrational, why don't you change the name of your thread? If you don't mean to talk about the trinity, then don't entitle the thread as a discussion of the trinity.

And show me where I gave my definition of God.

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280535#post280535)
bahai_guy:
I am comparing a passage in Hebrew calling Moses a God, to someone in Greek calling Christ a God. They are the same.



This is NOT a valid comparison. The words translated as "God" in Hebrew and Greek are very different in definition.

What you're doing would be like comparing agape (greek for unconditional love) to love in English, and saying that we want to use the erotic meaning of love in English when we translate "God is Love", so that it means that God is erotically attracted. It doesn't work that way.

If you want to do this, you need to include a complete word study of both words in each language and then tell how they overlap and justify your equating the two. (I wouldn't bother, tho. Such a study would prove you very wrong.)

Michael

[Reasonable]

I have seen some quotes from ECF's supposedly showing that they did not believe Jesus was Almighty God, though he was God. For instance, Justin Martyr supposedly said the following:


"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce to them."

And then later he states regarding Jesus,
"...and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things,-numerically I mean, not in will."

Also I seen a quote from Origin which says,


"God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Savior says in prayer to the father, "That they many know Thee the only true God;" but that allbeyond the very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus, the firstborn of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of who God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hth spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous measure that shey should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then is "The God," and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype."

Now I must admit, if these quotes are legit then I am confused. It almost sounds like Justin and Origin are polytheists and do confess Jesus as God but differentiate him from God Almighty. Any help on this?

[Reasonable]

Today @ 01:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281667#post281667)
themuzicman:



This is NOT a valid comparison. The words translated as "God" in Hebrew and Greek are very different in definition.

What you're doing would be like comparing agape (greek for unconditional love) to love in English, and saying that we want to use the erotic meaning of love in English when we translate "God is Love", so that it means that God is erotically attracted. It doesn't work that way.

If you want to do this, you need to include a complete word study of both words in each language and then tell how they overlap and justify your equating the two. (I wouldn't bother, tho. Such a study would prove you very wrong.)

Michael

Michael
I'm not an expert on Greek or Hebrew so I don't know who's right. But I am reminded of Jesus' quoting of Ps 82 at John 10:34-36. Would this not be equating the hebrow elohim with the greek theos, at least in regards to one of the definitions?

What are you definitions for theos that cannot be applied to elohim or vice versa?

[themuzicman]

Theos is strictly god. There isn't much wiggle room there.

However, Elohim, as shown earlier in this thread, can be 'mighty', 'judge', 'authority of God', and any number of other things. One might say that Elohim really describes God, rather than is the WORD FOR God, although sometimes it is used that way.

So, we cannot simply say that everywhere we see Elohim that we translate it as "God".

(I'm not the Hebrew expert, yet, but this one is pretty clear.)

Michael

[Reasonable]

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281773#post281773)
themuzicman:

Theos is strictly god. There isn't much wiggle room there.

However, Elohim, as shown earlier in this thread, can be 'mighty', 'judge', 'authority of God', and any number of other things. One might say that Elohim really describes God, rather than is the WORD FOR God, although sometimes it is used that way.

So, we cannot simply say that everywhere we see Elohim that we translate it as "God".

(I'm not the Hebrew expert, yet, but this one is pretty clear.)

Michael

Thanks! I see your point.

[tschmidt]

Instead of calling me irrational, why don't you change the name of your thread? If you don't mean to talk about the trinity, then don't entitle the thread as a discussion of the trinity.

And show me where I gave my definition of God.

The deity of Christ falls under the discussion of the Trinity. I limited the discussion with my questions. I will say again, if I make a post entitled "Jesus and the Church Fathers" and then ask some very specific questions about Jesus and the Church Fathers, that does not mean that all topics about Jesus or the Church Fathers are open for discussion. Using your logic, if I saw a thread entitled "Augustine" which contained very specific questions about Augustine's view on the canon of scripture, I would be justified in talking about Augustine's sex life before he became a Christian.

You said, "Just as the descriptions of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God, on God's behalf. This is precisely what the ECFs are saying." That means that I can properly call Nero God because as emperor of Rome he weilded the authority of God that God gives to all men in authority. I can also call my pastor God and the aposlte Paul God because they both wield God's authority.

You are grasping at straws. You cannot even begin to address me arguments. This is now the fourth time I have posted my questions. I bet you will not answer them, and will merely try to evade them by throwing up a smoke screen and whining about the title of my thread.

"How do those who deny the deity of Christ respond to the fact that the entire early church, including those who knew the apostles, believed that Jesus was God? And that those who were native speakers of anceint Greek clearly read the New Testament, specifically John 1:1 as claiming that Jesus was God?"

[WebToaster]

Today @ 12:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280510#post280510)
OldShepherd:


God called Moses, "elohim," a generic term for any type of god or idol. God did NOT say "Haelohim", i.e. The God. And this is variously translated, "as god," "like god," and "in God's stead."
NIV Exo 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

NASB Exo 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

JPS Exo 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "(1) See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

RSV Exo 7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

If I list more translations saying Moses was God, do I win?


Vulgate Exodus 7:1 dixitque Dominus ad Mosen ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis Aaron frater tuus erit propheta tuus

KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Third Millenium Bible Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Douay-Rheims Exodus 7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold, I have appointed thee the god of Pharao; and Aaron, thy brother, shall be thy prophet.

Darby Exodus 7:1
7:1And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet



Here are some ECF writing before Tertullian and before Nicaea, who seem to preclude there being more than a Trinitarian Godhead.

They only seem to preclude it because you have preconceived it to be so. None of the quotes mention the trinity except Theophilius of Antioch, and he contradicts your definition of the trinity as God is three and only three persons comprised of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom." And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

And he says man may be a fourth part.

[WebToaster]

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281904#post281904)
tschmidt:

You said, "Just as the descriptions of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God, on God's behalf. This is precisely what the ECFs are saying." That means that I can properly call Nero God because as emperor of Rome he weilded the authority of God that God gives to all men in authority. I can also call my pastor God and the aposlte Paul God because they both wield God's authority.

No! There's a big difference between scriptural references to humans as God, and your own personal transference of this to Nero. If you want to consider Nero a God, then go ahead, but leave me out of it.





You are grasping at straws. You cannot even begin to address me arguments. This is now the fourth time I have posted my questions. I bet you will not answer them, and will merely try to evade them by throwing up a smoke screen and whining about the title of my thread.

I addressed your questions by saying none of them support the trinity. If you feel the trinity is not what you intended to discuss, then fine. Let's not discuss it.



"How do those who deny the deity of Christ respond to the fact that the entire early church, including those who knew the apostles, believed that Jesus was God? And that those who were native speakers of anceint Greek clearly read the New Testament, specifically John 1:1 as claiming that Jesus was God?"

FALSE! How do you explain Ebionites? Or any number of heretics that drew large followings? And what about the Christians encountered by Mohammed that proclaimed the trinity to be Father, Son, and Mother (Mary)? The debate over the trinity and deity of Christ continued in the Church until it was settled with the Nicene Creed. Until then, the "entire early Church" did not have a conformity of opinion, and after Nicea conformity was enforced by the power of the Roman state.

Justin Martyr even says Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians, and they did not believe in the deity of Christ. Justin Martyr believes living reasonably and partaking of the word makes you a Christian, not a belief Christ was God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3827_706669
[list]The First Apology of Justin

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably96 are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians,
[list]

[tschmidt]

No! There's a big difference between scriptural references to humans as God, and your own personal transference of this to Nero. If you want to consider Nero a God, then go ahead, but leave me out of it.

So what you are really claiming is that “the description of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God” and can only be used in Scripture. This, of course, does not make sense. Thomas called Jesus God, and Thomas was not, at that point, in the cannon of Scripture yet.



I addressed your questions by saying none of them support the trinity. If you feel the trinity is not what you intended to discuss, then fine. Let's not discuss it.

My questions related to the deity of Christ, which of course is part of the Trinity, but not the whole Trinity. You refuse to address the deity of Christ specifically but just talk on and on about the Trinity as a whole.


FALSE! How do you explain Ebionites? Or any number of heretics that drew large followings? And what about the Christians encountered by Mohammed that proclaimed the trinity to be Father, Son, and Mother (Mary)? The debate over the trinity and deity of Christ continued in the Church until it was settled with the Nicene Creed. Until then, the "entire early Church" did not have a conformity of opinion, and after Nicea conformity was enforced by the power of the Roman state.

Ebionites? They were at best 3rd generation Christians, but more likely after that.

""To the student of early Christianity one thing becomes quickly apparent: in the early centuries there were many offshoot sects having some connection both to New Testament and to Jewish thought...Even in the writings of some of the Church Fathers from the third and fourth centuries and later, this proliferation of 'Jewish Christian' sects led to confusion and to the confounding of different sects under the name 'Ebionite.' So convenient (and subtle) was this that it has caused not a few modern scholars to make the mistake of thinking that if we can box in the phenomenon known as Ebionism we will have defined Jewish Christianity. But Ebionism was not the direct heir of the Jewish apostolic church; it was at best only third generation, and to reconcile its doctrines with those of the New Testament requires no small amount of mental gymnastics." -(Nazarene Jewish Christianity--from the End of the New Testament Period until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, Ray Pritz, Magnes Press:1988. Page 9)

Mohammed would hardly be recognized as living during the times of early Christianity.

And the early heretics. Their error was gnosticism.

Basildes taught that God the Father did not always exist. But he did believe that Jesus was God.

Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the New Testament God. He also Mutilated the NT. But he did believe that Jesus was God.

Valentinus “He assumed, as the beginning of all things, the Primal Being or Bythos, who after ages of silence and contemplation, gave rise to other beings by a process of emanation. The first series of beings, the aeons, were thirty in number, representing fifteen syzygies or pairs sexually complementary.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. I have no idea what he believed about Jesus.

Please show me early Christians that believed Jesus was not God. there were perhaps a few that denied the deity of Christ, but as shown above there were people who believed anything.



Justin Martyr even says Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians, and they did not believe in the deity of Christ. Justin Martyr believes living reasonably and partaking of the word makes you a Christian, not a belief Christ was God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...tm#P3827_706669
[list]The First Apology of Justin

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably96 are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians,

Well Justin was confused on that point, I don't know what has to do with the deity of Christ. In other places he did acknowledge it.

You still have not answered why, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the author of the letter to diognutus, believed that Jesus was God and were all pupils of the apostles. there were perhaps a few that denied the deity of Christ, but as I have shown there were people who believed anything. You need to demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ was not the original belief of Christians. You cannot merely make scattered quotes persisting that *some* people didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281908#post281908)
bahai_guy:

If I list more translations saying Moses was God, do I win?

Sure you do as soon as you address this from my previous post.
God called Moses, [אלהים]/"elohim," a generic term for any type of god or idol. God did NOT say "[האלהים]/Haelohim", i.e. The God. And this [[אלהים]/"elohim," without the definite article] is variously translated, "as god," "like god," and "in God's stead."

They only seem to preclude it because you have preconceived it to be so. None of the quotes mention the trinity except Theophilius of Antioch, and he contradicts your definition of the trinity as God is three and only three persons comprised of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom." And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

And he says man may be a fourth part.

The absence of the word Trinity is irrelevant. You seem to have a problem with reading into the text, which I have mentioned before. You have approached the text with your own presuppositions, now all that remains is for you to prove from the sources cited, that the writer, alluded, intimated, implied, suggested, etc., that there is more than three persons who comprise the God head.

Using your logic anyone is free to suppose anything about the sources, "Well there could have been little green men because Justin, etc. does not specifically say there wasn't."

Justin spoke of three persons and only three persons in the Godhead, not an infinite number of little green men.

Eisegesis. Please tell us how a "Trinity" can have four parts? "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And let us post the entire chapter from which you quoted out-of-context and see if Theophilus was including man in the Godhead.
Chapter XV.-Of the Fourth Day.

On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,35 are types of the Trinity,36 of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.37 And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets,38 they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1469_430289

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282073#post282073)

Justin Martyr even says Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians, and they did not believe in the deity of Christ. Justin Martyr believes living reasonably and partaking of the word makes you a Christian, not a belief Christ was God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3827_706669
The First Apology of Justin

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably96 are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians,


You have changed your story from before when you claimed Justin said the Logos came to "all men." This is a misrepresentation and overgeneralization of what Justin said in one instant. Read the totality of his works and see what Justin actually taught. Do you have evidence that any of those Justin mentioned were not, in fact, Christians?

[Jaltus]

:offtopic:

If you look at the forum page, this topic is listed as:

Trinity and the Church Fat


:rofl:

[Reasonable]

Yesterday @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281716#post281716)
Reasonable:

I have seen some quotes from ECF's supposedly showing that they did not believe Jesus was Almighty God, though he was God. For instance, Justin Martyr supposedly said the following:

"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce to them."

And then later he states regarding Jesus, "...and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things,-numerically I mean, not in will."

Also I seen a quote from Origin which says,

"God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Savior says in prayer to the father, "That they many know Thee the only true God;" but that allbeyond the very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus, the firstborn of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of who God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hth spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous measure that shey should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then is "The God," and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype."

Now I must admit, if these quotes are legit then I am confused. It almost sounds like Justin and Origin are polytheists and do confess Jesus as God but differentiate him from God Almighty. Any help on this?

bump

[WebToaster]

Yesterday @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282476#post282476)
tschmidt:

So what you are really claiming is that “the description of Christ as Theos indicate Christ wielding the authority of God” and can only be used in Scripture. This, of course, does not make sense. Thomas called Jesus God, and Thomas was not, at that point, in the cannon of Scripture yet.

It wouldn't be limited to Christ "wielding authority" but that would be one of the ways in which Christ manifested God. So Thomas is correct, he looks at Christ and sees God.


My questions related to the deity of Christ, which of course is part of the Trinity, but not the whole Trinity. You refuse to address the deity of Christ specifically but just talk on and on about the Trinity as a whole.

I'm not refusing to discuss it, I largely agree with you about this issue. It is entirely appropriate for us to view Christ as God. He is the manifestation of God to us. However, this doesn't mean God is split up into separate personifications. There is only one God, inseparable and indivisible.


Ebionites? They were at best 3rd generation Christians, but more likely after that.

The first generation of Christians were all Jewish-Christians, so its wrong to say the Ebionites popped up in the 3rd or 4th century. Iraenus writes about the Ebionites in the second century, and he says they were preceeded by Cerinthus, who was a first generation contemporary of John, and perhaps even the motivation for the writing of the gospel of John.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6642_1589520
Chapter XXVI.-Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.


Mohammed would hardly be recognized as living during the times of early Christianity.

True, however Mohammed would have encountered Christians out of the reach of the Roman empire. So their beliefs originate from something that wasn't forced into orthodoxy by the power of the Roman state.


Please show me early Christians that believed Jesus was not God. there were perhaps a few that denied the deity of Christ, but as shown above there were people who believed anything.

Cerinthus. And look at the letters of Paul where he encounters Jewish-Christiants preaching that salvation was achieved by observance of the law.


You still have not answered why, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the author of the letter to diognutus, believed that Jesus was God and were all pupils of the apostles. there were perhaps a few that denied the deity of Christ, but as I have shown there were people who believed anything. You need to demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ was not the original belief of Christians. You cannot merely make scattered quotes persisting that *some* people didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

I would disagree with you about Polycarp, he clearly distinguishes between God the Father, and Christ. However, I do not believe calling Christ God is wrong, so I have no problem with any of the ECFs proclaiming the deity of Christ. I just have a problem with splitting up God into three separate persons.

[WebToaster]

Today @ 12:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282754#post282754)
OldShepherd:

You have changed your story from before when you claimed Justin said the Logos came to "all men." This is a misrepresentation and overgeneralization of what Justin said in one instant. Read the totality of his works and see what Justin actually taught. Do you have evidence that any of those Justin mentioned were not, in fact, Christians?

OS: You've confused yourself. I'm not talking about the Logos, that's in another thread. I'm responding to Tschmidt's statement that the deity of Christ was accepted by the entire early church. Justin Martyr believes you don't even have to know Christ to be a Christian, much less believe in his deity.

[WebToaster]

Yesterday @ 11:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282708#post282708)
OldShepherd:

Sure you do as soon as you address this from my previous post.
God called Moses, [אלהים]/"elohim," a generic term for any type of god or idol. God did NOT say "[האלהים]/Haelohim", i.e. The God. And this [[אלהים]/"elohim," without the definite article] is variously translated, "as god," "like god," and "in God's stead."

I see you've omitted the references to God as Elohim. And we don't have to look too hard because it starts at Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth.


[font=georgia]The absence of the word Trinity is irrelevant. You seem to have a problem with reading into the text, which I have mentioned before. You have approached the text with your own presuppositions, now all that remains is for you to prove from the sources cited, that the writer, alluded, intimated, implied, suggested, etc., that there is more than three persons who comprise the God head.

Wrong! I don't have to look for more than three persons, although that would be one piece of evidence that would overturn your entire theology. Less than three would be sufficient, or three unequal persons, or some of the persons created by another of the persons. Agreed?


Using your logic anyone is free to suppose anything about the sources, "Well there could have been little green men because Justin, etc. does not specifically say there wasn't."

Justin spoke of three persons and only three persons in the Godhead, not an infinite number of little green men.

You can not derive three and only three equal personages of the Godhead solely from Justin Martyr's writings.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3646_641284

Chapter XIII.-Christians Serve God Rationally

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third

The elements of Justin Martyr's Godhead are the unequal members of the Father, Son, and prophetic Spirit. The prophetic spirit isn't a person at all, and it speaks through Christ and the prophets.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3784_691442
Chapter XXXVIII.-Utterances of the Son.

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort:




Eisegesis. Please tell us how a "Trinity" can have four parts? "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And let us post the entire chapter from which you quoted out-of-context and see if Theophilus was including man in the Godhead.[list]

Obviously if there are more than three parts, then it isn't a trinity. Is it?

[tschmidt]

It wouldn't be limited to Christ "wielding authority" but that would be one of the ways in which Christ manifested God. So Thomas is correct, he looks at Christ and sees God.

I'm not refusing to discuss it, I largely agree with you about this issue. It is entirely appropriate for us to view Christ as God. He is the manifestation of God to us. However, this doesn't mean God is split up into separate personifications. There is only one God, inseparable and indivisible.


I would disagree with you about Polycarp, he clearly distinguishes between God the Father, and Christ. However, I do not believe calling Christ God is wrong, so I have no problem with any of the ECFs proclaiming the deity of Christ. I just have a problem with splitting up God into three separate persons.

I am a little confused here. Perhaps you and I should have a private discussion about Jesus being "God" actually means. I agree that God the Father is different from Christ, I think that we however disagree on what that difference is. I'll e-mail you asking you would like to talk about it privately.



The first generation of Christians were all Jewish-Christians, so its wrong to say the Ebionites popped up in the 3rd or 4th century. Iraenus writes about the Ebionites in the second century, and he says they were preceeded by Cerinthus, who was a first generation contemporary of John, and perhaps even the motivation for the writing of the gospel of John.


You have made me realize that there were indeed people who, early on believed that Jesus was not God. Never the less, I do not think that this helps your case. Here is why.

I said that the Ebionites were 3rd generation , not 3rd century. Irenaeus was perhaps the last of the 3rd generation Christians in existence and he died c200ad. Most 3rd generation Christians would have died before 150. If the Ebionites were of the 3rd century than they could have easily formed c100.


Cerinthus. And look at the letters of Paul where he encounters Jewish-Christiants preaching that salvation was achieved by observance of the law.

It seems that all early so-called Christians, who denied the deity of Christ, also had a hard time accepting the authority of the apostles and many other essential doctrines. For example, take Cerinthus,



We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above, in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man:

2"But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals."

And Dionysius, who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from tradition, mentions this same man in the following words:

"But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.

And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace."

These are the words of Dionysius. But Iranaeus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies, gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." -Eusebius, Church History, book 7 chapter 21



And lets look at those Ebionites


Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 1, ch 26

These people really don't help your cause. They clearly practiced deviant forms of Christianity. What you need to do is provide example of people who clearly did not beleive that Jesus was God, but practiced orthodox Christianity in all other ways.

[WebToaster]

Yesterday @ 09:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285884#post285884)
tschmidt:

I am a little confused here. Perhaps you and I should have a private discussion about Jesus being "God" actually means. I agree that God the Father is different from Christ, I think that we however disagree on what that difference is. I'll e-mail you asking you would like to talk about it privately.

Hi Tom, received your email. I wrote back to you and would be interested in discussing it privately.



You have made me realize that there were indeed people who, early on believed that Jesus was not God. Never the less, I do not think that this helps your case. Here is why.

I said that the Ebionites were 3rd generation , not 3rd century. Irenaeus was perhaps the last of the 3rd generation Christians in existence and he died c200ad. Most 3rd generation Christians would have died before 150. If the Ebionites were of the 3rd century than they could have easily formed c100.

It seems that all early so-called Christians, who denied the deity of Christ, also had a hard time accepting the authority of the apostles and many other essential doctrines. For example, take Cerinthus,

Cerinthus and other Jewish-Christians were competitors for the title of apostle. They claimed backing by Peter and James, while Paul opposed them. Some of this is captured in the New Testament, especially Acts and Galatians. One of the strengths of the Jewish-Christians was their base of operation was Jerusalem, clearly an important place to Christ himself. When James was martyred, and Jerusalem was destroyed, they lost most of their influence, or had been martyred themselves. Paul's strength was his great mind and his zeal, and luck was on his side. He taught his version of the Gospel largely outside the direct sphere of influence of Jerusalem, and when Jerusalem was destroyed, his teachings prevailed. So I wouldn't say they denied the authority of the apostles, they were trying to be the apostles themselves, and we've only preserved the story of the victors in the contest.


And lets look at those Ebionites

These people really don't help your cause. They clearly practiced deviant forms of Christianity. What you need to do is provide example of people who clearly did not beleive that Jesus was God, but practiced orthodox Christianity in all other ways.

In Acts 1:15 it says there were initially about 120 followers of Christ. These were all Jewish-Christians since they are getting ready to celebrate Shabuoth. Then 3000 Jews were added in Jerusalem. Once they spread out to teach the gospel, the view of Christianity was Jewish, probably more similar to the Ebionites than modern trinitarians. They did not preach the Christianity of Paul, they required adherence to the Mosaic law. It took Paul to come along and change all of that, but its pretty obvious from Paul's epistles that he encountered a lot of resistance to the change.

[tzafan]

although as you say Ignatius was close to the early twelve...and faithful in some things...nevertheless
in 98 c.e. he started the apostacy, by claiming bishops to be equal to Yahshua [jesus] he exalted himself a a Nicolaitian, which Yashua condemned in His vision to John, who wrote these things down in revelations....as is known as father of apostates....he departed from the [house of judgement]
[beit din] rules of settling disputes at Jerusalem, and arrogantly took the aythority on his own...[a model for the popes] who stole the church from the apostles guidance....claiming it themselves....ed

[OldShepherd]

11-14-2003 @ 02:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283894#post283894)
bahai_guy:

OS: You've confused yourself. I'm not talking about the Logos, that's in another thread. I'm responding to Tschmidt's statement that the deity of Christ was accepted by the entire early church. Justin Martyr believes you don't even have to know Christ to be a Christian, much less believe in his deity.

You are making a false statement about Justin, which I pointed out before. One sentence out-of-context does NOT represent Justin's Christology.

You have actually read Justin, haven't you, where he speaks of the person of God, the person of the Holy spirit and the person of Jesus and states that Jesus was God from God without abscission? These are found in "Dialogue."

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288522#post288522)
tzafan:

although as you say Ignatius was close to the early twelve...and faithful in some things...nevertheless
in 98 c.e. he started the apostacy, by claiming bishops to be equal to Yahshua [jesus] he exalted himself a a Nicolaitian, which Yashua condemned in His vision to John, who wrote these things down in revelations....as is known as father of apostates....he departed from the [house of judgement]
[beit din] rules of settling disputes at Jerusalem, and arrogantly took the aythority on his own...[a model for the popes] who stole the church from the apostles guidance....claiming it themselves....ed

Betcha he didn't. I know for a fact he did NOT claim bishops to be equal with Jesus.

And the translation Yahshua is flat wrong. When the divine tetragrammaton is used to form a proper name, in prefix, it is either Ye, Yo, or Yeho. I know that sacred name groups like to pretend to Hebrew scholarship and diss all the rest of us because ONLY they have the correct pronunication but I have never encountered one who has ever formally studied either Biblical language. The most I have ever seen are cut and pastes from Strong's. One of the Mods here used to use the signature line, "If it's from Strong's it's probably wrong." You cannot translate any language using only a concordance.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 02:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287285#post287285)
bahai_guy:

Cerinthus and other Jewish-Christians were competitors for the title of apostle. They claimed backing by Peter and James, while Paul opposed them. Some of this is captured in the New Testament, especially Acts and Galatians. One of the strengths of the Jewish-Christians was their base of operation was Jerusalem, clearly an important place to Christ himself. When James was martyred, and Jerusalem was destroyed, they lost most of their influence, or had been martyred themselves. Paul's strength was his great mind and his zeal, and luck was on his side. He taught his version of the Gospel largely outside the direct sphere of influence of Jerusalem, and when Jerusalem was destroyed, his teachings prevailed. So I wouldn't say they denied the authority of the apostles, they were trying to be the apostles themselves, and we've only preserved the story of the victors in the contest.

In Acts 1:15 it says there were initially about 120 followers of Christ. These were all Jewish-Christians since they are getting ready to celebrate Shabuoth. Then 3000 Jews were added in Jerusalem. Once they spread out to teach the gospel, the view of Christianity was Jewish, probably more similar to the Ebionites than modern trinitarians. They did not preach the Christianity of Paul, they required adherence to the Mosaic law. It took Paul to come along and change all of that, but its pretty obvious from Paul's epistles that he encountered a lot of resistance to the change.

This is quite some fairy tale you are spinning here. There is just enough truth in it to make it sound plausible to someone who has never read the entire NT for themselves.

Perhaps you can tell us how Acts 15 fits in all this?

[OldShepherd]

11-14-2003 @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283926#post283926)
bahai_guy:

I see you've omitted the references to God as Elohim. And we don't have to look too hard because it starts at Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth.

Irrelevant! We were discussing God's use of "elohim" to refer to other than Himself. At least that is what I was addressing and as I said God did NOT refer to Moses as "haeloim"


Wrong! I don't have to look for more than three persons, although that would be one piece of evidence that would overturn your entire theology. Less than three would be sufficient, or three unequal persons, or some of the persons created by another of the persons. Agreed?

You can not derive three and only three equal personages of the Godhead solely from Justin Martyr's writings.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3646_641284

Chapter XIII.-Christians Serve God Rationally

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third

Selective out-of-context quote. Why don't you produce your evidence? You have not done so in this post.


The elements of Justin Martyr's Godhead are the unequal members of the Father, Son, and prophetic Spirit. The prophetic spirit isn't a person at all, and it speaks through Christ and the prophets.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3784_691442
Chapter XXXVIII.-Utterances of the Son.

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort:


And another misquote, selective quote, out-of-context quote from, "Anti-trinitarians-Я-Us." Numerically distinct does NOT necessarily mean unequal.
Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

Chapter XXXVI.-He Proves that Christ is Called Lord of Hosts.

'And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

Chapter CXXVIII.-The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.

And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325[/size]



Obviously if there are more than three parts, then it isn't a trinity. Is it?

Obviously it is a Trinity because Justin said it was. Obviously you are not familiar with the term "in-context." I quoted the rest of the paragraph you misquoted and when so read it clearly shows Justin was NOT making man a fourth part of the Trinity.

You just keep on posting your out-of-context, selective, misquotes and I will keep right on showing you are wrong.

[Reasonable]

Apparently Justin Martyr and Origin were heretics. From what I've seen, they believe Jesus is a different God from Almighty God. Any comments on this? See my posts on page two of this thread for the quotes.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290861#post290861)
Reasonable:

Apparently Justin Martyr and Origin were heretics. From what I've seen, they believe Jesus is a different God from Almighty God. Any comments on this? See my posts on page two of this thread for the quotes.

Both quotes are out-of-context and ignore the totality of their writings. See, e.g., the quotes from Justin in this thread. You must have missed the quote where Justin said Jesus was God begotten from God without abscission (cutting off).

Anybody can prove almost anything by selective quoting and quoting out-of-context. Example, the Bible says "There is no God." And those words do appear in Psalms, twice, but the context is "The fool has said in his heart, there is no god," (Ps 14:1, 53:1) Or another example, "Behold now I know there is no God in all the earth." The context,
2 Kin 5:15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel:

Maybe you can answer a question for me. Why do people, like yourself, pull this nonsense, misquoting, quoting out-of-context, etc? Do you think the rest of us are stupid and will not check?

[Reasonable]

“Maybe you can answer a question for me. Why do people, like yourself, pull this nonsense, misquoting, quoting out-of-context, etc? Do you think the rest of us are stupid and will not check?”


Well, I didn’t want to call anyone “stupid” but since you brought it up; yes, I have seen the careful skill in which you read posts in the past and yes, my experience has been you don’t have very good reading comprehension. For instance, here is my original post, which you passed over multiple times.



“I have seen some quotes from ECF's supposedly showing that they did not believe Jesus was Almighty God, though he was God. For instance, Justin Martyr supposedly said the following:” –followed by quotes.

“Also I seen a quote from Origin which says.” –followed by quote.

“Now I must admit, if these quotes are legit then I am confused. It almost sounds like Justin and Origin are polytheists and do confess Jesus as God but differentiate him from God Almighty. Any help on this?”


I posted my question, it was glossed over. I bumped it up again and it was glossed over. I finally, after a little research and no response from anyone else, determined that they were apparently heretics but welcomed enlightening comments.

Obviously I was not proposing these quotes to disprove the Trinity. I had “seen” anti-Trinitarian sources site these quotes and I was asking for “help” on these. First, are they “legit” and second, if so, please explain them to me. You’ve answered neither. And simply saying that they are ‘out-of-context’ or that elsewhere they call Jesus God is NOT an answer. Since you ignored my post twice and attacked me instead of answering it when you did respond, I can assume you have no credible answer.

I am still looking for someone with knowledge on why these two Trinitarians used language like this which we would not hear a Trinitarian say today. I did find one source, Robert Bowman, who says Origin was promoting that Jesus was another God, separate and inferior to the Father. Bowman does not agree with Origin. Is Bowman’s understanding of Origin the norm?

[Reader]

Reasonable:



I am still looking for someone with knowledge on why these two Trinitarians used language like this which we would not hear a Trinitarian say today. I did find one source, Robert Bowman, who says Origin was promoting that Jesus was another God, separate and inferior to the Father. Bowman does not agree with Origin. Is Bowman’s understanding of Origin the norm?



"In regard to some of the works which have been ascribed to him (Origen), it is not easy to decide whether the evidence for or against their genuineness preponderates. Many of them have come down to us only in a Latin translation; and the translator Ruffinus has candidly informed us, that he altered many of Origen's statements, in order to rend them more intelligible and less objectionable. Hence it has happened that, both in ancient and in modern times, there have been great controversies in the church as to the true opinions of Origen, and the extent of his deviations from the orthodox faith."

"There can be no reasonable doubt that Origen grievously perverted some of the most important doctrines of the gospel . . .He believed in the eternity of matter . . .thus setting a paltry piece of metaphysical speculation . . .He believed in the pre-existence of human souls . . .he believed in the ultimate salvation of all God's intelligent creatures; devils as well as men . . .he has spoken sometimes about the Trinity, and the Person of Christ, in a way that has occasioned considerable difficulty to the defenders of the orthodoxy of the ante-Nicene fathers . . .It is certain, however, that Origen thought that the divine nature was united only with the soul, and not with the body of Christ, so that there was no proper hypostatical union . . .This groundless fancy led to his maintenance of what may be regarded as a still more serious and dangerous error, viz., a virtual denial that Christ offered any proper vicarious satisfaction to God, and thus made a real atonement for the sins of men."

"Origen indeed, cannot be said to have taught the Pelagian system in expansion or in detail; to have brought it out fully, and illustrated the relations or connections of its different parts; and it is not by any means certain that he would have subscribed to the doctrines of Pelagius, as it is not difficult to produce from his writings passages which have a more evangelical aspect, and are more accordant with the doctrines of grace. But it is certain that he has laid down principles which naturally, and by fair consequence, lead to the establishment of the Pelagian heresy, and consequently, to the overthrow of the scheme of gospel grace; and that he has done so more explicitly than any preceding Christian writer."

Excerpts regarding Origen from the writings of William Cunningham in his "Historical Theology" (published by Still Waters Revival Books) which you might be interested in obtaining.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=294880#post294880)
Reader:

"In regard to some of the works which have been ascribed to him (Origen), it is not easy to decide whether the evidence for or against their genuineness preponderates. Many of them have come down to us only in a Latin translation; and the translator Ruffinus has candidly informed us, that he altered many of Origen's statements, in order to rend them more intelligible and less objectionable. Hence it has happened that, both in ancient and in modern times, there have been great controversies in the church as to the true opinions of Origen, and the extent of his deviations from the orthodox faith." ETC, ETC

Thanks Reader. I suspected Origin as being off on this. I had also seen other Trinitarian writers say as much. Any information on what Martyr meant by calling Jesus "another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things...above whom there is no other God"?

It seems heretical to refer to Jesus as "another God" and implying that there are other God's, just none higher than the "Maker of all things." Was Justin a true Trinitarian?

[Reader]

Reasonable:

Thanks Reader. I suspected Origin as being off on this. I had also seen other Trinitarian writers say as much. Any information on what Martyr meant by calling Jesus "another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things...above whom there is no other God"?

It seems heretical to refer to Jesus as "another God" and implying that there are other God's, just none higher than the "Maker of all things." Was Justin a true Trinitarian?


I don't know. I had never heard of that before, but I have not read Martyr's works in entirety. Only bits and pieces from others. From where or which of his writings did you come across that?

Justin Martyr is accepted by most church historians to have been a genuine Christian, and here is the little the same author I previously quoted to you, had to say about Martyr and his Trinitarian beliefs:

"In regard to the Trinity and the person of Christ, it has been proved that Justin, though in common with almost all the fathers who flourished before the great Arian controversy in the fourth century, has made use of some expressions which are very liable to be misunderstood, and stand in need of a favorable interpretation . . held in substance the common orthodox doctrine upon this subject; and that he held it upon the authority of Scripture, as a doctrine revealed by God in His word, though he has introduced some Platonic phraseology, and indulged in some unwarranted speculations in trying to explain and illustrate it."
William Cunningham, "Historal Theology" (Italics, mine.)

IOW's, Cunningham at least, seems to give Justin a pass.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 10:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=293573#post293573)
Reasonable:

Well, I didn’t want to call anyone “stupid” but since you brought it up; yes, I have seen the careful skill in which you read posts in the past and yes, my experience has been you don’t have very good reading comprehension. For instance, here is my original post, which you passed over multiple times.

I like that! You carp about a supposed ad hom directed at you, then call me stupid and say I don't have very good reading comprehension skills. Care to give me any examples of the latter or is that just a knee jerk response to anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you?

Did you by any chance read where I asked if you have even read either Origen or Justin? Well, have you? Or is this more of the same ol', same ol' anti stuff copied from a website without bothering to verify it?


I posted my question, it was glossed over. I bumped it up again and it was glossed over. I finally, after a little research and no response from anyone else, determined that they were apparently heretics but welcomed enlightening comments.

Hey, I have a novel idea. Why not read them for yourself?


Obviously I was not proposing these quotes to disprove the Trinity. I had “seen” anti-Trinitarian sources site these quotes and I was asking for “help” on these. First, are they “legit” and second, if so, please explain them to me. You’ve answered neither. And simply saying that they are ‘out-of-context’ or that elsewhere they call Jesus God is NOT an answer. Since you ignored my post twice and attacked me instead of answering it when you did respond, I can assume you have no credible answer.

Are they legit? Why not read the sources for yourself? They are very likely accurate but that does not mean they are in-context.


I am still looking for someone with knowledge on why these two Trinitarians used language like this which we would not hear a Trinitarian say today. I did find one source, Robert Bowman, who says Origin was promoting that Jesus was another God, separate and inferior to the Father. Bowman does not agree with Origin. Is Bowman’s understanding of Origin the norm?

First, I think that if either Origen or Justin called Christ God, it is very relevant. For example, Justin said that Jesus was God from God, without abscission (cutting off). I think I posted that in this thread. Is that what you call glossing over?

Here are a few quotes from Justin's Dialogue which shows whether or not Justin was a heretic. Now, if one were to actually read Justin you would find that throughout this writing he is trying to convince a Jew named Trypho that Jesus is God but there is only one God. For example, see chapter XI, before Justin made the statement you are questioning.

Despite his assertions Trypho insists that Justin is speaking about "another god." After Trypho does this twice, Justin uses Trypho's own words to make his point, Jesus is God, the Father is God, but there is only one God.

Thus it is very relevant that elsewhere Justin calls Jesus, God. And it is very relevant that Justin repeatedly says there is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Justin said, and I repeat myself, Jesus is God, from God, without cutting off. NOT another separate god.
Justin Marytyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
Chapter XI.-The Law Abrogated; The New Testament Promised and Given by God.

"There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

Chapter L.-It is Proved from Isaiah that John is the Precursor of Christ.

And Trypho said, "You seem to me to have come out of a great conflict with many persons about all the points we have been searching into, and therefore quite ready to return answers to all questions put to you. Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin."

Chapter LV.-Trypho Asks that Christ Be Proved God, But Without Metaphor. Justin Promises to Do So.

And Trypho answered, "We shall remember this your exposition, if you strengthen [your solution of] this difficulty by other arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God besides the Maker of all things, taking care not to speak of the sun and moon, which, it is written, God has given to the nations to worship as gods; and oftentimes the prophets, employing this manner of speech, say that `thy God is a God of gods, and a Lord of lords, 'adding frequently, `the great and strong and terrible [God].'

Chapter LVI.-God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them." And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mature, as the Scripture asserts? "

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325


How are my reading comprehension skills now, cool breeze?

[Reasonable]

Today @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297062#post297062)
OldShepherd:



I like that! You carp about a supposed ad hom directed at you, then call me stupid and say I don't have very good reading comprehension skills. Care to give me any examples of the latter or is that just a knee jerk response to anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you?


Well, there is the instance where I was quoting William Barclay from one of his books, you did a knew jerk reaction and accussed me of quoting another book when the words I quoted were not even the same as the ones you assumed I was quoting. Sounds like a pretty good example to me.

And there are more than enough threads on TWeb to demonstrate which one of us flies through the roof when someone disagrees with us. I have one example of jumping the gun, which was with you, and I apologized for it. You have scores of examples of going off on nearly anyone who looks at you cross-eyed. In fact, practically every thread you jump into you start attacking people and twitching your leg. Your notorious for it!



Did you by any chance read where I asked if you have even read either Origen or Justin? Well, have you? Or is this more of the same ol', same ol' anti stuff copied from a website without bothering to verify it?

Ahh. The old reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head again. Here's my original question.



I have seen some quotes from ECF's supposedly showing that they did not believe Jesus was Almighty God, though he was God...Now I must admit, if these quotes are legit then I am confused. It almost sounds like Justin and Origin are polytheists and do confess Jesus as God but differentiate him from God Almighty. Any help on this?

Let me point out some phrases here you may not understand. "I have seen some quotes", "if these quotes are legit" and "any help on this."

Most would take these words to mean that somewhere (actually, it was a book, not a website) I saw some "quotes" from these men. However, I wasn't sure if these were legitimate quotes and if they were, I wanted some help in explaining them. Now, after breaking this down, what do you think the answer to your question on whether or not I had read Justin and Orign would be? I'll leave this as another example, per your request, of reading comprehension and knee jerk reactions.

AND, as far as 'not bothering to verify it', did it ever occur to you that one way of verifying it was coming to TWeb and asking people with more experience? After all, I also wanted to know the explanation.



Hey, I have a novel idea. Why not read them for yourself?

Are they legit? Why not read the sources for yourself? They are very likely accurate but that does not mean they are in-context.


I did find them in their writings after no one responded to my posts.



[font=georgia][size=3]First, I think that if either Origen or Justin called Christ God, it is very relevant. For example, Justin said that Jesus was God from God, without abscission (cutting off). I think I posted that in this thread. Is that what you call glossing over?

It is somewhat relevant but not very much to the question I was asking. Case in point: The Mormons call Jesus God. If someone askes me if the Mormons are heretics and are claiming more than one God and I respond with "Look here! They call Jesus God!", did I now provide convincing evidence that they don't beleive in more than one God?



Here are a few quotes from Justin's Dialogue which shows whether or not Justin was a heretic. Now, if one were to actually read Justin you would find that throughout this writing he is trying to convince a Jew named Trypho that Jesus is God but there is only one God. For example, see chapter XI, before Justin made the statement you are questioning.

Despite his assertions Trypho insists that Justin is speaking about "another god." After Trypho does this twice, Justin uses Trypho's own words to make his point, Jesus is God, the Father is God, but there is only one God.

Finally something with substance. I see what you are saying, I just find it odd that Justin would use the term "another God" other than the maker of all things, even in the context of his discussion. As far as Origin, I am leaning more and more towards the thought that he was a little off on the Trinity, based on what Reader said and also what I've seen from others.



How are my reading comprehension skills now, cool breeze?

I'm gonna let this drop. Thanks for the quotes.

[WebToaster]

11-17-2003 @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=289960#post289960)
OldShepherd:

You are making a false statement about Justin, which I pointed out before. One sentence out-of-context does NOT represent Justin's Christology.

You have actually read Justin, haven't you, where he speaks of the person of God, the person of the Holy spirit and the person of Jesus and states that Jesus was God from God without abscission? These are found in "Dialogue."

Yes OS, I have actually read Justin, have you? If you want to discuss Justin's Christology, I would be happy to. Thats another thread, lets continue the discussion there, or take it to the gym.

[WebToaster]

11-17-2003 @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290435#post290435)
OldShepherd:

This is quite some fairy tale you are spinning here. There is just enough truth in it to make it sound plausible to someone who has never read the entire NT for themselves.

Perhaps you can tell us how Acts 15 fits in all this?

Did you disagree with anything in particular that I wrote? You've claimed it was a fairy tale, so there must be something in particular with which you disagree. Are you denying Cerinthus ever existed? Or you denying the first Christians (before Acts 15) were all Jewish?

[WebToaster]

11-17-2003 @ 10:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=290478#post290478)
OldShepherd:

Irrelevant! We were discussing God's use of "elohim" to refer to other than Himself. At least that is what I was addressing and as I said God did NOT refer to Moses as "haeloim"

Not irrelevant, we're discussing the reference to any human as divine, either elohim or theos. You've made the presumption that any reference to Christ as divine, is not similarly applicable to any other human referred to as divine in either the NT or the OT, for no other reason than your preconceived notions.



Selective out-of-context quote. Why don't you produce your evidence? You have not done so in this post.

Why didn't you answer the question?


And another misquote, selective quote, out-of-context quote from, "Anti-trinitarians-Я-Us." Numerically distinct does NOT necessarily mean unequal. [list]
Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

Chapter XXXVI.-He Proves that Christ is Called Lord of Hosts.[/size]

At least my quotes, which you habitually label as 'selective and out-of-context' support what I'm writing. You've quoted Justin saying the Son was kindled from the fire of the Father. In other words, there is a point where it was unkindled, or there was a Father, but no Son. Then later the Son is kindled from the Father. This doesn't support the modern concept of the trinity, at all.



Obviously it is a Trinity because Justin said it was. Obviously you are not familiar with the term "in-context." I quoted the rest of the paragraph you misquoted and when so read it clearly shows Justin was NOT making man a fourth part of the Trinity.

You just keep on posting your out-of-context, selective, misquotes and I will keep right on showing you are wrong.

Obviously not, as shown above, but its always a pleasure talking with you OS.

[OldShepherd]

11-19-2003 @ 10:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297309#post297309)
Reasonable:

Well, there is the instance where I was quoting William Barclay from one of his books, you did a knew jerk reaction and accussed me of quoting another book when the words I quoted were not even the same as the ones you assumed I was quoting. Sounds like a pretty good example to me.

Oh yes how silly of me there was that one (1) incident a few months ago where I did miss the title of a book you quoted and responded with something else written by Barclay which was virtually indentical in places. And of course that one (1) incident proves that I totally lack reading conmprehension skills. And rather than a knee jerk reaction I did produce evidence to support my point which you did not do above.


You have scores of examples of going off on nearly anyone who looks at you cross-eyed. In fact, practically every thread you jump into you start attacking people and twitching your leg. Your notorious for it!

And you will notice that almost invariably it is when someone, such as yourself, persists in using 2nd or 3rd hand information or quotes out-of-context, etc. after someone has pointed out a fallacy to them. Now, what is your excuse?


Ahh. The old reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head again. Here's my original question.

Let me point out some phrases here you may not understand. "I have seen some quotes", "if these quotes are legit" and "any help on this."

Pot and kettle. Did I not say something about your two quotes being copied from an anti-trinitarian site? And did I not post further quotes from the same primary source supporting my position?


Most would take these words to mean that somewhere (actually, it was a book, not a website) I saw some "quotes" from these men. However, I wasn't sure if these were legitimate quotes and if they were, I wanted some help in explaining them. Now, after breaking this down, what do you think the answer to your question on whether or not I had read Justin and Orign would be? I'll leave this as another example, per your request, of reading comprehension and knee jerk reactions.

And here we have you with your foot firmly in your mouth. Why are you saying "a book not a website" if I did not acknowledge that you quoted from some source? Oh please do lecture me some more on my reading comprehension skills.


AND, as far as 'not bothering to verify it', did it ever occur to you that one way of verifying it was coming to TWeb and asking people with more experience? After all, I also wanted to know the explanation.

And when there was no response or no response that you liked, you immediately claimed that both Justin and Origen were heretics without further verification. How do I know? Did you not thank me, below, for some quotes which you evidently had not seen before if you had read Justin's dialogue, as you claimed. i.e.


Apparently Justin Martyr and Origin were heretics.

I finally, . . . determined that they were apparently heretics but welcomed enlightening comments.


It is somewhat relevant but not very much to the question I was asking. Case in point: The Mormons call Jesus God. If someone askes me if the Mormons are heretics and are claiming more than one God and I respond with "Look here! They call Jesus God!", did I now provide convincing evidence that they don't beleive in more than one God?

You find it only "somewhat relevant" that Justin calls Jesus God, from God, without cutting off, after you have branded him a heretic based on only one out-of-context sentence? That reference, OBTW, I posted earlier and referred you to. But you didn't think this was relevant enough to even bother reading, evidently.


Finally something with substance. I see what you are saying, I just find it odd that Justin would use the term "another God" other than the maker of all things, even in the context of his discussion.

Before and after the one sentence you posted, Justin maintains there is only one God. And it is evident, in that one sentence Justin is quoting Trypho. Trypho had referred to Justin speaking of "another God, at least twice, although Justin said there was and would be no other God, except the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


I'm gonna let this drop. Thanks for the quotes.

Why are you thanking me for quotes from Justin's Dialogue" if you read it as you claim?

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=297497#post297497)
bahai_guy:

Not irrelevant, we're discussing the reference to any human as divine, either elohim or theos. You've made the presumption that any reference to Christ as divine, is not similarly applicable to any other human referred to as divine in either the NT or the OT, for no other reason than your preconceived notions.

Where have I made such an presumption? I believe my post only addressed God calling Moses "Elohim"


Why didn't you answer the question?

I did elsewhere.


At least my quotes, which you habitually label as 'selective and out-of-context' support what I'm writing. You've quoted Justin saying the Son was kindled from the fire of the Father. In other words, there is a point where it was unkindled, or there was a Father, but no Son. Then later the Son is kindled from the Father. This doesn't support the modern concept of the trinity, at all.

A quote can be relevant and still be out-of-context, as yours was. And you have not addressed the context at all.

"Then later the Son is kindled from the Father. This doesn't support the modern concept of the trinity, at all." Your contention is refuted in the very paragraph you referred to. Were one to read it without presumptions and assumptions they would see that.


Obviously not, as shown above, but its always a pleasure talking with you OS.

I quoted the complete paragraph from which you took your one out-of-context sentence and highlighted how it refutes your contention. Repeating "Was not!" over and over again, does not address the evidence I posted.

Theophilus does NOT say that man is part of the Godhead but that, "God surpasses, man," man "excludes God;" "God always abides perfect, being full of all power", while "man dies", "man needs light," and man "wandered from God.

Chapter XV.-Of the Fourth Day.

On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,35 are types of the Trinity,36 of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.37 And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets,38 they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02...tm#P1469_430289

[Reasonable]

Today @ 01:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=302991#post302991)
OldShepherd:



Oh yes how silly of me there was that one (1) incident a few months ago where I did miss the title of a book you quoted and responded with something else written by Barclay which was virtually indentical in places. And of course that one (1) incident proves that I totally lack reading conmprehension skills. And rather than a knee jerk reaction I did produce evidence to support my point which you did not do above.

Hey, you asked for any example and I gave you one. Now if you require MULTIPLE examples, you should say so.



And you will notice that almost invariably it is when someone, such as yourself, persists in using 2nd or 3rd hand information or quotes out-of-context, etc. after someone has pointed out a fallacy to them. Now, what is your excuse?

Someone keeps sticking his foot in his mouth and can't figure how to get it out. Couple to that the fact he didn't answer the question but simply pointed out a point that was for the most part irrelivent to the question and you get an upset Reasonable.



Pot and kettle. Did I not say something about your two quotes being copied from an anti-trinitarian site? And did I not post further quotes from the same primary source supporting my position?

Can you not grasp the scope of a particular discussion? You said


Did you by any chance read where I asked if you have even read either Origen or Justin? Well, have you? Or is this more of the same ol', same ol' anti stuff copied from a website without bothering to verify it?

to which I said


Let me point out some phrases here you may not understand. "I have seen some quotes", "if these quotes are legit" and "any help on this."

Most would take these words to mean that somewhere (actually, it was a book, not a website) I saw some "quotes" from these men. However, I wasn't sure if these were legitimate quotes and if they were, I wanted some help in explaining them. Now, after breaking this down, what do you think the answer to your question on whether or not I had read Justin and Orign would be? I'll leave this as another example, per your request, of reading comprehension and knee jerk reactions.

From the above, it SHOULD be obvious to any that I had not yet read Martyr or Origin. And yet you turn around and ask me if I read them. Are you just trying to confuse the issue or do you not really see the problem here?



And here we have you with your foot firmly in your mouth. Why are you saying "a book not a website" if I did not acknowledge that you quoted from some source? Oh please do lecture me some more on my reading comprehension skills.

I'm not sure you're able to be lectured. Let's not forget what drew the comment that the quotes came from a book. After I clearly implied that I had not read the actual writings, as outlined in my quote above, you ask me if I read the writings. Then you ASKED if I got this stuff from somewhere else. Well duh. From what I wrote above isn't it OBVIOUS I got the quote from somwhere other than the actual writings? Why would you even ask that? I'm telling you I got it from another source. Then, in the next response I told you it was from a book, not a website. I think it's clear to all reading this who jumps the gun without thinking.



And when there was no response or no response that you liked, you immediately claimed that both Justin and Origen were heretics without further verification. How do I know? Did you not thank me, below, for some quotes which you evidently had not seen before if you had read Justin's dialogue, as you claimed. i.e.

Whoa Nelly! Reading Comprehension has gone flat again. Scroll below and you can see why my thanking you is not proof I had not read the writings. This example of lack of comprehension is why you THINK you know stuff but in fact do not.

The following quote was in a reply to you on page three after I had said that apparently they were heretics. Now the statement dealt specifically with Origin and I was looking for further information on Justin. I said the following.



I did find one source, Robert Bowman, who says Origin was promoting that Jesus was another God, separate and inferior to the Father. Bowman does not agree with Origin. Is Bowman’s understanding of Origin the norm?

So OBVIOUSLY I had done SOME research on this matter. And in case you are unfamiliar with the English language, I didn't immediatley claim they were both heretics, I said "APPARENTLY" they are and I asked for more information so I could make a better judgement as to whether or not they actually were heretics.

And this coming from the man who hangs on to every "probably", "maybe" and "might" that a scholar might use to discuss a possibility other than the one the OS might have concluded. When I provided quotes from F.F. Bruce that John probably meant theos in an adjectival sense, you were all over the word "probably", making a big deal out of it not being proof that theos could act like an adjective since he said "probably". Well why don't you jump all over the word "apparently" so you can realize I was not definitely calling these men heretics?



You find it only "somewhat relevant" that Justin calls Jesus God, from God, without cutting off, after you have branded him a heretic based on only one out-of-context sentence? That reference, OBTW, I posted earlier and referred you to. But you didn't think this was relevant enough to even bother reading, evidently.


I did read it dude and it's NOT evident at all that I didn't. And as I said before, showing quotes that Justin called Jesus God no more proves he didn't believe in multiple Gods as does trying to prove Mormons don't believe in multiple Gods because they call Jesus God begotten from God. ESPECIALLY when Justin DID call Jesus another God other than the Maker of all things. Your original argument was to ignore the phrase in question and just say Justin called Jesus God elsewhere. That's fine. But that DIDN't answer why he called Jesus another God. Later you did finally address it after I pressed the issue.



Before and after the one sentence you posted, Justin maintains there is only one God. And it is evident, in that one sentence Justin is quoting Trypho. Trypho had referred to Justin speaking of "another God, at least twice, although Justin said there was and would be no other God, except the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And Jehovah's Witnesses maintian there is only one True God and yet they believe Jesus is a God. Again, your orignal response in no way really addressed my question.



Why are you thanking me for quotes from Justin's Dialogue" if you read it as you claim?

You've got to be kidding. I was thanking you for the gesture and effort you put in to sharing them with me. I have people do nice things for me all the time. Some times they'll give me information I already have. I tell them, "thank you for sharing that with me" even though I already knew the information. My telling them thank you in no way implies that I was not aware of the information before hand.

[Oldmonk]

Why do they always quote half the verse in Psalms??!!! If they read the WHOLE verse it would defeat their very purpose.... Do ye not know that ye are gods BUT YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN!!!

[Oldmonk]

Why do they always quote half the verse in Psalms??!!! If they read the WHOLE verse it would defeat their very purpose.... Do ye not know that ye are gods BUT YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN!!!
Just the text for my previous message.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

[Oldmonk]

In the Church Fathers you must really pay attention to what they are talking about. I will illustrate... While they were talking about Arius and his theory that Jesus was a lower god than the Father it would seem they are Showing that Jesus and the Father were the same person... On the other hand if they were talking against Sebalian ideas... that God the Father is the only God and changes MODES... becomes the Son , becomes the Holy Spirit... they would seem to be saying that there was more than one God> See how things must be read very carefully.... In fact if you fought to hard against Arian theology you were branded Seballian ..and visa versa. A fine line !!!









Well, there is the instance where I was quoting William Barclay from one of his books, you did a knew jerk reaction and accussed me of quoting another book when the words I quoted were not even the same as the ones you assumed I was quoting. Sounds like a pretty good example to me.

And there are more than enough threads on TWeb to demonstrate which one of us flies through the roof when someone disagrees with us. I have one example of jumping the gun, which was with you, and I apologized for it. You have scores of examples of going off on nearly anyone who looks at you cross-eyed. In fact, practically every thread you jump into you start attacking people and twitching your leg. Your notorious for it!


Ahh. The old reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head again. Here's my original question.



Let me point out some phrases here you may not understand. "I have seen some quotes", "if these quotes are legit" and "any help on this."

Most would take these words to mean that somewhere (actually, it was a book, not a website) I saw some "quotes" from these men. However, I wasn't sure if these were legitimate quotes and if they were, I wanted some help in explaining them. Now, after breaking this down, what do you think the answer to your question on whether or not I had read Justin and Orign would be? I'll leave this as another example, per your request, of reading comprehension and knee jerk reactions.

AND, as far as 'not bothering to verify it', did it ever occur to you that one way of verifying it was coming to TWeb and asking people with more experience? After all, I also wanted to know the explanation.


I did find them in their writings after no one responded to my posts.


It is somewhat relevant but not very much to the question I was asking. Case in point: The Mormons call Jesus God. If someone askes me if the Mormons are heretics and are claiming more than one God and I respond with "Look here! They call Jesus God!", did I now provide convincing evidence that they don't beleive in more than one God?


Finally something with substance. I see what you are saying, I just find it odd that Justin would use the term "another God" other than the maker of all things, even in the context of his discussion. As far as Origin, I am leaning more and more towards the thought that he was a little off on the Trinity, based on what Reader said and also what I've seen from others.



I'm gonna let this drop. Thanks for the quotes.