Holy Trinity

[papajo]

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

[yxboom]

This is the Biology area. Science is discussed here. I am moving this thread.

[Bartholomew]

04-09-2003 @ 11:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60374#post60374)
papajo:

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

If so, there are many articles to which I could direct you. Otherwise, if you have a specific question, let me (us) know.

~Matt

[TWells]

Ill try to give a basic definition.

The doctrine states that God is one being in three persons but all share the same essence. All three persons are equally God, meaning the Son is just as much God as the Father and and the Holy Spirit is just as much God as the Father and Son.

[AVmetro]

04-09-2003 @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60374#post60374)
papajo:

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

This is a start:

I highly recommend the first one. Not too pricey either. I believe the second follows the same theme but I have not read it as of yet. It was recommended to me.

God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament - Richard Baukham (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802846424/qid=1051987863/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4921680-9071211?v=glance&s=books)

One God One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism - Larry Hurtado (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/107773430?item_no=86577&event=ESRC&item_code=WW)

-God bless-

[barley]

The concept of the trinity is what happens when paganism is allowed to contaminate the doctrines of the Word of God.

[headheart]

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

7 years on TWC and that's all you've got ? :whistle:

[barnasha]

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

Look somewhere besides the bible.

Such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

[PsychGuy]

Look somewhere besides the bible.

Such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

Ironic that the article talks a decent amount about the Biblical basis for the doctrine.

[barnasha]

Ironic that the article talks a decent amount about the Biblical basis for the doctrine.

Somewhat ironic, but if you think about it, it only makes sense that the advocates of this would look for support of it in the bible.

Doesn't mean there is a single thing about it in the bible, though - that's the important difference.

[PsychGuy]

Somewhat ironic, but if you think about it, it only makes sense that the advocates of this would look for support of it in the bible.
Or rather that they advocate this precisely because they honestly looked at the text as a whole and saw this doctrine within it?


Doesn't mean there is a single thing about it in the bible, though - that's the important difference.

And of course it doesn't mean there isn't. It's just ironic that you said people should look away from the Bible to find an explanation of the Trinity and the article you linked to pointed us all right back to the Bible.

[seanD]

Doesn't mean there is a single thing about it in the bible, though - that's the important difference.

Sure there is.

[JAYMZ]

Somewhat ironic, but if you think about it, it only makes sense that the advocates of this would look for support of it in the bible.

Doesn't mean there is a single thing about it in the bible, though - that's the important difference.
The word trinity is not in the bible, but it is implied in the scriptures.

Scripture reveals that there is ONE God.

Scripture reveals the Father as God.

Scripture reveals the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Scripture reveals the person hood and Deity of the Holy Spirit.


The doctrine of the trinity takes into account the WHOLE of scripture and every verse pertaining to the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

[JAYMZ]

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

Just to add to the other responses............

Remember, the foundation of the trinity is built on monotheism. The old testament principle that there is only one God cannot be violated.

The " persons " of the Godhead are separate and distinct. The Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.

Also, just because there is three, separate and distinct persons doesnt mean that there are three Gods walking around in heaven. Dont try to put human limitations on God, thinking " well how can God be one and three at the same time ? "

We will kid ourselves if we think we can fully understand God with our limited, finite brain.

[barnasha]

Sure there is.

I've pored over it for a long time looking.

Give me a good example?

[seanD]

I've pored over it for a long time looking.

Give me a good example?

God - the Father (theos) (Mark 13:32. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28)
God - the Son (the Wisdom and logos) (John 1:1-14. Col 1:13-16. 1 Corinthians 1:24)
God - the Holy Spirit (John 14:26)

Since Christians have never -- and still don't -- teach or believe that these are three separate gods, even though the bible describes them as having three distinct personalities and functionalities, it is accepted by faith that they are of the same essence and source even though this is beyond the level of our comprehension at the moment.

[barnasha]

God - the Father (theos) (Mark 13:32. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28)
God - the Son (the Wisdom and logos) (John 1:1-14. Col 1:13-16. 1 Corinthians 1:24)
God - the Holy Spirit (John 14:26)

Since Christians have never -- and still don't -- teach or believe that these are three separate gods, even though the bible describes them as having three distinct personalities and functionalities, it is accepted by faith that they are of the same essence and source even though this is beyond the level of our comprehension at the moment.

these arent references to the trinity doctrine itself, but rather references used to concepts which were combined to form the doctrine, "after the fact".

I was really asking for something that specifically referred to such a trinity. but i have never seen it until after Tertullian....

[seanD]

these arent references to the trinity doctrine itself, but rather references used to concepts which were combined to form the doctrine, "after the fact".

I was really asking for something that specifically referred to such a trinity. but i have never seen it until after Tertullian....

The "Trinity" is not specifically stated (probably because the apostles had enough sense not to argue over concepts that are humanly illogical), but like I said, since Christians never -- nor do they today -- argued these three biblically described personalities were three separate deities, I"m not sure you can come up with any other conclusion.

[barnasha]

The "Trinity" is not specifically stated (probably because the apostles had enough sense not to argue over concepts that are humanly illogical),

you are saying the trinity was not 'specifically stated' because it is illogical?

'trinity' did not appear in the form in which it is used today (i.e. Tertullian's trinity) until 2-3 generations after the apostles lived .... prior appearances of the term did not refer to the same sort of trinity (see: Theophilus' trinity).

why is that?

[seanD]

you are saying the trinity was not 'specifically stated' because it is illogical?

'trinity' did not appear in the form in which it is used today (i.e. Tertullian's trinity) until 2-3 generations after the apostles lived .... prior appearances of the term did not refer to the same sort of trinity (see: Theophilus' trinity).

why is that?

It is humanly illogical to believe that A can be A, B, and C and not B and C at the same time, yes. But it is the only alternative conclusion apart from three separate gods all together. I don't know why a specific doctrine was not outlined in the scriptures -- like I said, perhaps the apostles had enough common sense not to equivocate over something irrelevant and incomprehensible. Though I do have a much better understanding why the later church outlined the doctrine, and it was to establish an anchor of theology to keep those from wavering into unsound theories and avoid inevitable heresies that were forming by those trying to feebly grasp the concept of these three personalities that are clearly described in scripture.

[barnasha]

It is humanly illogical to believe that A can be A, B, and C and not B and C at the same time, yes. But it is the only alternative conclusion apart from three separate gods all together.

Not true. You can also drop the extra-biblical 3rd-4th century AD christian dogma for those of the original church fathers, the apostles of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself.

Dare to be correct in the a world where incorrectness is the norm. "Deny yourself and take up your cross"

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loveth the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

[PsychGuy]

why is that?

It could have something to do with the fact that early Christians were more concerned with staying alive in a world of heavy pagan persecution than hashing out the finer points of theological debate among each other. The doctrine that Jesus is God was certainly taught by the Early Church Fathers (other than Tertullian). See, for example, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch or Irenaeus.

[barnasha]

It could have something to do with the fact that early Christians were more concerned with staying alive in a world of heavy pagan persecution than hashing out the finer points of theological debate among each other. The doctrine that Jesus is God was certainly taught by the Early Church Fathers (other than Tertullian). See, for example, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch or Irenaeus.

This is a very good point, it's true early church fathers worshiped Jesus as a god, Ignatius was relatively early.

That is not the subject here - it's the worship of the trinity as a god, not the worship of Jesus as a god...

[PsychGuy]

This is a very good point, it's true early church fathers worshiped Jesus as a god, Ignatius was relatively early.

That is not the subject here - it's the worship of the trinity as a god, not the worship of Jesus as a god...

It's important to be specific in that they did not worship Jesus as "a god," (the New World Translation's very recent adaptation to John 1:1), but rather as "God," the one and only.

The concept that Jesus is God flows very naturally into the concept of the Trinity, unless you're advocating that the ECFs were some kind of Modalists?

[barnasha]

It's important to be specific in that they did not worship Jesus as "a god," (the New World Translation's very recent adaptation to John 1:1), but rather as "God," the one and only.

The concept that Jesus is God flows very naturally into the concept of the Trinity, unless you're advocating that the ECFs were some kind of Modalists?

If we're speaking in English, God is a proper noun, and refers to a specific god. Greek used is theos/hoTheos, is it not? but hoTheos is a theos.


If God is not a god, why do you call it God, and isn't that supremely confusing (or how would it not indicate you are supremely confused)?

[PsychGuy]

If we're speaking in English, God is a proper noun, and refers to a specific god. Greek used is theos/hoTheos, is it not? but hoTheos is a theos.


If God is not a god, why do you call it God, and isn't that supremely confusing (or how would it not indicate you are supremely confused)?

The phrase "a god," with an indefinite article, implies that the thing is one of some number. In Christian theology, there is only one God, therefore, it is more appropriate and accurate to use the definite article, "the God," or no article at all, "God."

Now, if you're referring to the Christian God in a comparison, say, to the/a god of some other religion, then I could see how you might say the Christian God is "a god." But generally, when we're referring to the ECFs and Christians in general, they did/do not worship Jesus as "a god," (implying that he is just one of many), but rather as "God," or the one, only true deity.

Are you a Christian? If so, what church/denomination are you part of, if any?

[barnasha]

The phrase "a god," with an indefinite article, implies that the thing is one of some number. In Christian theology, there is only one God, therefore, it is more appropriate and accurate to use the definite article, "the God," or no article at all, "God."



The term "God" - like any noun - is just a name to refer to something.

It is a proper noun, thus it needs no article.




Now, if you're referring to the Christian God in a comparison, say, to the/a god of some other religion, then I could see how you might say the Christian God is "a god." But generally, when we're referring to the ECFs and Christians in general, they did/do not worship Jesus as "a god," (implying that he is just one of many), but rather as "God," or the one, only true deity.

Are you a Christian? If so, what church/denomination are you part of, if any?


Not all Christians view God the same way - not all Christians worship Jesus as a god, some only consider him to be Christ, and God to be father - which would be consistent with Jesus' employment of these terms. Jesus's employment of these concepts when he spoke, according to the bible, is no different from other hebrews who worshiped Abraham's god. It does not mean either one has the authority to say the others' definition of God is 'invalid'.


Is God a god or not?

[PsychGuy]

[QUOTE=barnasha;2945249]The term "God" - like any noun - is just a name to refer to something.

It is a proper noun, thus it needs no article.

Correct, but if you were going to use one, since there is only one in Christian theology, you would use the definite article, "the."




Not all Christians view God the same way - not all Christians worship Jesus as a god, some only consider him to be Christ, and God to be father - which would be consistent with Jesus employment of these terms, which is no different from the other hebrews besides him who worshiped Abraham's god. It does not mean either one has the authority to say the others' definition of God is 'invalid'.
Biblically, when you understand the full meaning of the word "Christ" and view a number of the other claims Jesus made, it is clear that He viewed Himself as equal to the Father, i.e. believed He was God. It was the Pharisees that vehemently rejected this view, which they felt was blasphemy of the highest degree.


Is God a god or not?
Question asked and answered. Is God THE one true God? And again, are you a Christian? If so, of which church/denomination are you a part?

[barnasha]

[QUOTE]

Correct, but if you were going to use one, since there is only one in Christian theology, you would use the definite article, "the."


When I speak it is within the context of reality and the truth, not the vacuum of whatever Christian theology you have in mind.

If it was not clear before, I will state for the record that y words are intended as precise as possible and should not be interpreted within any particular semantic or cultural context.



Biblically, when you understand the full meaning of the word "Christ" and view a number of the other claims Jesus made, it is clear that He viewed Himself as equal to the Father, i.e. believed He was God. It was the Pharisees that vehemently rejected this view, which they felt was blasphemy of the highest degree.


You seem to be stating the 'popular belief', but having done a modest amount of research, I see nothing of the sort in the source document - on the contrary, plenty of textual, historical and cultural information would show to the contrary.

It is amazing how imbued the 'correct interpretation' of the scriptures is in your thinking, so much that you read the scriptures searching for anything to prove it, not realizing that you are missing the teachings in doing so.

I offer the reader this advice:

If you want to seek the truth, you have to give up your personal notions of what is true and what people 'believe' is true, and doubt everything to its core.




Question asked and answered. Is God THE one true God? And again, are you a Christian? If so, of which church/denomination are you a part?

Not sure I found an answer, but I probably missed something.

What is God, and what do you mean by 'one true God'?

[PsychGuy]

[QUOTE=barnasha;2945281]When I speak it is within the context of reality and the truth, not the vacuum of whatever Christian theology you have in mind.
False dichotomy. Christian theology, properly understood, is both reality and truth.


If it was not clear before, I will state for the record that y words are intended as precise as possible and should not be interpreted within any particular semantic or cultural context.

And if you're trying to be as precise as possible, within a discussion of Christian theology (which this is), it is not accurate to refer to the worship of Jesus as that of "a god," but rather as "the God," since Christianity is monotheistic.


You seem to be stating the 'popular belief', but having done a modest amount of research, I see nothing of the sort in the source document - on the contrary, plenty of textual, historical and cultural information would show to the contrary.
I recommend a re-examination of the Gospel of John, particularly chapters 1, 5, 8, and 10.

It's not an argument against something to call it "popular." Heliocentrism is "popular" too, but it's "popular" for a reason.


It is amazing how imbued the 'correct interpretation' of the scriptures is in your thinking,
What amazes me is how unorthodox thinkers so often believe they're immune to external influences on their theology, while 99% of everyone else is blind and stupid. It demonstrates quite a bit of spiritual hubris.


so much that you read the scriptures searching for anything to prove it, not realizing that you are missing the teachings in doing so.
This is of course your ASSUMPTION, but you haven't demonstrated a thing with evidence.



Not sure I found an answer, but I probably missed something.

Probably:


Now, if you're referring to the Christian God in a comparison, say, to the/a god of some other religion, then I could see how you might say the Christian God is "a god." But generally, when we're referring to the ECFs and Christians in general, they did/do not worship Jesus as "a god," (implying that he is just one of many), but rather as "God," or the one, only true deity.


What is God, and what do you mean by 'one true God'?
Do you know what monotheism is?

I really would like to know where you specifically stand spiritually, so I know exactly what common ground we share here. I'm asking you again: Are you a Christian? If so, of which church/denomination are you a part? I don't know why you would be so avoidant of this question, it's really not tough.

[barnasha]

False dichotomy. Christian theology, properly understood, is both reality and truth.


Not at all. Christian theology is based on reality, not the other way around.



And if you're trying to be as precise as possible, within a discussion of Christian theology (which this is), it is not accurate to refer to the worship of Jesus as that of "a god," but rather as "the God," since Christianity is monotheistic.


"the God" is grammatically incorrect.... "The God" would be ok but The is still redundant.

this is even more true if you know the related hellenic and hebraic etymologies



I recommend a re-examination of the Gospel of John, particularly chapters 1, 5, 8, and 10.

It's not an argument against something to call it "popular." Heliocentrism is "popular" too, but it's "popular" for a reason.



regardless, one cannot make an 'argumentum ad populum" without committing a logical fallacy.





What amazes me is how unorthodox thinkers so often believe they're immune to external influences on their theology, while 99% of everyone else is blind and stupid. It demonstrates quite a bit of spiritual hubris.


I think most people who think for themselves are appalled by those who do not. To think others are blind and stupid is not a very constructive approach, and that is certainly not mine.



[quote]

so much that you read the scriptures searching for anything to prove it, not realizing that you are missing the teachings in doing so.

This is of course your ASSUMPTION, but you haven't demonstrated a thing with evidence.


it is rather accusatory of me, and for that I apologize, but I am intentionally being provocative to bring the issue to the forefront.

I assure you that I respect you and your freedom to have your own views which are different from mine, and that I otherwise intend no disrespect - only to make forceful arguments. I should continue to strive to keep things more impersonal. However there is a psychological element to these things and that typically must be addressed via respectful confrontation.



Probably:




Do you know what monotheism is?

I really would like to know where you specifically stand spiritually, so I know exactly what common ground we share here. I'm asking you again: Are you a Christian? If so, of which church/denomination are you a part? I don't know why you would be so avoidant of this question, it's really not tough.

I am simply someone who follows the teachings of Jesus and Moses. I do not (necessarily) accept the dogma of others who came after them.

Even the teachings of Jesus and Moses I have doubted and examined and accepted them on my own terms.

[PsychGuy]

Not at all. Christian theology is based on reality, not the other way around.
It is not merely "based" on reality, it is a description OF reality.



"the God" is grammatically incorrect....
How so? Surely you don't think it's grammatically incorrect to say, "the President of the United States...?"


"The God" would be ok but The is still redundant.
Capitalizing "the" does not change its meaning. It is perfectly acceptable to use a lower case article, definite or indefinite, prior to a capitalized proper noun.


this is even more true if you know the related hellenic and hebraic etymologies
In Greek, my understanding is that "ho" is the definite article. The phrase "ho theos" appears a number of times in Scripture. I'm not seeing how that's helping your case here.




regardless, one cannot make an 'argumentum ad populum" without committing a logical fallacy.
You brought up the fact that my belief was "popular," not me. I was simply saying that it's not a valid argument against a belief to simply say that it's popular.




I think most people who think for themselves are appalled by those who do not.
What you may fail to realize is that orthodox Christians can and do also think for themselves. The fact that they agree with each other in larger numbers than say, the people who believe what you do, does not mean they're mindless sheep who simply believe what they're told.



I assure you that I respect you and your freedom to have your own views which are different from mine, and that I otherwise intend no disrespect - only to make forceful arguments. I should continue to strive to keep things more impersonal. However there is a psychological element to these things and that typically must be addressed via respectful confrontation.
I'm new to TWeb, but not to debate/discussion about religious/spiritual things. I assure you, I am not offended. However, if you're going to say things like that I'm obviously going to call you out on it.



I am simply someone who follows the teachings of Jesus and Moses. I do not (necessarily) accept the dogma of others who came after them.

Even the teachings of Jesus and Moses I have doubted and examined and accepted them on my own terms.
Thank you for being straightforward and honest. Do you follow the teachings of the Biblical prophets who came between Moses and Jesus? Do you follow the teachings of the Apostles whom Jesus appointed to preach, teach, and baptize in His name?

[RBerman]

'trinity' did not appear in the form in which it is used today (i.e. Tertullian's trinity) until 2-3 generations after the apostles lived .... prior appearances of the term did not refer to the same sort of trinity (see: Theophilus' trinity).
It would be more precise to say that the earliest surviving documents that mention the Trinity are from the time of Tertullian. After all, the church was a persecuted minority for the first couple of centuries. Large quantities of Christian writings from that period did not survive. In reading Tertullian, one doesn't get the impression that he's making up something new, or simply giving one of several competing ideas.

[barnasha]

It would be more precise to say that the earliest surviving documents that mention the Trinity are from the time of Tertullian. After all, the church was a persecuted minority for the first couple of centuries. Large quantities of Christian writings from that period did not survive. In reading Tertullian, one doesn't get the impression that he's making up something new, or simply giving one of several competing ideas.

Noted, but it is not a convincing argument

[RBerman]

Noted, but it is not a convincing argument
I agree that the argument, "Maybe we had something before, but we can't find it now" is a weak one. For that matter, "Teacher X taught Y" is a weak argument anyway. It doesn't matter who believed it, or when. What matters is whether a good argument can be made. With respect to the Trinity, I find the argument from Scripture persuasive all by itself.

[barnasha]

I agree that the argument, "Maybe we had something before, but we can't find it now" is a weak one. For that matter, "Teacher X taught Y" is a weak argument anyway. It doesn't matter who believed it, or when. What matters is whether a good argument can be made. With respect to the Trinity, I find the argument from Scripture persuasive all by itself.

Trinity doctrine or "God personhood" is not mentioned at all in the bible, so I find that argument untenable.

[RBerman]

Trinity doctrine or "God personhood" is not mentioned at all in the bible, so I find that argument untenable.
Usage of language-specific terms is irrelevant; the word "trinity" is a portmanteau of the English memes "Tri" + "Unity," and I would not expect the Greek text to feature that word. What really matters is the underlying concepts. Do you believe that God is not presented as a person in the Bible?

[OneSizeFit]

[QUOTE]

Biblically, when you understand the full meaning of the word "Christ" and view a number of the other claims Jesus made, it is clear that He viewed Himself as equal to the Father,



Biblically, Christ is simply Messiah in Greek. It took on more of a deistic tone over time. Did it not?

And you claim Jesus viewed himself as equal to the Father. I do not see this at all. Even traditional Trinitarians admit a hierarchy in the power structure of the "God" equation.

[RBerman]

[quote=PsychGuy;2945255]And you claim Jesus viewed himself as equal to the Father. I do not see this at all. Even traditional Trinitarians admit a hierarchy in the power structure of the "God" equation.
Equal in essence, submissive with respect to authority. The point is that Jesus is not just a man, or an angel, or some other created being.

[OneSizeFit]

[quote=OneSizeFit;2946372]
Equal in essence, submissive with respect to authority.

Yes, there is/was an eternal functional hierarchy between the Father and Son. Paul hints that the Word was given full authority or equality with God the Father after it's mission as Jesus was complete. Mind boggling.


The point is that Jesus is not just a man, or an angel, or some other created being.

I agree.

[barnasha]

Usage of language-specific terms is irrelevant; the word "trinity" is a portmanteau of the English memes "Tri" + "Unity," and I would not expect the Greek text to feature that word. What really matters is the underlying concepts. Do you believe that God is not presented as a person in the Bible?

As a "person" in the sense that God is often represented metaphorically in an anthropomorphic (human-like) way? It's really unarguably so; God is presented in such a way, God "speaking" even though God has no mouth... or the "hand of God", etc etc.

[OneSizeFit]

As a "person" in the sense that God is often represented metaphorically in an anthropomorphic (human-like) way? It's really unarguably so; God is presented in such a way, God "speaking" even though God has no mouth... or the "hand of God", etc etc.

Person is an inadequate word to express the magnitude of God, that much is for sure.

[PsychGuy]

Biblically, Christ is simply Messiah in Greek. It took on more of a deistic tone over time. Did it not?
I think even at that time "Christ" meant more than its purely denotative definition.


And you claim Jesus viewed himself as equal to the Father. I do not see this at all.
As I said to barnasha, I recommend a re-examination of the Gospel of John, particularly chapters 1, 5, 8, and 10.

[RBerman]

As a "person" in the sense that God is often represented metaphorically in an anthropomorphic (human-like) way? It's really unarguably so; God is presented in such a way, God "speaking" even though God has no mouth... or the "hand of God", etc etc.
And thinking, right? Persons think, have opinions, concerns, the opportunity for joy or sorrow, etc.

[OneSizeFit]

I think even at that time "Christ" meant more than its purely denotative definition.

Outside of Israel perhaps. I credit Paul with establishing the concept of a cosmic Christ. A concept more palatable to Pagans than Jews.

[RBerman]

Outside of Israel perhaps. I credit Paul with establishing the concept of a cosmic Christ. A concept more palatable to Pagans than Jews.
In other words, you deny parts of the NT wholesale. Is it any wonder we disagree about God?

[OneSizeFit]

I'm just brutally honest in examining the historicity of Christianity.

[PsychGuy]

Outside of Israel perhaps. I credit Paul with establishing the concept of a cosmic Christ. A concept more palatable to Pagans than Jews.

Plenty of Jews worshiped Jesus when He was on Earth: Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 28:9, John 9:38, etc.

Seems like it was plenty palatable to them. :shrug:

[OneSizeFit]

I actually accept the Trinity, I cant be baited into a "Jesus worship" argument. It does not change the fact that the word Christ equates to the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning the Anointed One, nothing more nothing less.

[PsychGuy]

I actually accept the Trinity, I cant be baited into a "Jesus worship" argument.
So you believe in the Trinity but don't see anywhere that Jesus made Himself equal to the Father? Huh?


It does not change the fact that the word Christ equates to the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning the Anointed One, nothing more nothing less.
Yes, we all understand that's the denotative meaning. But what does it mean, specifically, to BE the Messiah? When you read OT passages like Isaiah 9, we begin to see glimpses of what is more fully revealed in the NT...the Messiah was/is "God in the flesh," so to speak.

[OneSizeFit]

So you believe in the Trinity but don't see anywhere that Jesus made Himself equal to the Father? Huh?


Did you read Rberman's post, equal in substance (God substance), hierarchy in functionality. I'm pretty sure that is the traditional view.

[PsychGuy]

Did you read Rberman's post, equal in substance (God substance), hierarchy in functionality. I'm pretty sure that is the traditional view.

Agreed, but generally Trinitarians also traditionally believe that passages like those in John 5 and 10 are clear references by Jesus to His own deity, where the passage explicitly SAYS He made Himself equal to God. It's odd that you'd deny that and still call yourself a Trinitarian. (Or maybe you don't deny that?)

[OneSizeFit]

I believe if we did a passage by passage count, there would be more passages pointing to a functional hierarchy than functional equality. At least pre-resurrection, or while the Word was in the flesh. The classic example would be Mark 13:32.

[PsychGuy]

I believe if we did a passage by passage count, there would be more passages pointing to a functional hierarchy than functional equality. At least pre-resurrection, or while the Word was in the flesh. The classic example would be Mark 13:32.
Generally Trinitarians have admitted that there are plenty of both sorts of passages...we try not to minimize either category, which is what leads us to believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.

[barnasha]

Plenty of Jews worshiped Jesus when He was on Earth: Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 28:9, John 9:38, etc.

Seems like it was plenty palatable to them. :shrug:

you must know that the word 'worship' as used in the NT does not mean idolize as deity. that word could also be translated to 'bow' or 'pay homage' instead of worship.

same word (PROSKUNEO) is used in Acts10:25 - Cornelius was not worshiping Peter as a god there.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4352&t=KJV
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

5) to demons
[/quote]





I actually accept the Trinity, I cant be baited into a "Jesus worship" argument. It does not change the fact that the word Christ equates to the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning the Anointed One, nothing more nothing less.


which trinity? do you accept any trinty? like say the early church fathers "God, His Word, and His Wisdom?" do you "accept" that too?

[PsychGuy]

you must know that the word 'worship' as used in the NT does not mean idolize as deity.

same word is used in Acts10:25 - Cornelius was not worshiping Peter as a god there.

Actually I think it does....notice Peter's immediate correction of the behavior in verse 26, where Peter admits that he is just a man.

[OneSizeFit]

which is what leads us to believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.

best of both worlds.

[OneSizeFit]

which trinity? do you accept any trinty? like say the early church fathers "God, His Word, and His Wisdom?" do you "accept" that too?

Huh?

[barnasha]

Huh?

which trinity do you accept? the trinity of God AKA The Father, Jesus the son of God, and the holy spirit?

and more importantly... what does it mean to 'accept' it?

[PsychGuy]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4352&t=KJV
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

5) to demons

If you don't have an Englishman's Concordance I suggest getting one. Proskuneo is an act done in the New Testament toward God/the Father more than anyone else. Jesus comes in second, and the beast from Revelation comes in third, for which people are thrown into the lake of fire. This should be a pretty big hint to you that it means more than "reverence."

[barnasha]

If you don't have an Englishman's Concordance I suggest getting one. Proskuneo is an act done in the New Testament toward God/the Father more than anyone else. Jesus comes in second, and the beast from Revelation comes in third, for which people are thrown into the lake of fire. This should be a pretty big hint to you that it means more than "reverence."

a hint and an inference do not alone make for a convincing basis of an argument

[PsychGuy]

a hint and an inference do not alone make for a convincing basis of an argument

I think my understated point was that the Biblical evidence is way more than a hint...it's staring you right in the face. Again, proskuneo is done toward God more than any other in the New Testament. It is consistently translated "worship" in pretty much every mainstream English Bible translation.

[barnasha]

I think my understated point was that the Biblical evidence is way more than a hint...it's staring you right in the face. Again, proskuneo is done toward God more than any other in the New Testament. It is consistently translated "worship" in pretty much every mainstream English Bible translation.

If that is an argument for changing the meaning of the greek term, it is an egregious fallacy,

[PsychGuy]

If that is an argument for changing the meaning of the greek term, it is an egregious fallacy,

There's no need to change the meaning. It means worship. That's why it's translated that way over and over and over and over.

[barnasha]

translations choose suitable words to try to best convey the source language, it does not mean the different languages and their meanings map directly. even in english, the meaning of words evolves over time.

so if I want to use a different language and a different culture to reinterpret the meaning of a text, I can, but it would be disingenuous.

[PsychGuy]

translations choose suitable words to try to best convey the source language, it does not mean the different languages and their meanings map directly. even in english, the meaning of words evolves over time.
Yes, but if professional language experts and translators translate one word into one other word in other language, consistently time after time after time, it suggests that there's probably significant overlay between them. Proskuneo is widely recognized by Greek scholars as the principle New Testament word for worship. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

[barnasha]

Yes, but if professional language experts and translators translate one word into one other word in other language, consistently time after time after time, it suggests that there's probably significant overlay between them. Proskuneo is widely recognized by Greek scholars as the principle New Testament word for worship. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Even in English one should not blindly assume what a word indicates. But it's worse when one does it to a translated document. One must always use rational thinking if one is to achieve a good understanding.

[PsychGuy]

[QUOTE=barnasha;2946752]Even in English one should not blindly assume what a word indicates.I'm not blindly assuming anything, so that's a non sequitur.

[OneSizeFit]

which trinity do you accept? the trinity of God AKA The Father, Jesus the son of God, and the holy spirit?

and more importantly... what does it mean to 'accept' it?

How much time you got? I go beyond the standard "take this definition and like it" explanation orthodoxy offers. I link metaphysics, monotheistic mysticism, archetypal man, fulfilled adam, the esoteric bond between God and man, the role of the feminine, the human body as the tabernacle, etc, etc in my explanation of the Trinity. Might be a bit to much for this forum.

[barnasha]

How much time you got? I go beyond the standard "take this definition and like it" explanation orthodoxy offers. I link metaphysics, monotheistic mysticism, archetypal man, fulfilled adam, the esoteric bond between God and man, the role of the feminine, the human body as the tabernacle, etc, etc in my explanation of the Trinity. Might be a bit to much for this forum.

sounds interesting.

of what use is this trinity?

[OneSizeFit]

sounds interesting.

of what use is this trinity?

At the base of it, is the realization that we are all sacred, and we were created to be co-heirs with God, and as corny as it sounds God sent his Son to our world so that we could partake in his nature.

I big part of my spiritual walk was not getting caught up in the historicity of the "story" but figuring how it can be "applied" in my every day life. IMO every Christians should sit down, and really think about the main lesson that can be extracted from the Gospel and applied practically.

[OneSizeFit]

To take it a bit further and explore the psychology of Christianity, if we believe that Jesus was in some way God, however hard it is to explain. What does that tell us about the nature of God? He is self sacrificing, dedicated to man, and despite all the pain and suffering in the world, God loves mankind and is one with man.

Again, if we see the godhood of Jesus, the part that is 100% God according to the Trinity, and Jesus tells us "whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for me" what does that tell us about the nature of mankind? That Jesus, as the divine Word, is in everyone, even the leper, the lame, the orphan, and the widow, in essence we are divine and sacred and should be treated as such.

There is a whole "thing" I'm working on, a quasi book at this stage, in plain, practical English, but these are bits and pieces.

[RBerman]

To take it a bit further and explore the psychology of Christianity, if we believe that Jesus was in some way God, however hard it is to explain. What does that tell us about the nature of God? He is self sacrificing, dedicated to man, and despite all the pain and suffering in the world, God loves mankind and is one with man.

Again, if we see the godhood of Jesus, the part that is 100% God according to the Trinity, and Jesus tells us "whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for me" what does that tell us about the nature of mankind? That Jesus, as the divine Word, is in everyone, even the leper, the lame, the orphan, and the widow, in essence we are divine and sacred and should be treated as such.
Not so much that God "is one with man" or that Jesus "is in everyone," but that Jesus identifies with the downtrodden. Only those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that his death and resurrection pay the penalty our sins deserve from a holy God, only they are one with Christ.

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

[barnasha]

Of course the trinity is hard to explain.

[RBerman]

Of course the trinity is hard to explain.
Indeed! It's outside our human frame of reference; it has no equivalent that we can get our hooks on.

[barnasha]

The same is true of the Holy Duality.

[RBerman]

The same is true of the Holy Duality.
Go on. What does "Holy Duality" mean to you? Is that a concept you are prepared to endorse?

[OneSizeFit]

Indeed! It's outside our human frame of reference; it has no equivalent that we can get our hooks on.

That's too bad.

[barnasha]

Go on. What does "Holy Duality" mean to you? Is that a concept you are prepared to endorse?

Father and Son.

[RBerman]

Father and Son.
Go on...what about the Father and the Son? For instance, concerning the Holy Trinity, I believe:
In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

What do you believe about the "Holy Duality"?

[barnasha]

I have moved beyond "forming beliefs" to "forming understandings".

[OneSizeFit]

In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


An all male eternity, eh?

[RBerman]

An all male eternity, eh?
Yup.

[RBerman]

I have moved beyond "forming beliefs" to "forming understandings".
Then what do you understand about the Holy Duality of the Father and Son?

[barnasha]

That it is easier to "prove" using the bible than the Holy Trinity

[RBerman]

That it is easier to "prove" using the bible than the Holy Trinity
Perhaps. I was looking for a more comprehensive answer as to what you believe/understand about the Holy Duality, though. You've been arguing in about five different threads that Jesus is not God, so I'm curious in what sense you would include the Son as part of a "Holy Duality."

[OneSizeFit]

Yup.

Haha. Reminds me of a joke I used to make among christians in my family.

[barnasha]

Perhaps. I was looking for a more comprehensive answer as to what you believe/understand about the Holy Duality, though. You've been arguing in about five different threads that Jesus is not God, so I'm curious in what sense you would include the Son as part of a "Holy Duality."

Jesus can be your god, but Jesus is not the god of Jesus


I just defined the Holy Duality, as Father and Son. Just like someone else defined Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What is to believe? it is just a concept. And it is in the bible, too:

for example:

1 Corinthians 8:6 -
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Using the same Holy Trinity "scriptural basis" arguments, we can say this is "proof" of a Holy Duality.

This is not something I am arguing but it is rather a parody of the fallacious logic used to 'prove' the trinity based on the scripture.

There is nothing wrong with worshiping a trinity god, other than the fact that one is necessarily dropping the practices and teachings of Jesus by doing so!

[RBerman]

Jesus can be your god, but Jesus is not the god of Jesus. I just defined the Holy Duality, as Father and Son. Just like someone else defined Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What is to believe? it is just a concept. And it is in the bible, too:

for example:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Using the same Holy Trinity "scriptural basis" arguments, we can say this is "proof" of a Holy Duality. This is not something I am arguing but it is rather a parody of the fallacious logic used to 'prove' the trinity based on the scripture.

Thank you for clarifying: You were not actually promoting a belief in a Holy Duality, but were rather satirizing what you see as the erroneous Biblical proof used of the Trinity by orthodox Christians. Yet even this text you cite shows that Jesus, as a person, is not a created being, for "all things came through him." See one of our other threads for the distinction between Jesus' person and Jesus' body in this respect.


There is nothing wrong with worshiping a trinity god, other than the fact that one is necessarily dropping the practices and teachings of Jesus by doing so!
Says you. Yet the more I read Scripture, the more testimony I find to Jesus' godhood. Just today I was reading Revelation 4-5, the vision of the court of heaven, with "The Lord God Almighty" on the throne. And yet the Lamb, Christ, is "in the center of the throne" as well, and receives from the assembled angelic host identical worship to what The Lord God is receiving.

[barnasha]

Yet even this text you cite shows that Jesus, as a person, is not a created being

So you believe in creatures that exist yet do not exist? Explain the logic behind that.

This is supremely illogical.



Says you. Yet the more I read Scripture, the more testimony I find to Jesus' godhood. Just today I was reading Revelation 4-5, the vision of the court of heaven, with "The Lord God Almighty" on the throne. And yet the Lamb, Christ, is "in the center of the throne" as well, and receives from the assembled angelic host identical worship to what The Lord God is receiving.

You will always find what you seek. If I seek the Holy Duality, i will find it. On the other hand, if I seek the teachings of Jesus I will find them. I wonder why you don't seek the teachings of Jesus, but rather a fulfillment of the dogma which you must bear on your shoulders

[PsychGuy]

So you believe in creatures that exist yet do not exist? Explain the logic behind that.

This is supremely illogical.
The only one I see being illogical here is you, barn. If Jesus created ALL things, then He is by definition UNcreated.



You will always find what you seek. If I seek the Holy Duality, i will find it. On the other hand, if I seek the teachings of Jesus I will find them. I wonder why you don't seek the teachings of Jesus, but rather a fulfillment of the dogma which you must bear on your shoulders.
Begging the question much?

[RBerman]

So you believe in creatures that exist yet do not exist? Explain the logic behind that.
No. Every created thing does exist. However, not everything that exists is a created thing. God exists but is not a creature.

[barnasha]

No. Every created thing does exist. However, not everything that exists is a created thing. God exists but is not a creature.

God as a concept exists, in the abstract sense.

But God itself does not have inherit 'existence' as an entity within the cosmos, unlike say, a planet, or an atom, or a human being.

[OneSizeFit]

God as a concept exists, in the abstract sense.

But God itself does not have inherit 'existence' as an entity within the cosmos, unlike say, a planet, or an atom, or a human being.

Prove it. The Torah, NT, and Quran say otherwise. Whether you believe God emanates angels (Islam), has a body himself (Judaism), or took a physical form in Jesus (Christianity), all these texts go beyond what seems to be your statement of deism. From there it is a matter of trusting these texts as reliable "proof" that God is active in the universe.

This argument is coming down to the same argument a theist and an atheist would have, meaning we cant "prove" caused the big bang, they cant 'prove' nothing caused the big bang.

[barnasha]

Prove it. The Torah, NT, and Quran say otherwise. Whether you believe God emanates angels (Islam), has a body himself (Judaism), or took a physical form in Jesus (Christianity), all these texts go beyond what seems to be your statement of deism. From there it is a matter of trusting these texts as reliable "proof" that God is active in the universe.

This argument is coming down to the same argument a theist and an atheist would have, meaning we cant "prove" caused the big bang, they cant 'prove' nothing caused the big bang.

Reality, anything that "is" or could possible be experienced by an observer, is what constitutes the "existence" to which i refer. When using the concept of 'creation' in terms of God Almighty, creation typically refers to all that exists.

As such, one should not co-mingle the ultimate "source" of reality, with reality itself.

In this meaning of 'existence', God does not "exist" like something in the realm of creation does.

Surely, God "exists" in a sense that we have a conception of it and it is indeed something "real", i.e. having a direct link to reality rather than a fancy of our imagination.

The main distinction I make is that God is not a creation within reality, otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of that reality.

In Thomas Aquina's third proof for God, he implicitly mentions two kinds of existence - one is for things which exist in reality as creation, and the other is something transcendent of the quality of reality itself, this second kind, or aspect, of 'existence' is attributed to our understanding of God, but it should not be confused with the other.


One must understand the cosmology without a predilection to any specific vocabulary or semantic representation thereof; i.e. one must understand the nature of the subject matter itself, independent of the specific words they choose to use to explain it. This is exceptionally true in the case of cosmology, i.e. the understanding of the nature of reality..

[OneSizeFit]

Reality, anything that "is" or could possible be experienced by an observer, is what constitutes the "existence" to which i refer. When using the concept of 'creation' in terms of God Almighty, creation typically refers to all that exists.

As such, one should not co-mingle the ultimate "source" of reality, with reality itself.

In this meaning of 'existence', God does not "exist" like something in the realm of creation does.

Surely, God "exists" in a sense that we have a conception of it and it is indeed something "real", i.e. having a direct link to reality rather than a fancy of our imagination.

The main distinction I make is that God is not a creation within reality, otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of that reality.

In Thomas Aquina's third proof for God, he implicitly mentions two kinds of existence - one is for things which exist in reality as creation, and the other is something transcendent of the quality of reality itself, this second kind, or aspect, of 'existence' is attributed to our understanding of God, but it should not be confused with the other.


One must understand the cosmology without a predilection to any specific vocabulary or semantic representation thereof; i.e. one must understand the nature of the subject matter itself, independent of the specific words they choose to use to explain it. This is exceptionally true in the case of cosmology, i.e. the understanding of the nature of reality..

So God can't exist "in" and "through" everything, as well as be a "person" in the Biblical sense? Beyond my Christian beliefs, I also am somewhat of a pantheist in a similar vein as Baruch Spinoza, I see no discrepancy between the beliefs, in fact in the NT we read that a believer should put Christ on, in a metaphysical sense reconnect with the divine through Christ, reconnect with the original divine "breath" if you will, seeing the divine God in yourself as well as others.

[barnasha]

So God can't exist "in" and "through" everything, as well as be a "person" in the Biblical sense? Beyond my Christian beliefs, I also am somewhat of a pantheist in a similar vein as Baruch Spinoza, I see no discrepancy between the beliefs, in fact in the NT we read that a believer should put Christ on, in a metaphysical sense reconnect with the divine through Christ, reconnect with the original divine "breath" if you will, seeing the divine God in yourself as well as others.

Isn't calling god a person a little too much anthropomorphization? I do not see that in the biblical literature...

[barnasha]

And again, the concept of existence is a very malleable one.

I have simply emphasized that I use existence to refer to all natural phenomena, the cosmos, mind, reality: creation. Everything under te heavens

[OneSizeFit]

Isn't calling god a person a little too much anthropomorphization? I do not see that in the biblical literature...

Have you read the Bible lately? When the prophets write "Thus speaks the Lord," is that a nebulous unknowable force/energy speaking, or a distinct personality?

Additionally as a Christian, I believe the Father revealed himself fully and uniquely in the incarnate Jesus, in both his works and words.

[RBerman]

Isn't calling god a person a little too much anthropomorphization? I do not see that in the biblical literature...
On what grounds do you consider God's talking, feeling, and thinking simply anthropomorphization? Is there something in the Bible that says that God is not a person, for instance?

[barnasha]

That's what anthropomorphization is. Making something humanlike.


"God is not a man" - The Book of Numbers, Bible

"God is a spirit" - Bible

[PsychGuy]

That's what anthropomorphization is. Making something humanlike.


"God is not a man" - The Book of Numbers, Bible

"God is a spirit" - Bible

Since when does being a spirit preclude personhood?

[RBerman]

That's what anthropomorphization is. Making something humanlike.


"God is not a man" - The Book of Numbers, Bible

"God is a spirit" - Bible
Do you believe those quotations (the second one is from John 4, by the way) are helpful to determine whether God is a spiritual person? I suppose we ought to explore what you believe a "person" is first.

[OneSizeFit]

I wouldnt even discuss this any further, if we believe the Bible is a valid testimony, from God walking around in the Garden of Eden, to Ezekiel's vision of God on his throne, to the Word manifesting as Jesus, clearly God has a personality and was anthropomorphous throughout all phases of the Scripture. End of discussion.

[barnasha]

Do you believe those quotations (the second one is from John 4, by the way) are helpful to determine whether God is a spiritual person? I suppose we ought to explore what you believe a "person" is first.

Anthropomorphization (making something human-like) is a way for humans to understand things in their terms and form analogies. This is a subject which is covered extensively in hebrew theology.

I don't "believe" a person is anything. It is a word which usually has one meaning.

In my experience, as a native speaker of english with a grade school education, person is always used to refer to a human being. I am aware that 'person' has other meanings in trinitarian doctrines, I do not refer to those

[RBerman]

"person" is always used to refer to a human being.
That's not helpful. How about this: "a self-conscious or rational being."

[barnasha]

That's not helpful. How about this: "a self-conscious or rational being."

seriously?

want to bet me $500 that if we poll random people on the street in an English speaking country, "person" means something other than an individual human?

[RBerman]

seriously?

want to bet me $500 that if we poll random people on the street in an English speaking country, "person" means something other than an individual human?
I'll take that bet, if I get to ask them a followup question, "Is God the Father a person?"

[OneSizeFit]

seriously?

want to bet me $500 that if we poll random people on the street in an English speaking country, "person" means something other than an individual human?

At the basic level, "personhood" means having a "personality"

[barnasha]

I'll take that bet, if I get to ask them a followup question, "Is God the Father a person?"

if they are not trinity worshippers, you will be out of $500.

that was the point, i was talking about the meaning 'person' as used in normal english language, not trinity doctrine. remember?

[RBerman]

if they are not trinity worshippers, you will be out of $500.

that was the point, i was talking about the meaning 'person' as used in normal english language, not trinity doctrine. remember?
I bet most unitarians will say that God is a person and would accept, "A person is a self-conscious and rational being" as a good definition.

[barnasha]

I bet most unitarians will say that God is a person and would accept, "A person is a self-conscious and rational being" as a good definition.

The point was that 'person' typically refers to a human being in the English language, excluding the Trinitarian Christianity theological definition of the term.

[RBerman]

The point was that 'person' typically refers to a human being in the English language, excluding the Trinitarian Christianity theological definition of the term.
I agree that "person" typically refers to humans, since almost all persons are humans, as far as we know. But God is also a person. If there are sentient extraterrestrial beings (which I very much doubt), then they might fit a definition of persons. And so on.

[OneSizeFit]

If there are sentient extraterrestrial beings (which I very much doubt)

Djinn!

:eek:

[barnasha]

I agree that "person" typically refers to humans, since almost all persons are humans, as far as we know. But God is also a person. If there are sentient extraterrestrial beings (which I very much doubt), then they might fit a definition of persons. And so on.

The god Jesus worshiped is not a human

[RBerman]

The god Jesus worshiped is not a human
Jesus worshiped the Father, who is not a human. It's an interesting question whether Jesus also "worshiped himself." That would require an adequate definition of "worship" in order to proceed with discussion. Certainly Jesus, while humble, also had a high view of his person and his ministry.

[barnasha]

Certainly Jesus, while humble, also had a high view of his person and his ministry.

not high enough to worship himself as his own god

[RBerman]

not high enough to worship himself as his own god
Depends on what you mean by "worship." He had no problem being worshiped as God, as we've seen in John 20.

[barnasha]

If that were true, why would Jesus say not to call him good, that only God is good, almost explicitly stating that he is different from God?

and why would Jesus tell other people to worship God like he did? and why would he make no break from the hebraic theology which definitely didn't have a man as god?

there are way too many contradictions that must be explained before I consider your inference as well-informed and reflective of the history and culture and Jesus's teachings as a whole

the point stands, Jesus did not worship himself as a god

[RBerman]

If that were true, why would Jesus say not to call him good, that only God is good, almost explicitly stating that he is different from God?

You have totally missed Jesus' point. He is testing the Rich Young Ruler, who has a very shallow definition of "good." By saying, "Why do you call me good, if there is none good but God?" Jesus is probing the underlying assumptions of his interlocutor. He does not "almost explicitly state that he is different from God." As I noted previously, Jesus calls himself "good" numerous times.


and why would Jesus tell other people to worship God like he did? and why would he make no break from the hebraic theology which definitely didn't have a man as god?
I disagree with the underlying assumptions in these questions; they are defective and thus unanswerable.


the point stands, Jesus did not worship himself as a god
What would it mean for Jesus to "worship himself as a god" in the sense you mean? Should he pray to himself, bow to himself, or what?

[OneSizeFit]

You have totally missed Jesus' point. He is testing the Rich Young Ruler, who has a very shallow definition of "good." By saying, "Why do you call me good, if there is none good but God?"



I thought the appropriate "trap" would be asking Barn, "was Jesus good?"

Then when he replies yes, of course. Boom! "Gotcha" journalism.

I had that one pulled on me a couple of times.

:lol:

[barnasha]

You have totally missed Jesus' point. He is testing the Rich Young Ruler, who has a very shallow definition of "good." By saying, "Why do you call me good, if there is none good but God?" Jesus is probing the underlying assumptions of his interlocutor. He does not "almost explicitly state that he is different from God." As I noted previously, Jesus calls himself "good" numerous times.


Yet, the differentiation was clearly made. You can interpret this within the prism of Trinitarian doctrine, yes, but you have no right to force that upon the speaker (Jesus).

[RBerman]

Yet, the differentiation was clearly made. You can interpret this within the prism of Trinitarian doctrine, yes, but you have no right to force that upon the speaker (Jesus).
"Force" is a prejudicial term. I prefer to say that I recognize the Bible as a coherent work which presents Jesus as God. So I do interpret Jesus' comments in light of that truth.

[barnasha]

"Force" is a prejudicial term. I prefer to say that I recognize the Bible as a coherent work which presents Jesus as God. So I do interpret Jesus' comments in light of that truth.

Exactly, you have a predefined 'truth' by which you interpret Jesus's comments - rather than letting Jesus's teachings reach your ears in pure form

[RBerman]

Exactly, you have a predefined 'truth' by which you interpret Jesus's comments - rather than letting Jesus's teachings reach your ears in pure form
Not a "predefined" truth, as if I made up all my beliefs and then came to the Bible. Rather, the whole Bible (including Jesus' teachings) defines my belief.

[barnasha]

Please admit to yourself that you have gotten something from outside the (books of the) bible. It does not mean it is wrong because it is not from there, but it means it comes from outside.

e.g. The trinity idea, since the word doesn't even exist there. Not saying it makes 'trinity' invalid because of this, just saying you should realize it.

Jesus did not teach a trinity. You can say 'well....' and wave your hands a bit, but he simply did not teach it

[RBerman]

Please admit to yourself that you have gotten something from outside the (books of the) bible. It does not mean it is wrong because it is not from there, but it means it comes from outside.

e.g. The trinity idea, since the word doesn't even exist there. Not saying it makes 'trinity' invalid because of this, just saying you should realize it.

Jesus did not teach a trinity. You can say 'well....' and wave your hands a bit, but he simply did not teach it
You are certainly right that many labels ("Trinity" or "Calvinist" or "Young Earth" or "Justification by Faith Alone") used in theological discourse are systematic summary labels, not quotations from Scripture itself.

[dale]

If that were true, why would Jesus say not to call him good, that only God is good, almost explicitly stating that he is different from God?

and why would Jesus tell other people to worship God like he did? and why would he make no break from the hebraic theology which definitely didn't have a man as god?

there are way too many contradictions that must be explained before I consider your inference as well-informed and reflective of the history and culture and Jesus's teachings as a whole

the point stands, Jesus did not worship himself as a god

Is Jesus Good? Yes, or No?

Hebrews 1:6, all the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. To whom does worship belong?

[barnasha]

Is Jesus Good? Yes, or No?

Hebrews 1:6, all the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. To whom does worship belong?

the term used in the bible does not mean worship as a god.

[RBerman]

the term used in the bible does not mean worship as a god.
Sometimes it does. It's the same word [proskuneo] used in Revelation 22:8-9 when the angel rebukes John's worship, saying that only God should be worshiped.

[barnasha]

Sometimes it does. It's the same word [proskuneo] used in Revelation 22:8-9 when the angel rebukes John's worship, saying that only God should be worshiped.

....and sometimes Jesus is presented as exactly what he was... someone of the jewish faith, where god is defined as Abraham's god. Abraham being a man who came thousands of years before the man, Jesus, and whose god this man Jesus also took as his god, and taught others to do.....

[RBerman]

....and sometimes Jesus is presented as exactly what he was... someone of the jewish faith, where god is defined as Abraham's god. Abraham being a man who came thousands of years before the man, Jesus, and whose god this man Jesus also took as his god, and taught others to do.....
Yep. "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is a man who obeyed God" are both true. It does boggle the mind!

[barnasha]

Yep. "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is a man who obeyed God" are both true. It does boggle the mind!

IF your understanding boggles the mind, don't you feel you have more work to do?

[RBerman]

IF your understanding boggles the mind, don't you feel you have more work to do?
What work would an ant do to understand a galaxy?

[barley]

What work would an ant do to understand a galaxy?

It is God's will that we learn and understand clearly and concisely. See I Timothy 2:4. It is not only possible but it is God's passionate desire that we do so. It is easy to understand that Jesus Christ is the son of God, because that is what scripture teaches.

Since the scriptures do not teach that Jesus is God, that is not easy to understand. Truth is simple. Jesus Christ is the son of God. That is simple.

Three is one, one is three impossible to understand, it is a fairy tale. It is entirely non scriptural.

[apostoli]

Three is one, one is three impossible to understand, it is a fairy tale. It is entirely non scriptural.Were Adam and Eve to become one flesh? Genesis 2:24 says so...Jesus says so (Mt 19-56 cp. Mk 10:8; Eph 5:31). Contrary to your speculation the concept is entirely scriptural of two or more being one (cp. Jn 17:23)

Have a read of Ephesians 5:30-32 to get an inkling of what A.Paul calls "a great mystery".

[beanfarmer]

I've pored over it for a long time looking.

Give me a good example?

Barnasha, I have given you many examples in other threads but you have ignored most and given the standard Islamic response which ignores the evidence. Like when you said monogenes means unique dispite the definition or etymology or usage.

And the many places in the New Testament like John 3 where the most reasonable explaination is the theological construct of the trinity.

"13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."

Here we see the son of man decended from heaven. That means he existed before he was born, most likely. Something no human can claim at least in the Bible and that is what we are talking about not Islamic philosophy which has as little to do with the Bible as reincarnation has to do with the Qu'ran.

" 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Here we have the word monogenes translated only son. Monogenes means
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
In addition it is said that believing in him will save you. You believe in God not a prophet to get saved. Remember it says he not what he taught.

" 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

Here it is said that anyone who doesn't believe in the only son of God is condemmed. Let's sum up.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you.

Sounds like God to me.

[barnasha]

Barnasha, I have given you many examples in other threads but you have ignored most and given the standard Islamic response which ignores the evidence.


What does "Islamic response" mean?

If Muslims tend to agree with my points, does that make them invalid?

If you are reading my responses through the lens of "Islam" then its no wonder there is a communication problem...



And the many places in the New Testament like John 3 where the most reasonable explaination is the theological construct of the trinity.


I don't need more examples of people finding validation of post-biblical concepts in the bible. I am well aware that the arguments for the trinity doctrine are based on scriptural "evidence" that their doctrine is valid.

I am unwilling to make up or buy into beliefs which require maintenance to validate. I am more interested in the truth. If the trinity means something to you, so be it.

I possess the ability to consider many trinities, and none stray me from the path. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, nothing about trinities. So I try my best to stick to his teachings - I am willing to accept the consequences for doing so.

[infide]

Would someone please explain the Holy Trinity for me.

The Holy Trinity is a pragmatic, compromise doctrine which was invented to explain, doctrinally, how Jesus could be God.

The Jesus of history never claimed to be God except in a limited power-sharing sense, a sense in which all humans can be God.

The Holy Spirit was simply another of the many names for God.

In it's "orthodox" formulation the Trinity is formulated as a divine paradox - 1 God substance that had three co-existing personalities. Each personality could be called God, but not to the exclusion of the other two personalities. One formulation called Social Trinitarianism taught (more logically) that only the collection of all three personalities truly instantiated the divine nature (as a whole), but that each person could still be called God in the sense of being a part of this divine being.

[profitofgloom]

The Jesus of history never claimed to be God . . .

.

Yes, He did.

[barnasha]

Yes, He did.

Only if you interpret what he said figuratively with a lot of extra reasoning... unlike other things he said which explicitly go against that interpretation.

"Yes, he did say he was God. Just read all the Church's arguments for proof!"

[infide]

Yes, He did.

I said the Jesus of history. That's in so far as we can deduce anyhow. The divinity of Jesus clearly and obviously grew and became embellished. Compare the earliest Christian sources in Pauls letters and the Gospel called Mark versus the Gospel John, and there can be no question. Jesus the God came to be so over time.

Peace,
JD

[OneSizeFit]

Paul demonstrates some pretty top heavy Christology.

Still I think the original meaning is more or less over everyone's heads 2000 years after the fact.

[barnasha]

Paul (mostly) explains things very clearly, unfortunately, most people read Paul through the lens they were handed during indoctrination.

The flowery language of Paul that has been "doctrinized" is way more important to most than the actual teachings Paul gave.

[beanfarmer]

I said the Jesus of history. That's in so far as we can deduce anyhow. The divinity of Jesus clearly and obviously grew and became embellished. Compare the earliest Christian sources in Pauls letters and the Gospel called Mark versus the Gospel John, and there can be no question. Jesus the God came to be so over time.

Peace,
JD

JD, you are overlookng parts of the New Testament like John 3 where the most reasonable explaination is the theological construct of the trinity.

"13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."

Here we see the son of man decended from heaven. That means he existed before he was born, most likely. Something no human can claim at least in the Bible and that is what we are talking about not Islamic philosophy which has as little to do with the Bible as reincarnation has to do with the Qu'ran.

" 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Here we have the word monogenes translated only son. Monogenes means
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
In addition it is said that believing in him will save you. You believe in God not a prophet to get saved. Remember it says he not what he taught.

" 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

Here it is said that anyone who doesn't believe in the only son of God is condemmed. Let's sum up.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you.

Sounds like God to me. I have more if you want them if that is not enough to convince you that the writers of the Gospels thought Jesus said he was divine and you are also ignoring 1st century archaeology that proves early christians thought Jesus was God. Like .....
From http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/capernaum.html

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. …One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus.
peace
dfattig

[barnasha]

JD, you are overlookng parts of the New Testament like John 3 where the most reasonable explaination is the theological construct of the trinity.

"13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."

Here we see the son of man decended from heaven. That means he existed before he was born, most likely. Something no human can claim at least in the Bible and that is what we are talking about not Islamic philosophy which has as little to do with the Bible as reincarnation has to do with the Qu'ran.

" 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Here we have the word monogenes translated only son. Monogenes means
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
In addition it is said that believing in him will save you. You believe in God not a prophet to get saved. Remember it says he not what he taught.

" 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

Here it is said that anyone who doesn't believe in the only son of God is condemmed. Let's sum up.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you.

Sounds like God to me. I have more if you want them if that is not enough to convince you that the writers of the Gospels thought Jesus said he was divine and you are also ignoring 1st century archaeology that proves early christians thought Jesus was God. Like .....
From http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/capernaum.html

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. …One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus.
peace
dfattig

I guess it's too obvious to be taken seriously to point out that the trinity does not appear in the text?

[infide]

JD, you are overlookng parts of the New Testament like John 3 where the most reasonable explaination is the theological construct of the trinity.

"13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."

Here we see the son of man decended from heaven. That means he existed before he was born, most likely. Something no human can claim at least in the Bible and that is what we are talking about not Islamic philosophy which has as little to do with the Bible as reincarnation has to do with the Qu'ran.

" 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Here we have the word monogenes translated only son. Monogenes means
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
In addition it is said that believing in him will save you. You believe in God not a prophet to get saved. Remember it says he not what he taught.

" 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

Here it is said that anyone who doesn't believe in the only son of God is condemmed. Let's sum up.
1. He decended from heaven which means he was alive before he was born.
2. He is the only son of God.
3. Belief in him will save you in eternal life and disbelief will condemn you.

Sounds like God to me. I have more if you want them if that is not enough to convince you that the writers of the Gospels thought Jesus said he was divine and you are also ignoring 1st century archaeology that proves early christians thought Jesus was God. Like .....
From http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/capernaum.html

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. …One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus.
peace
dfattig

Hey dfattig -

I am not ignoring texts like that but highly suspicious of their origin. First of all, it is a big stretch to say that this text teaches the Trinity as formulated at Nicea. But even if it did, the origins of such late texts are spurious in intent (the purpose of these types of texts is not to report theological or historical truths, but to proselytize the established religion and are also so far removed from the events they purport to describe as to make it much more likely to be reporting on some circulating religious ideas, then eyewitness testimony.

Peace,
JD

[beanfarmer]

Hey dfattig -

I am not ignoring texts like that but highly suspicious of their origin. First of all, it is a big stretch to say that this text teaches the Trinity as formulated at Nicea. But even if it did, the origins of such late texts are spurious in intent (the purpose of these types of texts is not to report theological or historical truths, but to proselytize the established religion and are also so far removed from the events they purport to describe as to make it much more likely to be reporting on some circulating religious ideas, then eyewitness testimony.

Peace,
JD

what texts are you not supicious of? Perhaps we can work with them? Did you know John is the earliest book we have fragments of the john rylands is dated to about 125 AD. "The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE." It could be the very Gospel John wrote.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

[barnasha]

what texts are you not supicious of? Perhaps we can work with them? Did you know John is the earliest book we have fragments of the john rylands is dated to about 125 AD. "The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE." It could be the very Gospel John wrote.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Curious, what makes you think John wrote the gospel of John?

[beanfarmer]

Curious, what makes you think John wrote the gospel of John?

if you are asking me if I can prove John wrote it, I can not. It also can not be proven that aristotle wrote his stuff or that josephus wrote his works. You can not prove any 2000 year old document was written by. So you make an educated guess. We have thousands of manuscripts dated before 300ad that agree with john that Jesus was divine and died for the sins of man and few that dissagree. And we have archaeology to back up that early christians believed he was God. And very little to refute it.

From http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/capernaum.html

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. …One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters. In another graffito St. Peter is called the helper of Rome.

[barnasha]

if you are asking me if I can prove John wrote it, I can not.

no, I'm not asking that...


It also can not be proven that aristotle wrote his stuff or that josephus wrote his works. You can not prove any 2000 year old document was written by. So you make an educated guess. We have thousands of manuscripts dated before 300ad that agree with john that Jesus was divine and died for the sins of man and few that dissagree. And we have archaeology to back up that early christians believed he was God. And very little to refute it.

From http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/capernaum.html

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. …One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters. In another graffito St. Peter is called the helper of Rome.

Ok, but what does this have to do with the authorship of the Gospel of John?

[profitofgloom]

Ok, but what does this have to do with the authorship of the Gospel of John?

Somehow, I feel that even if someone showed you an original manuscript of the Gospel of St. John, autographed by the author, you would still doubt its authorship.

Am I right?

As for me, I believe in the bible and the Trinity and all other things traditional to Christianity for one simple reason. I choose to.
Its called free-will and its God-given.

My reason tells me that they are no more doubtful than anything else in life (including my own existence, or whether I'm actually responding to this thread or having a hallucination)--and I choose to listen to my reason.
My conscience tells me to believe them--and I choose to listen to my conscience.

I cannot speak to anything beyond my own perceptions -- both the internal and external ones.

I can only witness to my beliefs.

Witnessing is not so much a debate as an invitation.


Taste and see that the LORD is good;
blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

--Ps 34:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+34:8&version=NIV)

[barnasha]

Somehow, I feel that even if someone showed you an original manuscript of the Gospel of St. John, autographed by the author, you would still doubt its authorship.

Am I right?


It would be some kind of evidence of who the author might have been. Right now, we have none.

Doesn't mean the text is "inauthentic", it means we don't know where it came from.



As for me, I believe in the bible and the Trinity and all other things traditional to Christianity for one simple reason. I choose to.
Its called free-will and its God-given.


that's fine, but i don't "believe" in things that exist, to me there are no logical propositions that need to be made, they exist and that is that. I am not disputing your right to form beliefs.




My reason tells me that they are no more doubtful than anything else in life (including my own existence, or whether I'm actually responding to this thread or having a hallucination)--and I choose to listen to my reason.
My conscience tells me to believe them--and I choose to listen to my conscience.

I cannot speak to anything beyond my own perceptions -- both the internal and external ones.

I can only witness to my beliefs.

Witnessing is not so much a debate as an invitation.
--Ps 34:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+34:8&version=NIV)

My approach is to read, think about, and learn from the material - not make doctrinal presuppositions about it.

[beanfarmer]

My approach is to read, think about, and learn from the material - not make doctrinal presuppositions about it.

I agree with your statement as long as you discard anything that doesn't fit your theory like john 3 because that makes Jesus divine and you don't think he is. While taking bits and pieces here and there that agree with your theory and discarding archaeology like the 1st century church which proved early christians thought Jesus was God, contrary to your theory that the trinity came much later. Profitofgloom seems to use all of the evidence at his disposal.

[barnasha]

I agree with your statement as long as you discard anything that doesn't fit your theory like john 3 because that makes Jesus divine and you don't think he is. While taking bits and pieces here and there that agree with your theory and discarding archaeology like the 1st century church which proved early christians thought Jesus was God, contrary to your theory that the trinity came much later. Profitofgloom seems to use all of the evidence at his disposal.

If you don't take "bits and pieces" then you will agree that Isaiah 45 says you and I are divine, too... in a bit more explicit terms than Jesus!

Nobody disputes "early Christians" thought Jesus "was God" - it's just simply not something that was believed by the apostles of Jesus - the only people who argue that are the Christians who are obviously biased towards their own faith. Don't be defensive about it, you have a right to see what you want, just don't try to push it on others like it is the only interpretation of history.

[beanfarmer]

If you don't take "bits and pieces" then you will agree that Isaiah 45 says you and I are divine, too... in a bit more explicit terms than Jesus!


I am guessing it is verse 14 you are referring to so let's look at it in context. Ch 44 is about israel as well as 45. 14Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

It doesn't say all of the people of israel are Gods it clearly says God is in them it goes on to say there is no God but that in israel and at that time there was not. Verse 1 is talking about God's appointment of cyrus to free the future israel. Verse 17 "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." Here we see israel being saved again. So it is about israel and God in not that all of israel is God.

[barnasha]

I am guessing it is verse 14 you are referring to so let's look at it in context. Ch 44 is about israel as well as 45. 14Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

It doesn't say all of the people of israel are Gods it clearly says God is in them it goes on to say there is no God but that in israel and at that time there was not. Verse 1 is talking about God's appointment of cyrus to free the future israel. Verse 17 "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." Here we see israel being saved again. So it is about israel and God in not that all of israel is God.

my mistake, i meant Psalm 82:6.

[beanfarmer]

my mistake, i meant Psalm 82:6.

Let's look at the whole psalm.
1 ¶ «A Psalm of Asaph.» God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Polytheism in the Bible? That should have been your first clue that It was not talking about real gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

What the psalm is really about if you had taken the time to read all of it.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 ¶ I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

While Elohim can be used to refer to YHWH, as it is in this psalm, its primiary meaning is ruler or judge.

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

Do gods die? Only pagon gods, fake gods like tiamut from whom marduke made the earth, in the bablyonian creation story.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Here we see a return to the theam of the first verse in a hebrew poetic device chiasmus which is often used in the Psalms indicating the real meaning of elohim in this passage is ruler or judge.

[barnasha]

beside the point, it says we are all sons of God

"you are children of the most High.".

[OneSizeFit]

beside the point, it says we are all sons of God

"you are children of the most High.".


I think Jesus was using in reference to the Jews being sons of god, not all of mankind. This would also tie in Gentiles being grafted into israelite stewardship through Jesus. By nature the gentile is a beast, a son of perdition, through grace he his made a son of god through adoption via Jesus.

Anyway, It's odd because that is actually a poor exegesis of psalm 82, which couldn't be more obvious in describing the idea of a divine council where the gods of the nations met under the most high, El. This was a common idea in the near east. By the time Daniel was written, these subordinate gods became the angels of the nations instead.

[barnasha]

I think Jesus was using in reference to the Jews being sons of god, not all of mankind.

Why? (not that this would matter to the discussion at hand)

[OneSizeFit]

Why? (not that this would matter to the discussion at hand)

For the same reasons you've mentioned in the past, it was a term used frequently in the OT tom describe the Israelites,

[OneSizeFit]

For the same reasons you've mentioned in the past, it was a term used frequently in the OT to describe the Israelites,

Additionally, in Mark and Matthew Jesus rather plainly refers to the Israelites as the "children" he was sent too, and the gentile woman as a dog.

[beanfarmer]

but only Jesus's sonship is referred to by monogenes and that as I have proven to you Barnasha, means single offspring, only begotten, single child. Or as my foster son, who studied greek both in undergraduate and graduate school put it ......

Monogenees and gennao are indeed related (as leaves on the same branchlet are related) because they are derived from the same root GEN, meaning "beget, become." Monogenees is made up of monos, meaning "only, alone," plus genos, meaning "family, race, nation, people, kind," or monos plus ginomai, meaning "become, be; happen, take place, arise; come into being, be born, etc." Whichever it is, both genos and ginomai are derived from GEN; and gennao, meaning "be father of; bear, give birth to" (in the passive it means "be born; lead to, cause"), is also derived from GEN.

On the root level, then, monogenees is monos + GEN and gennao is GEN alone. The prefix obviously makes a difference for the basic meaning of genos / ginomai. So while the root meanings of genos / ginomai and gennao are the same, because the same root GEN underlies these forms, the meanings of mono-genees (genos / ginomai) and gennao are not interchangeable. (This may be because the idea of root forms comes from inferring morphemes that do not exist on the basis of word forms that do exist in order to explain the evolution of the existing word forms. Now if you're looking for a morphological history of monogenees and gennao, I’m afraid you'll have to wait even longer for that.)

The basic English meaning of the verb gennao is not "only begotten." The basic meaning of the verb gennao is "be father of; bear, give birth to" (pass. "be born; lead to, cause"). And the basic meaning of the adjective monogenees is "only, unique, only-begotten" (possibly "one of a kind"). But the contexts in which monogenees and gennao are found will have the final word on their specific meaning(s).

In the particular contexts of John 3:16 and Heb 1:5, the meanings of monogenees and gennao are very close (as close at least as an adjective can be to a verb, which is very close indeed if we consider the function of the Greek participle and the verbal idea underlying the adjective monogenees) because both John and the author of Hebrews are emphasizing the unique relationship Jesus has with God the Father. John states in John 3:16 that God's love for the world is such that He gave the only begotten Son (ton whyon ton monogenee). John 3:18 clarifies the point that “the only begotten Son” is also “the only Son of God” (tou monogenous whyou tou theou). And the author of Hebrews states concerning Jesus as the Davidic Messiah that God said, "You are my Son (whyos mou ei su); today I have fathered / begotten you (ego seemeron gegenneeka se)" (Ps 2:7).

In addition to the quotations themselves, the rhetorical question introducing the series of quotations of Heb 1:5-13 as well as the linking phrases connecting the quotations also emphasize Jesus’ superiority to the angels and thus His unique relationship to God the Father:

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Ps 2:7’? Or again, ‘2 Sam 7:14’? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Deut 32:43.’ Of the angels He says, ‘Ps 104:4.’ But of the Son He says ‘Ps 45:6,7.’ And, ‘Ps 102:25-27.’ And to which of the angels has he ever said, ‘Ps 110:1’?”

Since the context in both cases concerns the vastly unique relationship Jesus enjoys with God, therefore, the noun monogenees and the verb gennao function almost synonymously expounding this point in John 3:16 and Heb 1:5.

The difference of the word forms may be merely owing to the difference of the speaker and the point of view in each case. In John 3:16, Jesus refers to the Son in the 3rd person; while in Heb 1:5 God is speaking and refers to the Son in the 2nd person.

It might also be pointed out that of course the Hebrew’s author is quoting Ps 2:7 and follows the LXX in his retention of gegenneeka (from gennao). The Greek phrase “ego seemeron gegenneeka se” is used to translate the Hebrew phrase “ani hayom yelidtikha” (“I myself this day have begotten you”). Thus gennao is used to translate the Hebrew yld as was frequently the case throughout the LXX.

(At the risk of sounding like a douche:) While it is at the root level that the trees of form and meaning are the same, as we move up to the word leaves themselves we have to depend more and more on the context of the passage where each word occurs in order to determine its meaning for that context. Context is king and words are his servants, and he and his servants lord it over the trees of form and meaning (to mix metaphors and sound like a complete douche bag). On the other hand, we also gather the general meanings of words from the majority way they are used in the contexts in which they occur (even douche-ier). So in a way, we arrive at a basic translation on the basis of the general meanings of words, which are based on the majority way in which they are used in their various contexts, and then we finely tune the meaning for each word on the basis of individual contexts. Context gives us meaning; meaning gives us context; context gives us meaning. Is it going too far to say the egg or the chicken came first?

[barnasha]

but only Jesus's sonship is referred to by monogenes and that as I have proven to you Barnasha, means single offspring, only begotten, single child. Or as my foster son, who studied greek both in undergraduate and graduate school put it ......

that's not what the greek scholars say...

anyway, just because the bible doesn't say you are special, do you think that also means you are not special? what kind of proof is that? and just what are you trying to prove? if you really believe in the 'trinity' doctrine, believe in it, and don't be bothered by people like me who point out the problems with it. if its true, and you understand it to its core you have nothing to worry about.

since i have no partiality to any specific interpretation of the stuff, i have no party or worldly 'position' i am completely free, and it is a great feeling. because of this i feel more open to benefit from the teachings....

[beanfarmer]

do you accept they are not really gods? But only Jesus is called monogenes which I proved means only child and you have not refuted in other threads. Do I really have to repeat my proof in every thread where this comes up or do you admit Jesus is God's only begotten?

[beanfarmer]

I'm curious, what do your greek scholars have to say. I have provided my greek scholar where is yours if you really have one?

[barnasha]

I don't personally have any Greek scholars, but it is quite easy to find materials related to this topic.


cf:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2008/03/only-begotten-o.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/monogenes.html#tdnt

http://www.google.com/search?q=b-greek+%22only+begotten
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-December/027292.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-March/037890.html

[beanfarmer]

I don't personally have any Greek scholars, but it is quite easy to find materials related to this topic.

From one of your sites which you appairently did not read "In usage, with few exceptions it refers to an only son or daughter. "

I picked a url at random. I am guessing you did not read any of them. If you know of a site that agrees with you I would be happy to go there but don't waste my time sending me to sites that agree with me.

[barnasha]

where did you see that?

[beanfarmer]

I think it was the 2nd one. Did any agree with you or did you read any of them?

[beanfarmer]

Do you have any reason or proof that monogenes doesn't mean only offspring because I have not seen any.

[barnasha]

Didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles.

can you refer us to a greek-english dictionary which says that monogenes means anything to do with offspring?

[Siggy Ivarsson]

Hi Papajo. Your question is really interesting because the classic trinity is the father , the son and the holly Ghost. Now we know that the father has a name and that the son has a name but the spirit has no name because he it is not a person but rather an agency. like electricity or wind. The real trinity is actually the father , the son and if you can believe this the body of Christ which is us the true believer if you can believe it if you cannot believe it you are not a believer. No problem just stop wasting your time and change occupations. We shall all be reconcilled to the lord in the end.

[beanfarmer]

What greek english dictionary? All my sources and some if not all of yours say it means only offspring. You have not produced any source that says other wize, I will respond to it when you post it but until then I consider my point overwelmingly proven.

[apostoli]

I don't personally have any Greek scholars, but it is quite easy to find materials related to this topic.
From one of your sites which you appairently did not read "In usage, with few exceptions it refers to an only son or daughter. "

I picked a url at random. I am guessing you did not read any of them. If you know of a site that agrees with you I would be happy to go there but don't waste my time sending me to sites that agree with me.where did you see that?
I think it was the 2nd one. Did any agree with you or did you read any of them?

Do you have any reason or proof that monogenes doesn't mean only offspring because I have not seen any.Didn't see that mentioned in any of the articles.I suspect you are just playing with beanfarmer or you didn't actually read any of the links you provided.

The very first link makes two very important points...

1. The Greek word μονογενής is an adjective compounded of μονος "only" and γενος "species, race, family, offspring, kind." In usage, with few exceptions it refers to an only son or daughter. When used in reference to a son, it cannot mean "one of a kind," because the parent is also of the same kind. The meaning is, the son is the only offspring of the parent...

2. In four of the five places the word is used as an adjective modifying "Son," and in one of these (1:18) the Son is said to be "in the bosom of the Father." In the one place where it occurs as a substantive (1:14), it is followed by the prepositional phrase "from the Father," which implies sonship. And so we see that in every occurrence John is using the word as a biological metaphor, in which Christ is the "Only Begotten Son" of the Father...The biological metaphor, in which the Son (and only the Son) shares the genus of the Father, conveys the idea that Jesus Christ is a true genetic Son, having the same divine nature or essence as the Father. The meaning of the word μονογενὴς here is not just "only" or "one and only," as in the RSV, NIV, and ESV translations. John is not saying that the Son is "one of a kind." He is saying that Christ is the second of a kind, uniquely sharing the genus of the Father because he is the only begotten Son of the Father, as in the KJV, ERV, and NASB.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html


can you refer us to a greek-english dictionary which says that monogenes means anything to do with offspring?Is the non-Trinitarian Thayer acceptable to you?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV

Peace

[barnasha]

What greek english dictionary? All my sources and some if not all of yours say it means only offspring. You have not produced any source that says other wize, I will respond to it when you post it but until then I consider my point overwelmingly proven.

it does not mean only offspring. it means unique. which, if you add the word 'offspring', means what you say, but that meaning is not in the greek term

[beanfarmer]

where is your proof barnasha? You can not admit when you are wrong. You stick to what Muslims have told you to believe no matter what proof you are given.

[apostoli]

it does not mean only offspring. it means unique. which, if you add the word 'offspring', means what you say, but that meaning is not in the greek termThayer's Lexicon contradicts you!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV

View the uses in scripture.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Strongs=G3439&Criteria=only%2A&t=KJV

[barnasha]

Thayer's Lexicon contradicts you!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV

View the uses in scripture.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Strongs=G3439&Criteria=only%2A&t=KJV

Yes, but he was a christian bible scholar, how can we know this was the meaning *before* christian doctrine changed it to mean that?

It's a moot point really there are other places especially in the Johannine gospel where you could "make the case" for the mainstream Christian dogma.

As well as plenty other places which are unexplained and at odds with it.

Try looking for this, do any non-religious greek dictionaries have this meaning?

[apostoli]

Yes, but he was a christian bible scholarMore particularly a Greek grammarian and lexicographer, and interestingly a unitarian.


how can we know this was the meaning *before* christian doctrine changed it to mean that?Easy! See how the Jews translated the Hebrew for only child (yachiyd) into the Greek in the LXX (monogenēs) eg: Judges 11:34. Guess what! It is the same word used of Jesus in the NT.

If you want to check but haven't a copy of the LXX, you can download it from here ('http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/text.htm').


It's a moot point really there are other places especially in the Johannine gospel where you could "make the case" for the mainstream Christian dogma.How true. John's Gospel's emphasis is that we recognise Jesus as the Son of God, not a son of God. See Jn 20:31 or more particularly Jn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


As well as plenty other places which are unexplained and at odds with it.Such as?


Try looking for this, do any non-religious greek dictionaries have this meaning?As most modern lexicographers belong to some Christian denomination, even the Classicists, I'm sure you'll find some objection, so I'll do better and point you directly to the classical writers themselves...

Josephus used the term to refer to an only-child at least two times (Antiquities 2:181, 263).

From the Pseudepigrapha we also have Psalm of Solomon 18:4 ('http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/intest/PsSolTex.htm') "Thy chastisement is upon us as (upon) a first-born {prototokos}, only-begotten {monogenes}.

Then there are many references in the pagan classics where monogenes is used to refer to an only child and also to something that is the only of its kind. To name a few writers: Apollonius of Rhodes, Hesiod, Herodotus & Plato. Plato uses the word a fair amount. I'll give two examples:

Plato, Critias 113d ('http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekTexts&getid=0&query=Pl. Criti. 113d') "Evenor with his wife Leucippe; and they had for offspring an only-begotten {monogenes} daughter, Cleito." {or only legitmate daughter ie: only natural offspring of Evenor & Leucippe)

Plato, Timaeus 31b ('http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/plato-timaeus/genesis.asp?pg=4')
"Are we right in saying that there is one world, or that they are many and infinite? There must be one only, if the created copy is to accord with the original. For that which includes all other intelligible creatures cannot have a second or companion; in that case there would be need of another living being which would include both, and of which they would be parts, and the likeness would be more truly said to resemble not them, but that other which included them. In order then that the world might be solitary, like the perfect animal, the creator made not two worlds or an infinite number of them; but there is and ever will be one only-begotten {monogenes} and created heaven."

nb: The extreme Arian, Eunomius, once argued that begot doesn't mean begot as we beget. Albeit, he acknowledged the son as the only one generated (gennetheis para monou) by he who is unbegotten before all things created by the Son were made...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eunomius_apology01.htm

Peace

[barnasha]

apostoli,

you have some good points; still, technically, the meaning of 'begotten' is not there (except perhaps contextually), as it came from a translation of latin

nobody disputes, i think, the fact that 'monogenes' implies uniqueness

[apostoli]

Hi barnasha,


you have some good points; still, technically, the meaning of 'begotten' is not there (except perhaps contextually), as it came from a translation of latinImu, in Old Latin, monogenes was often rendered unicus=only, sole; singular, unparalled, unique. Though there was precedent, particularly from the time of Jerome onwards (the Vulgate), every case where monogenus is applied to Christ (and the reference to Isaac), the rendering is unigenitus. Imu, contextually that is appropriate to the phrase "τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ", the application of the article to υἱὸν (son) and μονογενῆ (filially unique; only begotten) indicates particularity (John 3:16) as does τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ (eg: John 3:18).

Dr. John V. Dahms notes: John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 teach that Christ is God’s monogenēs Son. That monogenēs implies that he was begotten is the understanding of Justin Martyr Apol. 1.23 (c. A.D. 150); Dial. Trypho 105 (c. 153). Theophilus of Antioch (115-181) Theophilus to Autolycus 2.10 seems to assue such an understanding. Tertullian (c. 197-c. 225) Against Praxeas vii evidently had such an understanding. And Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity 1.10; 6.39 (before 358) implies that the Latin Bibles with which his readers were familiar had unigenitus in John 1:14, 18. Moreover the fact that Isaac could be described as Abraham’s monogenēs son (Heb. 11:17), despite Ishmael, is not surprising. Philo had stated: “He [Abraham] had begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac” (de Abr. 194: cf. de Sac. 43) and had even spoken of Isaac as Abraham’s “only (monos) son” (de Abr. 168: cf. de Abr. 196; Quod Deus Imm. 4). (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32/4, Dec. 1989, p. 495.)

Imu, the big winge with Jerome et al is, when monogenes is viewed in isolation, etymologically it does not indicate begetal, but the counter argument considers the phrase "ho monogenes huios" and the argument that a son is not truely son unless he has the same genetic footprint (ousia and physis) as his father, and in common language this is understood to be provided through begettal (though this is understood metaphysically, so does not refer to physical begetal).

In Irenaeus, it is interesting that Valentinus is portrayed as using monogenes as a noun...

"Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.ii.html

"they tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.iii.html

From these examples of non-christian thought, it would seem that monogenes had a particular meaning in philosophy, which would imply uniquely generated (only begotten).


nobody disputes, i think, the fact that 'monogenes' implies uniquenessI've read that strictly speaking "only begotten" would more particularly be a translation of monogennetos rather than monogenes, the later more particularly designating the "the only member of a kin or kind'’, which would imply generation of some form (whether it be deemed begettal or creation).

Imu, monogenes needs to be translated as a phrase rather than singular words such as "only" or "unique" (if this was what A.John meant then he would have simply used monos, thus the fuller word must have had a particular fuller meaning to A.John). In the case of A.John's usage, imu, Jesus is the only member of the kind "filial son", or if we get really technical, the Son has the same genetic footprint as his Father (cp Heb 1:3), whereas, according to the NT, the rest of us are sons of God by adoption (Eph 1:5; Rom 8:15,23; Gal 4:5) thus we don't have the same "genetics" (I use the word loosly).

_____________

I'm sure you are aware that the translation "only begotten" is extremely detrimental to those that hold to the idea that the Son has eternally existed with the Spirit & the Father (as opposed to the teaching that the Son has existed in eternity with the Spirit & the Father ). Thus they use the phrase eternally begotten (in effect an emanation), instead of the orthodox phrase begotten in eternity. Ironically such take the Arian position that the Son is God of himself (wills himself to be God). These ideas and like, though considered heretical by the wider church (at least in some expressions) or at least deviate (in the more moderate expressions), gain popularity from time to time, especially in the teaching of the extreme religious right.

In contrast, the RCC, EOC, OOC and other denominations teaching (the orthodox teaching) is that the Son was generated by the Father in eternity (a one off event before the creation of the ages). Thus the Father is the first principle of all things, including the Son and the Spirit, and so is the originator of the Son, his source and cause, and while the Son is God in himself, it was only so by the will of the Father. The concept of begetal simply expresses the idea that in generation, the Son has true filial association with his Father, what God is the Son is (cp. John 1:1 NEB). It does not suggest a generation or division of matter (or hypostasis=concrete self reality), but the revelation of their participation in a common, metaphysical, ousia/physis, thus they are homoousia (cp. Jn 1:1, Heb 1:3, Jn 12:45; 14:9).

The Arian debates are most interesting in understanding the Orthodox position. Arius and others' argument hinged on the fact that the Son is begotten (generated), whereas the Father is unbegotten (ungenerated) thus by their logic only the Father can properly be called God, whereas the Son is God revealed (in effect a second God with distinction in both hypostasis and ousia/physis). Arius wrote in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia ('http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arian_letters.html') that "we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not." In contrast, the orthodox position is that the Son's theosis is by the original will of the Father, the Son persisting in that state.

A later Orthodox response (by Athanasius) to Arius' "there was when the Son was not", was that Arius et al were merely using a specious argument to deceive (pure sophism), for God was never without his wisdom and power (cp 1 Cor 1:24) and by definition there is no time in eternity. Neither side denied the begettal of the Son
________________

One fellow I came across did a statistical analysis of all words in Greek literature up to the 6th century CE that ended in "genes". He estimated there are120 such words. Of these, 30% are not listed in Liddell and Scott, but the lexicon's glosses of 55% contain such words as "born" and "produced." For example, neogenes is glossed as "newly produced," and theogenes, "born of God." A mere 11% involve meanings related to "kind" (e.g., homogenes means "of the same genus").

Consider Plato's use in Timaeus 31b "there is and ever will be one only-begotten (monogenes) and created heaven". It would seem tautologious to understand this as "one unique and created heaven".

Peace