Is The Trinity Christian Theology Or Pagan Philosophy?

[barryrob]

IS THE TRINITY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OR PAGAN PHILOSOPHY?

The following quote is from the Watchtower Magazine and is commenting on what Jehovah's Christian Witnesses believe and teach as to the trinity doctrine's origins:-



"Watchtower 1992 August 1st page 22 - Part 4-When and How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?


How It Developed


The Trinity doctrine began its slow development over a period of centuries. The Trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, gradually crept into church teachings. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says [page 52]:

“We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”




The above statement has been challenged and condemned as heretical by many who also claim to be Christians and members of Christendom's Churches, so it is well to ask do Jehovah's Witnesses have any support in taking this stand from Christendom's own theologians and secular historians?


WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF THE GOD THAT THE


CHURCHES OF CHRISTENDOM WORSHIP?

The following is an answer to the above question on the pagan Egyptian/Greek philosophical origin of the trinity concept or to quote 'Bakers Dictionary of Theology page 36:-


"The Alexandrian school with its Platonic emphasis was the popular school of it time. In its more moderate form it set the christological pattern for many centuries."



and how it, the "Platonic emphasis" or pagan Greek Traditions, were absorbed into and became 'Christian doctrine' as the "many centuries" extend down to our time, you will read how this became so-called orthodox understanding or the 'Creeds' on God's nature by the Churches and sects of Christendom; which is not the understanding to be found in true and uncontaminated Hebrew and Christian Theology as the following is an attempt to explain.



To answer the above question "What is the true nature of the God of Christendom's churches?" involves the study of THEOLOGY. This the term used for the study of God or the gods and the methods used in therein to attain to the enlightenment of the person(s) of the nature God or the gods (Christian view is seen at Ephesians 1:15-23). Theology is defined in The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology page 915 as "the science of things divine", thus all Christians are or should try to be theologians as they are pursuing this knowledge, so as to apply it in their daily lives as they try to reflect God's image and in following the example of his First Son (the "Logos") the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:1; 1 Peter 2:21). An interesting comment about this "science" is made by the late professor Werner Jaeger in his book 'The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers' page 4:-



"The word 'theology' is much older than the concept of natural theology and the Varronian trichotomy. But theology is also a specific creation of the Greek mind. This fact is not always rightly understood and deserves special emphasis, for it concerns not only the word but even more the thing which it expresses. Theology is a mental attitude which is characteristically Greek, and has something to do with the great importance which the Greek thinkers attribute to the logos, for the word theologia means the approach to God or the gods (theoi) by means of the logos."



Along a similar line, on the ancient Greek influence, but in this case one of a greater magnitude having more influence than any other, is the following quote made in the book entitled 'The Mystery Of Salvation' The Story Of God's Gift, A report by the Doctrine Commission of the General Synod of the Church of England on "The world-wide context of mission" in the relationship of "Christ and the world faiths" pp.148-419:-



"Mission is clearly an imperative everywhere, including Britain, but much can be learnt from the practice of mission in a multi-faith context elsewhere, both at the present time and in the twenty centuries of Christian history. All we can give are a few glimpses from that history.
As the Christian gospel encountered the gentile world questions inevitably arose about the relationship between the Christian faith and other religious traditions. In the writings of the Greek apologists, most notably Justin Martyr, there is a willingness to recognise the religious philosophy of Platonism in particular, as providing a preparation for the gospel. Just as the Jewish prophets pointed forward to Christ, so a preparation for the gospel can be traced in Greek philosophy. Just as the revelation of God to Moses at the burning bush was interpreted as the appearance of the divine Logos, so that the same was seen as present in the 'seeds' on the word in the truth witnessed to by pagan philosophers. Christ is therefore the fulfiller of other religious yearnings as he is of the Jewish prophets.
Not all Christian theologians were willing to follow this line. Others, most notably perhaps Tertullian, drew a sharp line between Greek philosophy and the Jewish/Christian revelation, asking 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' There were many who characterised pagan religion as 'demonic'. And even those like Justin who had a positive attitude towards pagan philosophy, tended to combine this with a clear condemnation of pagan worship."



In the above the Church of England synod admits its to the use of Greek philosophy in the formulation of it's doctrines and in the following quote which is taken from the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (pocket edition) copyright 1994 Geoffrey Chapmam-Libreia Editrice Vaticano page 59, It is worth bearing in mind that the Catholic Church establish the Trinity doctrine:-



"251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: 'substance', 'person' or 'hypostasis', relation' and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand'. (ftn, Paul VI CPG § 2.)"



In the above statement "with the help of certain philosophical origin" this can be non other than pagan Greek philosophy terminology, as will be shown latter that the early Church fathers used it and admitted it into the Catholic Church as show by the Church of England Synod in the previous but one quote. Also note the italics in the above quote it says this use of philosophy was "not" a submission " to human wisdom", this cannot be the case as Greek philosophy means 'love of wisdom', also it says "unprecedented", but if it was the use of Scripture then how can it be unprecedented and again as it -philosophy- is not from the Bible (the Bible is Theological) so it must be from a human source, so this is a blatant contradiction. We should remember that during the period in which the trinity doctrine was being formulated it was also a time of great syncratic religious activity e.g. Gnosticism was a mix of Egyptian, Hellenistic philosophy and Judaic and Christian theology and likewise the Phibionites and others, this kind of thinking wrongly flooded into the Christian congregation as Jehovah's Witnesses claim as the origin of the trinity is also noted by John Gwyn Griffiths in 'Triads and Trinity' page 223:-



"The influence of Greek terminology is apparent from time to time in Christian writings about the trinity, and since these writings were mostly in Greek up to the time of Augustine, it was inevitable that the Greek philosophical and religious traditions should be reflected. Its philosophical rigour in unquestioned and at its best it rivals Plato himself."



If the above comment is erroneous, why should Quintus Tertullian (160-220 C.E.) the Carthaginian theologian and so-called 'Church Father', ask the questions "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to de with the Church? what have heretics to do with Christians?" and then add "Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic and dialectic Christianity" (see A new Eusebius Edited by J. Stevens SPCK London p.178) it is because in his day he perceived that pagan Greek philosophy was being exploited and added to Biblical teachings, otherwise why ask the question? As philosophy has its roots in pagan theology it must not be amalgamated with Bible's teachings which is confirmed by a comment in the book 'Students History of Philosophy' by Arthur Kenyon Rogers, Ph.D. page 195-196 which reads as follows:-



" The spiritualization of the world in which Neo-Platonism results, and the absence of any adequate feeling for natural law, opened the way for an appeal to non-physical agencies . . . The world is a great hierarchy of souls - Gods, demons, men, - and mystical affinities and relationships between souls, which find expression in divination, astrology, and magical rites, take the place of sober investigation. . . . Historically, this last outcome of Greek thought gets an importance which it does not possess intrinsically, through the fact of its making itself the champion of Paganism, in the now losing struggle which this was carrying on with Christianity. The struggle was wholly unsuccessful. The future belonged to Christianity ; philosophy could hope to survive, not by antagonising it, and joining forces with its rival, but by accepting the new and vigorous contribution which it was making it the life of the world, and moulding this into its own form."



A further interesting comment can be found in the book 'Pentecostalism' A Theological Viewpoint by Donald L. Gelpi, S.J. [a Jesuit priest, who teaches philosophy at Loyola University, New Orleans. 1971] pages 108-109:-



"The Subordination theorise of Origen and later, those of Arius were prepared for speculatively by the orthodox Platonism of Clement of Alexandria. Interpreting the gospel of John in frankly philosophical categories, Clement assimilated the Father figuratively to the Platonic One, who is the transcendent source of the universe. Then, taking a hint from Johannine theology, he likened the Word of God the nous, or intelligence, of middle Platonic thought. While Clement himself was cautious in suggesting possible speculative parallels between divine revelation and Platonic metaphysics, his suggestive description of the Son as a Platonic hypostasis, or subsistent entity, paved the way for more dramatic theological developments that were soon to follow."



In the afore sited quotations we can see the idea of being enlightened about the ancient pagan Greek god(s) through the Philosophical or Metaphysical 'Logos' (Word, Reason, mind of god etc.); therefore in the above can be seen a definite influence of pagan Greek thinking on men of the past and today, as confirmed by the Synod of the Church of England, the Catholic Catechism and a Jesuit priest, in that many people are looking for God by studying theologies of one kind or another, and in some cases using God's written word whether Christian or not (supposed), and specifically through the 'Logos' (Jesus) in the Christian context. In a similar vain in the book 'Grammar of the Septuagint Greek' by F.C. Conybeare and St. George Stock page 162 they make this Comment on what the Greeks through when translating the Bible from Hebrew into Greek at Ex 3:14 - "'ho On: the difference of the gender between this expression and the Greek to on marks the difference between Hebrew and Greek philosophy in the conception of the Deity. To the one God was a person, to the other a principle."


Just a few thoughts to start of with!

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Hi Barryrob,

Rather than answering your post point by point, I think this is a good place to just post an article on what we Trinitarians really do believe and why we believe it. It is an article I wrote for my web site a few years ago.

------

Discovering the Trinity for Yourself



By John Sparks


(some of the research for this paper was gathered from the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY Web Site. Please visit them for many many articles on the Christian faith and defense of Christian Doctrines)

Introduction

The word Trinity was coined to describe the way that the Bible describes God. The Bible teaches in various places that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet, it also teaches that there is only ONE God, and that Jesus is not the Father, or Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus, and so on. So since the Bible is infallible and is the true word of God, we must conclude that there are three persons who are all fully God, and yet there is only ONE God. So the there are three "who"s and one "what." This means that God is one in substance and essence, but three in persons. This concept is called the Trinity. The word doesn't appear in the Bible (neither does the word "Bible" for that matter), but the concept is clearly taught by scripture. We will discuss how this can be below.


Part 1 The history of the concept of the Trinity:

The trinity wasn't "invented" in the fourth century as many believe. It goes back to the very beginning of the church. It is also taught, though not explicitly, in the Bible (I will go into that later). We have many records from early church fathers, going back to the time of John (near 100 ad). I will be quoting some of these sources below, showing that they believed in the Trinity and that Jesus was actually God (note: When a Trinitarian talks about Jesus being God, he doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.)


Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Agn. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

========
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire.


Part 2 - Why do we believe there IS a Trinity?


Trinitarians believe that there are three persons in ONE God. Not three Gods. To believe that Jesus is divine and Son of God, but completely separate, would mean that there are TWO Gods. There is only ONE God, the old and new testament says this over and over.

If Jesus was just the Son of the Father (who is God), then he would have to either have been created by the Father (which we know he wasn't, since ALL things were created by and through him) or he would have to be a second God (since like begets like. A human begets a human, a God would beget a God). So Jesus would have to be another God, or he would have to be a creature, an angel, or cherubim. We know he is not, because he accepts worship, and only God is to be worshiped. And we know that there cannot be two Gods, because the LORD in the Old Testament categorically denies any God before, beside, or after Him. That leaves only ONE logical conclusion, Jesus is the same God that the Father is. But they are two persons. So we have two persons in ONE God. The Holy Spirit is also shown to be a person and God in the New Testament (especially in John chapter 14). This makes three persons in one God. It is hard to understand, but it is the only logical explanation of the various scriptures without going to three different Gods, or saying that the Bible contradicts itself.

Below are some verses that demonstrate this reasoning:

First we must establish that there is only ONE God and no other:

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

The LORD's servant is Jesus (read the passage in context). The LORD says that "I am he", stating that He and the Servant are the same! Also, note no God was formed before the LORD nor after.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Next, we show that Jesus is God

In the list below, you will see that there are many passages in the Bible that equate Jesus with the God of the old testament, known as Yahweh (YHWH), or LORD, or Jehovah. There are verses in the Bible that give YHWH certain titles and attributes, and other verses that give Jesus those same attributes and titles.

YHWH is Creator

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is "I AM" (ego eimi)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

See also Deut. 32.39

Jesus is "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

YHWH is Judge

Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)

Rom. 14:10 "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..."

2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

YHWH is King

Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath."

Isaiah 44:6-8 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

See also Psalm 47

Jesus is King

Matthew 2:2 "...Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Luke 23:3 So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

See also John 19:21

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

YHWH is Shepherd

Psalm 23:1 Psalm 23 A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.

Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Jesus is Shepherd

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

YHWH is the Rock

Deut. 32:4 "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."

See also 2 Sam. 22:32 and Isaiah 17:10.

Jesus is the Rock

1 Cor. 10:4 "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

See also 1 Peter 2:6-8.

YHWH is the Light

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"

Isaiah 60:20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.

1 John 1:5 "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Jesus is the Light

John 8:12 "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Luke 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

See also John 1:7-9

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the NIV Bible.

Some additional comparisons between the LORD and Jesus:

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

Immanuel means "God is with us." Jesus means "the LORD saves." Who does it say will do the saving in verse 21? Jesus.

Continued at: http://www.saveme.org/articles/trinity.htm
(edited to go to web link to avoid back-to-back posts.)

[barryrob]

In summary we see:




Only one God
Only one Savior.
Only one Messiah.
Only one Shepherd.
Only one Creator.
Only one Judge.
Only God should be worshipped.
The LORD is Savior.
Jesus is Savior.

The LORD is Messiah.
Jesus is Messiah.

The Lord is the Shepherd.
Jesus is the Shepherd.

The LORD is Creator.
Jesus is Creator.

The LORD is Judge
Jesus is Judge.

The LORD is worshiped
Jesus is worshiped.

The LORD is the Father.
Jesus is NOT the Father, but Jesus does claim Equality with the Father.

Conclusion:

We see that the LORD God is Jesus, but He is also the Father, but Jesus is NOT the Father (he prays to him). So Jesus and the Father are not the same person. But they are both LORD. If the Father is the LORD, and Jesus is the LORD, and yet they are not the same person, (we will get to the Holy Spirit next), then somehow they are two persons in ONE GOD (the LORD). For there cannot be more than ONE God.

We also believe that the Holy Spirit is GOD and is a person (see above). So now we have three persons all who are God, and yet we know there is only one God. This is the logical conclusion based on the scriptures. This conclusion is called the Trinity. The name Trinity was coined around 300 AD, but as we see, the proof **is** in the scriptures and was always there. If you read the scriptures above (and even more in the Bible) and try to reconcile the claims of the LORD and Jesus, knowing the scripture is never wrong or contradicts itself, you can come to no other conclusion.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And all three are equal. Three persons in ONE GOD. Not three separate beings. ONE BEING: GOD

The Trinity is the ONLY way we have to express what we know to be true about God from reading the Bible.

You might say "But I don’t understand it." You don’t have to understand HOW it can be, you can see by the scriptures that it IS that way. You might not understand how electricity works, but you can see that it does work, and you can use it without understanding it. God is infinite, and man is finite. The very fact that we can't understand it fully is evidence of it's truth. Many cults try to tear down the concept of the Trinity, claiming that it is a contradiction and can't be understood. But as we have shown, it IS taught in the Bible, and we believe the Bible to be true. If finite man could understand completely the nature of God, then God would be less than man. We will spend eternity learning about God, and worshiping and loving Him. Surely we can't understand all that now in an instant.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." -- 1 Corinthians 13:12



Copyright by John Sparks - SaveMe.org - All rights reserved. Portions and quotes gathered from www.carm.org (http://www.carm.org/) and are copyright by them and used with permission.


So are you saying that all the titles that YHWH has can be applied to Jesus Christ?

Barryrob

[Sparko]

So are you saying that all the titles that YHWH has can be applied to Jesus Christ?

Barryrob
Well, those titles I mentioned in the article speak for themselves. Read it carefully.

[barryrob]

Well, those titles I mentioned in the article speak for themselves. Read it carefully.
I have read it, but it does not mention all the titles mentioned in the Bible so do they apply to both persons?

Barryrob

[Sparko]

YHWH is the name of the triune God. Think of it as the "family" name. It can apply to all or any of the three persons in the Godhead, and so, many titles that apply to YHWH can apply to all three persons of the Godhead, but each person of the Godhead can have also have a specific name or title attached only to them, such as Jesus being the name of the Son, or "Son of God" being a title attached to Jesus.

[barryrob]

YHWH is the name of the triune God. Think of it as the "family" name. It can apply to all or any of the three persons in the Godhead, and so, many titles that apply to YHWH can apply to all three persons of the Godhead, but each person of the Godhead can have also have a specific name or title attached only to them, such as Jesus being the name of the Son, or "Son of God" being a title attached to Jesus.
An interesting philosophy! Is it Biblical?

1. "I am Jehovah (Heb. vuvh, YHWH). That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory,

2. God's Son was instructed to be called "Jesus" by God’s angel at Matt 1:21. He like God as you say have titles but they are not Personal Names.

3. According the what I have read in the Bible the name of the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit or power of God or the like. I find no personal name for it?

Just a point or two. I can see your personal Philosophy but I do not see Biblical Theology.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

An interesting philosophy! Is it Biblical?
Yes. Read my article. It is the logical conclusion and has been accepted as biblical teaching from the very earliest church fathers and the writers of the NT themselves.

[barryrob]

Yes. Read my article. It is the logical conclusion and has been accepted as biblical teaching from the very earliest church fathers and the writers of the NT themselves.TRUE BUT WHY?
Departure from monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and the birth of Trinitarinsm
The theological view of the Israelites on the trinity dogma, which would include Jesus, John and Paul etc., is expressed well by Arnold Toynbee in his book 'A study of History' page 419, note the bold print:-

"... Christianity went the furthest in Hellenizing itself. Besides presenting itself visually in the established form of Hellenic art, Christianity, Like its forerunner Stoicisim expressed itself intellectually in term of Hellenic* philosophy. More than that, its crucial departure from its parent religion, Judaism - namely, the belief that Jesus was the son of God and was, in fact, one of the three persons in a triune godhead - was, from the standpoint of Jewish monotheism, a shocking concession to two Hellenic religious aberrations: man-worship and polytheism."
*Greek

Church’fathers’:-
"LOGOS (Greek “word”) a term in Greek, Hebrew, and Christian philosophy and theology. It was used by Greek philosophers as the embodiment of “reason” in the universe. Under Greek influence the Jews came to conceive of “wisdom” as an aspect of God’s activity. The Jewish philosopher Philo (1st century AD) attempted to reconcile Platonic, Stoic, and Hebrew philosophy by identifying the logos with the Jewish idea of “wisdom”. Several of the New Testament writers took over Philo’s conception of the logos, which they identified with Christ and hence with the second person of the Trinity."-Webster's Concise Interactive Encyclopaedia.

"Plato's influence throughout the history of philosophy has been monumental. When he died, Speusippus became head of the Academy. The school continued in existence until AD 529, when it was closed by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, who objected to its pagan teachings. Plato's impact on Jewish thought is apparent in the work of the 1st-century Alexandrian philosopher Philo Judaeus. Neoplatonism, founded by the 3rd-century philosopher Plotinus, was an important later development of Platonism. The theologians Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine were early Christian exponents of a Platonic perspective. Platonic ideas have had a crucial role in the development of Christian theology and also in medieval Islamic thought.
During the Renaissance, the primary focus of Platonic influence was the Florentine Academy, founded in the 15th century near Florence. Under the leadership of Marsilio Ficino, members of the Academy studied Plato in the original Greek. In England, Platonism was revived in the 17th century by Ralph Cudworth and others who became known as the Cambridge Platonists. Plato's influence has been extended into the 20th century by such thinkers as Alfred North Whitehead, who once paid him tribute by describing the history of philosophy as simply “a series of footnotes to Plato.”-Microsoft Encarta 96.

Further on the borrowing from the pagan:-
"In the history leading to the Christianity of Europe and its theological descendants, the initially encountered antecedent religious and theological interpretation was that provided to ancient Mediterranean culture by Greece's religious thinkers. As we have noted, there was much appreciation in this meeting. There was also conflict."-Systematic Theology Vol 1 The Triune God by Bobert W. Jenson p.16

"Of the men of learning attracted to the Library and Mouseion of Alexandria, grammarians and poets were amounts the most important, first attracted there by the school of grammar established by Zenodotus. A school of philosophy was also set up in Alexandria. In the Alexandrian school the philosophies of the east and the west meet, and attempts were made to join the two; hence, Alexandrian philosophers were known as 'Eclectics'. Some philosophers renounced the scepticisms of this school and tried instead to unite the philosophy of the east with that of Plato; they became the New Platonists, the most illustrious of whom, in the first century AD, was Philo, a Jew of Alexandria. In about AD 193, Ammonius Saccas founded the New Platonist School of Alexandria. The members of the new school, men such as Plotinus, Iamblicus and Origen, were basically orientals educated in Greek; and their writings are characterized by a mixture of Eastern and European elements. The principal teacher of the Christian catechetical schools which later rose and flourished in Alexandria were deeply influenced by Electic and New Platonist philosophy. This in turn had a great influence on the way in which Christianity was received and taught in Egypt."-'Coptic Egypt' by Barbra Watterso' p.13-14

The Following are similar examples of pagan Greek and apostate Christian syncretism:-
1) "The form of the Good, of which Plato had briefly spoken in The Republic as being among the eternal Ideas the primus inter pares, was fused with the Aristotelian Prime Mover, the Primary Cause of all things and became in their hands the ultimate principle, the Supreme Mind, at the top of the hierarchy of being. This in turn generated a tension which led to the notion of a Second Mind, or Logos. created from the first, which mediated between this high point of being and the materiel world (an idea that was highly influential upon the Forth Gospel). ... The massively influential Platonic concepts were transmitted through the interpreters of Plato such as Plotinus and Proclus, through charismatic teachers such as Ammonius Saccas, and were eagerly taken up by the Church Fathers who sought philosophical categories with which to elucidate the Christian revelation. Thus the idea of hierarchy appealed to the early Greek Fathers, and the Apologists with their incipient notions of the Trinity, and lead, more, often than not, to a Subordinationism (whereby the Son is seen as being inferior to the Father, who was himself never a problem to the Greeks)."-'God Within' by Oliver Davies pp.17-18

2) "It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student to history or not, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount in the is the promulgation of a new law of conduct, it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underline it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly facts and partly of dogmatic inference; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers."-'The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usage upon the Christian Church' by Edwin Hatch, D.D.; page B

3) "At the beginning of the third century missionaries had already carried the faith to the non-Jewish peoples of Asia minor and North Africa. Particularly in North Africa, Christianity has its first mass successes in towns and it long remained a predominantly urban phenomena. But it was still a matter of minorities. Throughout the empire, the old gods and local deities had the allegiance of the peasants. It has been suggested that by the end of the century Christians may have had the allegiance of about a tenth of the population of the empire. More striking were some signs of official favour and even concession. One emperor was a nominally a Christian and another included Jesus Christ among the gods honoured privately in his household. Such contacts with the court illustrate an interplay of Jewish and classical culture which is an important part of the story of the process by which Christianity took root in the empire. Perhaps St Paul, the Jew who could talk to Athenians in terms they understood, had launched this. Later, early in the second century, Justin Martyr, a Palestinian Greek, had striven to show that Christianity had a debt to Greek Philosophy. This had a political point; cultural identification with classical tradition helped to rebut the charge of disloyalty to the empire. If a Christian could stand in the ideological heritage of Hellenistic world he could also be a good citizen, and Justin's rational Christianity (for which, however, he was martyred in about 165) envisaged a revelation of Divine Reason in which all great philosophers and prophets had partaken, Plato among them, but which was only complete in Christ. Others were to follow similar lines, notably the leaned Clement of Alexandria, who strove consciously to integrate pagan scholarship with Christianity, and another Alexandrian, Origen, whose exact teaching is still debated because of the disappearance of many of his writings. The North African Christian, Tertullian, had contemptuously asked what the Academy had to do with the Church; he was answered by the Fathers who deliberately employed the Conceptual armoury of Greek philosophy to provide a statement of Faith which anchored Christianity to rationality as St Paul had not done."-The Hutchinson History of the World by J.M. Roberts pages 319, 321.

4) "John 1:1 Word The Greek term is logos. This word is found about 330 times in the New Testament and is translated 25 different ways in the King James Version, including 218 times as "word" (small w) and 50 times as "saying." Just what does it mean?
In the city of Ephesus, 6 centuries before John wrote his Gospel there, Heraclitus used the term logos for the rational principle, power, or being which speaks to men both from without and from within. Plato used it for the divine force creating the world. With Aristotle it was "insight." In general, the Greeks thought of logos as "reason" of "thought," whereas the Jewish emphasis was on logos as "word."
Philo, a Jew who lived in Alexandria in the time of Christ, sought to Combine these 2 ideas-thought and speech. He used the term logos over 1,300 times. It has been said that with Philo the Logos is often personified but never truly personalised.
The apostle John, under divine inspiration, goes beyond all this. He presents Jesus Christ as the eternal Logos, the true concept of God and also the Word (v.1) expressing that concept fully in His Incarnation* (v.14).
Aside from three times in the first verse here and once in verse 14, "Logos" is used for Christ in only two other places in the NT (I John 1:1; Rev 19:13). This fact tends to tie together these three books as written by John."-Word Meanings in the New Testament by Ralph Earle page 81
*See Bold type for this pagan Greek 'Idea'.

5) *"Within the confines of Torah law, each community developed its own synthesis between Jewish practice and local cultural environment, so that in first-century Alexandria, for example, the great Jewish mystic and theologian Philo - who in all probability did not speak Hebrew, and was in all respects an outstanding exemplar of the Hellenistic ideal - interpreted the God of Judaism and Mosaic law in Greek philosophical categories."
**"Philo, who flourished in Alexandria in the first half of the first century CE and wrote in Greek. His writings are mainly philosophical and allegorical interpretations of the Pentateuch; through them he seeks to demonstrate the rationality and nobility of Judaism, by showing it to be in accord with the best in Greek, especially Platonic, philosophy. Although he was therefore an apologist for Judaism, his attempted synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism did not appeal to subsequent tradition, which largely ignored his writings, whereas they exerted a strong influence on Christianity."-The Jewish People their history andreligion by David J. Goldbreg & John D. Rayner pp.80*, 208** also see pages. 244, 269.

6) "His (Justin) doctrine of the Logos was based on a doctrine of Sophia developed within Hellenistic Judaism but not taken directly from Philo's of Alexandria. ... In the Dialogue, arguing with Jews, Justin insisted that there is a "second God" and that this is Christ. The supreme God is Lord of the Lord on earth, since he is Father and God and the cause for the existence of the Mighty One, Lord, and God"* Verbally, we are in the realm of Numenius,** who spoke of a First God, a Second, and a Third, and sometimes assimilating the Third to the Second.*** Even in Justin's thought the Second and the Third are sometimes identified, as when he speaks of the conception of Jesus by a "spirit and power from God, none other then the Logos, which is the firstborn of God."*** Justin may be indebted to Numenius for some important phrasing used in his theology, though not for the doctrines themselves.-Greek Apologists of the Second Century by Robert M. Grant p.61
*See Justin's Dialogue 129.1. **Numenias of Apamea ***Numenius frag. 21 = Proclus Commentary on the (Plato's) Timaeus I.303 Diehl; frag. 11 = Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 11.18.3. ****Justin's Apology 1.33.6.

In the book 'Principles of Biblical Interpretation' by Louis Berkhof Chapter 3. "History of Hermeneutical Principles in the Christian Church" page 19 he makes the following comment on the influence of the pagan philosopher Plato, and his philosophy on the interpretation of the Holy Bible etc.:
"A. The patristic Period
In the patristic period the development oh Hermeneutical principles in connected three different centres of Church life.
1. THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA. At the beginning of the third century A.D., biblical interpretation was influenced especially by the catechetical school of Alexandria. This city was an important seat of learning where Jewish religion and Greek philosophy met and influenced each other. The Platonic philosophy was still current there in the forms on Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism. And it is no wonder that the famous catechetical school of this city came under the spell of popular philosophy and accommodated itself to it in its interpretation of the Bible. It found the natural method for harmonizing religion and philosophy at hand in the allegorical interpretation, for
(a) Pagan philosophers (Stoics) had already for a long time applied that method in the interpretation of Homer, and thereby pointing out the way; and
(b) Philo who was an Alexandrian, lent to this method the weight of his authority, reduced it to a system, and applied it even to the simplest narratives."
[The other schools where, 2. The School of Antioch and 3. The Western Type of Exegesis.]

8) "Logos-theology, then, has at least a foothold in Platonism in the Middle Platonic period, but it is not, perhaps, the dominant pattern. The alternative in the contrast between a First God and a Second God, the Latter descended from a more literal interpretation of the Demiurge of Timaeus, and more directly concerned with creation, while the First God remains aloof, wrapped in his own thoughts, rather in the manner of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover."-The Philosophy in Christianity Ed. by G. Vesey p.5

9) "The Christian writers developed a theology of the Logos in order to justify their belief in divine creation and incarnation. Logos, translated 'Word' in John 1, also meant 'reason, purpose, wisdom'. The term was used in Stoicism, Middle Platonism and the writers of Philo to mean a cosmic principle of order and harmony, or the pattern or power by which God impinged upon the world.
Justin Martyr and others developed these two meanings and taught that the Logos was eternally with God, as his mind or wisdom. But in creation, revelation and finally incarnation the Logos went forth, acting upon and within the world. God the Father was therefore not directly in contact with the physical world, nor subject to change; for the Logos never ceased to be his eternal wisdom. Some Christian writers were too strongly influenced by philosophical ideas of divine unchangeability, quite different from the consistent steadfastness of the living God of the Bible.
The Logos who issued from God was certainly seen as divine. But the Logos easily appeared to be some impersonal power of God. It was often argued that the Logos was generated as Son (so that God became Father of the Son) only prior to creation (Tertullian), or even the incarnation (Hippolytus).
Some of the difficulties arose from language. If God was Father, this seemed to imply that he once existed without his Son. Origen established that such language referred to an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. His doctrine that the Son was eternally being generated was an important step forward.
The theologians of Alexandria did not assert divine creation and incarnation as unambiguously as, say, Irenaeus. Origen lived in an age of persecution and was a Christian Platonist; therefore he instinctively looked through and beyond the visible, historical world to the transcendent and spiritual. For him, the material world was only a passing phase, where spirits who had fallen in an earlier existence were purified as punishment." -A Lion Handbook 'The History of Christianity p.111

10) "Origen - God the Father, God the Son--the distinction between the two was not to be denied. But how was monotheistic faith to be preserved? . . . Origen found the framework for his attempted solution to the problem in the philosophical outlook of the second century Platonism. . . . At the top was the one, the supreme existent, the truly transcendent. It may be called good, . . . Yet emanating from it . . . the divine mind; . . . thirdly there is the world-soul, emanating from the divine mind and mediating between it and the world of sensible experience. A scheme of this kind is most clearly exemplified by the writings of Plotinus, the Neoplatonist philosopher, who was a younger contemporary of Origen. Plotinus indeed speaks of that which is divine as existing in three "hypostases", three entities. To Origen this ground plan must have appeared heaven-sent. The most naturally congenial of the non-Christian philosophical tradition had been led to the conclusion that the divine must exist in three "hypostases". Christian tradition spoke quite independently of three divine beings, the three "hypostases" of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where philosophy provided the form, revelation could supply the content."-Christian Fathers by Maurice Wiles pp.33-35 [see 10a for an example of the above thinking]

11) "Another [snake in the grass], in Newton's eyes more dangerous, influence derived from a tendency within Platonism to interpret the Logos in immanentist* rather than personalist terms. It effect is already to be found at work in Clement of Alexandria and was to wreak havoc later on. And Gnostic speculation about that Logos immanent* in the Father (logoV endaiqetoV) being later generated as a Son were equally perverse. Such opinions did not derive 'from the Apostles by tradition': they were 'brought into the Church from the theology of the heathens or Cabbalists in which learned men happened to be educated and instructed before they became Christians'. The fall to which these evil influences enticed the church is, rather surprisingly, not identified by Newton with the Council of Nicaea or the condemnation of Arius. Athanasius on whom the main burden of guilt is laid."[i]-'Archetypal Heresy' Arianism through the centuries by Maurice Willes professor of Divinity Emeritus, University of Oxford pages 86-87
*"immanent indwelling, inherent."-The Oxford Dictionary English Etymology

The following is a statement form one of the Catholic Churches most eminent theologians St Augustine, who further propounded the trinity dogma, on his expectancy of the pagan Greek philosophical "logos" was "to the very same purpose" as "the Logos" of John 1:1-2

12) " 13. And thou, willing first to shew me, how Thou [i]resistest the proud, but givest grace unto the humble, and by an act of Thy mercy Thou hadst traced out to men the way of humility, in that Thy WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among men:-Thou procuredst for me, by means of one puffed up with most unnatural pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein* I read, not in the very words, but to the same purpose, enforced by many and divers reasons, that [i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God : the Same was in the beginning with God : all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made : that which was made by Him is life, and the life was thelight of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehend it not. And that the Soul of man, though it bears witness to the light, yet itself is not that light ; but the Word of God, being God is that true that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. And the He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. But the He came unto His Own, and His own received Him not ; but many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, as many as believed in Him name ; this I read** not there.

14. Again I read there**, that God the Word was born not of flesh nor by blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. But that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, I read not there. For I traced in those books**, that it was many and divers ways said that the Son was in the form of the Father, and thought in not robbery to be equal with God, for that naturally He was the Same Substance . . .."
*Footnote reads; All the following contrasts turn on this, that the Plantonists had a notion of a Divine Eternal Word or Logos, (believing Him however to be in no sense distinct from God the Father,) but of His humiliation in becoming man, none. . . . For that before all times and above all times Thy Only-Begotten Son remaineth unchangeably, co-eternal with Thee, and that of his fulness souls receive, that they may be blessed; and that by participation of wisdom abiding in them they are renewed, so as to be wise, is there**."-'The Confessions of St Augustine Translated E.B. Pusey, D.D. publishers Heron Books London. Book VII. 13-14 pages 129-131
**In the books of the Platonists

It is no wonder that the so called church fathers seem to support the trinity according to the above.
Barryrob


Barryrob. Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_etiquette)prohibits argument by web link:

Debates (points for your position) made via weblink is not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position.

While technically your recent post have not been argument by web link, they have the same effect. That is, a poster using someone elses arguments. In other words, this is clearly a violation of the spirit of the decorum. In the future, please, at the very least, add some substantive comments of your own.

Thanks,

Faramir

[Sparko]

Barryrob, remember, don't spam by making your entire posts regurgitations of other people's writing. I did not even bother to read that huge post of amalgamated stuff.

suffice it to say, the reason the early church beleived in the trinity was because the bible clearly shows the trinity to be true and they were taught the fact that Jesus was God from the apostles and right on down the line. You can dodge it or ignore it, but if you deny the trinity and you are honest with yourself, you will have to come to only two other conclusions: 1. The new testament contradicts the old testament and therefore is false, or 2. You must become a polytheist and believe in multiple gods.

It's either that, or Trinitarianism. Or you can just blindly ignore the verses that show Jesus is God and not reconcile them with the OT.

[barryrob]

Barryrob, remember, don't spam by making your entire posts regurgitations of other people's writing. I did not even bother to read that huge post of amalgamated stuff.

suffice it to say, the reason the early church beleived in the trinity was because the bible clearly shows the trinity to be true and they were taught the fact that Jesus was God from the apostles and right on down the line. You can dodge it or ignore it, but if you deny the trinity and you are honest with yourself, you will have to come to only two other conclusions: 1. The new testament contradicts the old testament and therefore is false, or 2. You must become a polytheist and believe in multiple gods.

It's either that, or Trinitarianism. Or you can just blindly ignore the verses that show Jesus is God and not reconcile them with the OT.



I totaly disagree with you because there is to much theologial data about to show that it is not theologial but philosophial as my post show. The above is presented to show that the Watchtower is well supported whe it says:-




Awake! 1976 August 22nd pp.24-5


How Christendom Borrows from Plato

"From "Demiurge" to Pagan "Logos"

According to Plato, all the things that people can see and feel are the result of eternal "ideas" or "forms" impressed upon matter. As a beautiful sculpture represents the idea of the sculptor impressed upon stone, so Plato believed that the entire physical universe owes its existence to the influence upon matter of a "world of ideas." The supreme "idea" was said to be "the Good," which Plato sometimes identified with God.

Of special interest is Plato’s belief concerning creation of the world. S. E. Frost, Jr., Ph.D, writes in The Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers:

"In one of Plato’s famous Dialogues, the Timaeus, he tells us how the world of our senses was created. There was an ‘architect,’ the ‘Demiurge,’ who brought the ideal world and matter together just as a sculptor might bring his idea and marble together to produce a statue. This ‘Demiurge’ had perfect ideas of everything, and he had a great mass of matter. Plato never tells us where either the ‘Demiurge,’ ideas, or matter came from originally. They were just there when things began. As the ‘Demiurge’ brought an idea in touch with some matter, a thing was created."

This theory was brought into contact with the Bible by a Jewish philosopher known as Philo, who was born between 15 and 10 B.C.E. But what Plato called the "Demiurge" Philo referred to as "the Logos." Dr. Frost explains:

"Philo taught that there were many powers, or spirits, which radiated from God as light might radiate from a lamp. One of these powers, which he called the ‘Logos,’ was the creator of the world. This Logos, he taught, worked with matter and out of it created everything in the universe. In this way, God, through the Logos, created the universe. Further, everything in the universe is a copy of an idea in the mind of God. This reminds us of Plato’s belief that the world which we experience through our senses is a copy of ideas in the ideal world. And, indeed, Philo was attempting here to reconcile Plato’s philosophy with the Jewish religion."

"The Word," or Logos, according to John, however, is different from that of Philo. John describes "the Word" as a person who "became flesh." (John 1:14) This is not true of Plato’s "Demiurge" or Philo’s "Logos."

Nevertheless, early in the Common Era certain individuals transferred to "the Word" of the Gospel of John characteristics of the "Demiurge" and "Logos" mentioned in the non-Biblical writings of Plato and Philo. Since that pagan "Demiurge" or "Logos" evidently had always existed alongside the supreme God, it became "orthodox" to teach that Jesus was coeternal with God. Does the Bible support that conclusion?"

So what is the point of me going into a long explanitation on comments that well speak for themselves to which I can add little except to say it is perfectly clear and accurate as to what they say, they would have probaly said the same about Paul as Paul said on philosophial concepts like the Trinity:-



Colossians 2:8

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."



who, that is Jesus, never said he was Almighty God which is clear in scripture, e.g. when applied to Jehovah, "Most High" emphasizes his supreme position above all others. (Ps 83:18) The title first appears at Genesis 14:18-20 with ´El (God), where Melchizedek is called "priest of the Most High God" and, in that capacity, blesses Abraham as well as the Most High God. "Most High" is used in combination with the divine name Jehovah (Gen 14:22; Ps 7:17) and with the plural of excellence ´Elo·him' (God) (Ps 78:56), and it also appears alone.—De 32:8; Ps 9:2; Isa 14:14.



Genesis 14:17-22 Then the king of Sod'om went out to meet him after he returned from defeating Ched·or·la·o'mer and the kings that were with him, to the Low Plain of Sha'veh, that is, the king’s Low Plain. 18 And Mel·chiz'e·dek king of Sa'lem brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of the Most High God. 19 Then he blessed him and said:

"Blessed be A'bram of the Most High God,Producer of heaven and earth; 20 And blessed be the Most High God,Who has delivered your oppressors into your hand!" At that A'bram gave him a tenth of everything.

21 After that the king of Sod'om said to A'bram: "Give me the souls, but take the goods for yourself." 22 At this A'bram said to the king of Sod'om: "I do lift up my hand to Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth,

Ftn. 14:18 "Of the Most High God." Heb., [i]le´El' `El·yohn'. The Heb. word here is, not ´Elo·him', but ´El without the definite article, even though ´El is followed by the adjective `El·yohn', "Most High."



Numbers 24:16 The utterance of the one hearing the sayings of God,And the one knowing the knowledge of the Most High—A vision of the Almighty he got to seeWhile falling down with the eyes uncovered:



Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance,When he parted the sons of Adam from one another,He proceeded to fix the boundary of the peoplesWith regard for the number of the sons of Israel.



2 Samuel 22:14 From heaven Jehovah began to thunder,And the Most High himself began to give forth his voice.



Psalm 7:17 I shall laud Jehovah according to his righteousness, And I will make melody to the name of Jehovah the Most High.

9:1-2 I will laud [you], O Jehovah, with all my heart;I will declare all your wonderful works. 2 I will rejoice and exult in you,I will make melody to your name, O Most High.

18:13 And in the heavens Jehovah began to thunder,And the Most High himself began to give his voice, Hail and burning coals of fire.

21:7 For the king is trusting in Jehovah,Even in the loving-kindness of the Most High. He will not be caused to totter.

46:4 There is a river the streams of which make the city of God rejoice,The holiest grand tabernacle of the Most High.

47:2 For Jehovah, the Most High, is fear-inspiring,A great King over all the earth.

50:14 Offer thanksgiving as your sacrifice to God,And pay to the Most High your vows;

57:2 I call to God the Most High, to the [true] God who is bringing [them] to an end on my account.

73:11 And they have said: "How has od come to know?And does there exist knowledge in the Most High?"

77:10 And shall I keep saying: "This is what pierces me through,The changing of the right hand of the Most High"?

78:17 And they kept sinning still more against himBy rebelling against the Most High in the waterless region;

78:35 And they began to remember that God was their Rock, And that God the Most High was their Avenger.

78:56 And they began to test and rebel against God the Most High, And his reminders they did not keep.

82:6 "I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

83:18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

87:5 And respecting Zion it will be said:"Each and every one was born in her."And the Most High himself will firmly establish her.

89:27 Also, I myself shall place him [Jesus] as firstborn,The most high of the kings of the earth. Note NOT in Heaven!

91:1 Anyone dwelling in the secret place of the Most High Will procure himself lodging under the very shadow of the Almighty One.

91:9 Because you [said]: "Jehovah is my refuge,"You have made the Most High himself your dwelling;

92:1 It is good to give thanks to Jehovah And to make melody to your name, O Most High;

97:9 For you, O Jehovah, are the Most High over all the earth;You are very high in your ascent over all [other] gods.

107:11 For they had behaved rebelliously against the sayings of God;And the counsel of the Most High they had disrespected.



Isaiah 14:12-14 "O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations! 13 As for you, you have said in your heart, ‘To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. 14 I shall go up above the high places of the clouds; I shall make myself resemble the Most High.’



Lamentations 3:35 For turning aside the judgment of an able-bodied man before the face of the Most High,

3:37-38 Who, now, has said that something should occur [when] Jehovah himself has not commanded? 38 From the mouth of the Most High bad things and what is good do not go forth.



Daniel 3:26 Then it was that Neb·u·chad·nez'zar approached the door of the burning fiery furnace. He was answering and saying: "Sha'drach, Me'shach and A·bed'ne·go, YOU servants of the Most High God, step out and come here!" At that time Sha'drach, Me'shach and A·bed'ne·go were stepping out from the midst of the fire

4:2 The signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed with me, it has seemed good to me to declare.

4:17 By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."

4:24-25 this is the interpretation, O king, and the decree of the Most High is that which must befall my lord the king. 25 And you they will be driving away from men, and with the beasts of the field your dwelling will come to be, and the vegetation is what they will give even to you to eat just like bulls; and with the dew of the heavens you yourself will be getting wet, and seven times themselves will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.

4:32 and from mankind they are driving even you away, and with the beasts of the field your dwelling will be. Vegetation they will give even to you to eat just like bulls, and seven times themselves will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.’"

4:34 "And at the end of the days I, Neb·u·chad·nez'zar, lifted up to the heavens my eyes, and my own understanding began to return to me; and I blessed the Most High himself, and the One living to time indefinite I praised and glorified, because his rulership is a rulership to time indefinite and his kingdom is for generation after generation.

5:18 As for you, O king, the Most High God himself gave to Neb·u·chad·nez'zar your father the kingdom and the greatness and the dignity and the majesty.

5:21 And from the sons of mankind he was driven away, and his very heart was made like that of a beast, and with the wild asses his dwelling was. Vegetation they would give him to eat just like bulls, and with the dew of the heavens his own body got to be wet, until he knew that the Most High God is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that the one whom he wants to, he sets up over it.

Ftn. 7:18 Or, "the holy ones of the Most High." Aram., qad·di·sheh' `El·yoh·nin' (pl. of `El·yohn'), forming with the Aram. word for "holy ones" a second pl. word, or else copying the plurality of "holy ones" because of being so close in the sentence. Evidently this is not meant to indicate that the "holy ones" are most high. "Most High" is sing. in LXXSyVg and many Heb. mss.

7:25 And he will speak even words against the Most High, and he will harass continually the holy ones themselves of the Supreme One. And he will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, and times and half a time.



Mark 5:7 and, when he had cried out with a loud voice, he said: "What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I put you under oath by God not to torment me."



Luke 1:32-35 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom." 34 But Mary said to the angel: "How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?" 35 In answer the angel said to her: "Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

1:76 But as for you, young child, you will be called a prophet of the Most High, for you will go in advance before Jehovah to make his ways ready,

6:35-36 To the contrary, continue to love YOUR enemies and to do good and to lend [without interest], not hoping for anything back; and YOUR reward will be great, and YOU will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind toward the unthankful and wicked. 36 Continue becoming merciful, just as YOUR Father is merciful.

8:28 At the sight of Jesus he cried aloud and fell down before him, and with a loud voice he said: "What have I to do with you, Jesus Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me."



Acts 7:48 Nevertheless, the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; just as the prophet says,

16:17 This [girl] kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to YOU the way of salvation."



Hebrews 7:1 For this Mel·chiz'e·dek, king of Sa'lem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him





No the Trinity fails again in the light of the Scripture which has the last word, if you read them? If Jesus is God incarnated them we now have Two “Most Highs.”

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Barryrob,

If we go by your argument then we have two Gods. But we never claimed Jesus was ANOTHER God, only YOU JW's say that. We say Jesus is the same God as the Father. YHWH is his name.

And again, please don't just argue via watchtower articles, and cut and paste.

[barryrob]

Barryrob,

If we go by your argument then we have two Gods. But we never claimed Jesus was ANOTHER God, only YOU JW's say that. We say Jesus is the same God as the Father. YHWH is his name.

And again, please don't just argue via watchtower articles, and cut and paste.1st As you say WT is wrong you need to know that the WT stance here is well supported (re the above quotes which nearly all are of my own finding) 2nd which is suppoerted but comments in the WT as I showed you.

3rd The Jews did not except a triadic God they only worshiped ONE God –Jehovah-. Jehovah had recored what he thought of the surounding Nations theology and philosopises:-


Ezekiel 20:4-10 “Will you judge them? Will you judge [them], O son of man? Cause them to know the detestable things of their forefathers. 5 And you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “In the day of my choosing Israel, I also proceeded to lift up my hand to the seed of the house of Jacob and to make myself known to them in the land of Egypt. Yes, I proceeded to lift up my hand to them, saying, ‘I am Jehovah YOUR God.’ 6 In that day I lifted up my hand to them to bring them forth from the land of Egypt to a land that I had spied out for them, one flowing with milk and honey. It was the decoration of all the lands. 7 And I went on to say to them, ‘Throw away, each one of YOU, the disgusting things of his eyes, and with the dungy idols of Egypt do not defile yourselves. I am Jehovah YOUR God.’ 8 “‘“And they began to rebel against me, and they did not consent to listen to me. The disgusting things of their eyes they did not individually throw away, and the dungy idols of Egypt they did not leave, so that I promised to pour out my rage upon them, in order to bring my anger to its finish upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 9 And I went acting for the sake of my own name that [it] might not be profaned before the eyes of the nations in among whom they were, because I had made myself known to them before their eyes on bringing them forth from the land of Egypt. 10 So I brought them forth from the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.

Acts 7:39 [Israel] in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, The Church has done the same!


The above well tells go Jehovah’s thoughts not the Egyptian theology & philosophy with is Trinitires/Triads of God and Godesses*, this is what the church now preach vie their dogmas e.g. Father/Osires Son/Horus Spirit/Isis.

How you say, lets see.

Most scholer admit the Egypt was the home of thinking in the ancient world and when it came to be under Alexander it became the centure of Greek thinking and schooling down into and beyong the 1st century:-

"The Alexandrian school, by contrast [to the Antiochene school], stressed the divine nature of Jesus from birth as the incarnation of the Logos or Aeon. It was much influenced by the legacy of paganism, both that of Egypt itself and of the Neoplatonic schools, such as the Therapeuts, that drew heavily on Greek tradition. The Alexandrians were concerned to develop a Christology that fitted with traditional philosophy and to this end tended to interpret the Bible in a more allegorical manner. For them the man Jesus was of much less import than the fact that he was the incarnation of the second person of the trinity."-[i]'Magi' by Adrian G. Gilbert pp. 171-172

What would this mean for the intellectual and religious world in the days of Greek superiority as the world was under their power and then on into the Roman period, as the Romans were greatly influenced by the Egyptian and Greek thinkers?

"Under the Ptolemies, Alexandria, the capital city of Egypt, became the intellectual capital of the ancient world and a great and a great commercial centre. Many of the most influential scholars of the age contributes to its intellectual achievements, . . . In about AD 193, Ammonius Saccas founded the New Platonists, School of Alexandria. The members of the new school, men such as Plotinus, Iamblicus and [i]Origen, were basically orientals educated in Greek; and their writings are characterised by a mixture of Eastern and European elements. The principal teachers of the Christian catechetical schools which later rose and flourished in Alexandria were deeply influenced by Eclectic and New Platonist philosophy. This in turn had a great influence on the way in which Christianity was received and taught in Egypt."-'Coptic Egypt' by B. Watterson pp.13-14

NOTE:”Origen” of which it is said:-
"Greek influance was most evident in Alexandria in the work of Clement and Origen. Of these it has been said that both were profoundly influenced in their attempts to understand and expound on the triune Godhead, by the revived, or "middle" Platonism fashionable at this time at Alexandria'. It was ready to accept intermediary divinities below the rank of the Supreme God."-Triads and Trinity' by J.Gwyn Griffiths page 211

Alexander was the bed for Christian (so-called) thinkers to lie in, so to speak, what did they learn and teach their as the basis for their dotrines? As in my above quotes it seem to be an add mix of some kind of theosophy and odd mix of theology and Philosophy mix, what show this?

As Alexander had a large Jewish commutiy Biblical theology was the focus of much attention in the centure of learning as the following shows:-

The 1st-century AD Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus employed the term Logos in his effort to synthesize Jewish tradition and Platonism. According to Philo, the Logos is a mediating principle between God and the world and can be understood as God's Word or the Divine Wisdom, which is immanent in the world."-Microsoft® Encarta® 96 Encyclopedia.

But this also show (as my others quotes show) syncratinc religious theology seems to be the order of the day in and about the 1st cent. And on. What did this produce in the minds of ‘converted’ pagans philosophers when they started to get to grips with the Bible. Well as with most what is God like etc. How did they answer, well Philo above to understand that (and other queations) he used the tools he had (AS IN THE ABOVE QUOTE) GREEK PHILOSOPHY! Did his thinking have any effects or leave any legacy? Yes:-

A very brief history of the Logos idea as the pagan Greeks used it and how it arrived into Christianity theology, taken from 'The New World Library' Vol. 11 by Caxton Publishing Co. Ltd. p.207:-

"LOGOS, a philosophical conception that goes back to Heraclitus* (q.v.), who meant by the term the principle of order and intelligibility in the world, a kind of universal Reason or Proscriptive destiny. For the Stoics, who developed the notion, Logos is the immanent Reason which governs the system of nature, in all its complexity and inter-relations, and explains the adaptation of all its parts one another and to the whole. This cosmic Reason is identified with Fate, Providence and Nature itself.

In Alexandrian philosophy, e.g. in Philo (q.v.), [i]Logos* is interpreted so as to fit into a religious setting, and means the embodiment of the nature of God, a kind of emanation of intermediary between God and man, whereby something of God's being is reviled.
*Of Heraclitus

In Christian philosophy Logos assumes great significance, being specially identified with Christ as the second person of the Trinity."

So now how did this Pagan Greek Logos become Jesus? Well throught the socalled Church fathers as they where drawn from the ideas of Plato and Philo as it was part of their background then. Examples:-

The pagan Greeks LOGOS god.
Anything that was everlasting was a God (See Qu.1 What was God to the ancient pagan Greek Philosophers?) to the Greeks so here we see the foundation for the "Logos" of John 1:1-2 when the Greek philosophy in applied to this text the "Logos" becomes God as thus explained by Earnest William Barnes Sc.D. Camb., Hon. D.D. Aber. and Edin., Hon. LL.D. Glas, F.R.S. Bishop of Birmingham in his book 'The Rise of Christianity page 33:-

"For them* the total universe was God; and the Logos was life-giving spirit, the activity inherent in the world, to be likened to an inward fire giving light and understanding. They recognized the Logos in thought and reason, as a source of order and therefore as law and destiny. It follows that, for various stoic philosophers, the Logos was alike personal and impersonal, fate and providence, the soul of the world, the creative activity of God, and God Himself."
*Pre-Christian, pagan Greek philosophers e.g. Heracleitus and Zeno (c. 336-264 B.C.).

In the above summation of the Greek philosophical "Logos" it is very clear to see the parallels to the Biblical "Logos" (Jesus) of Jehovah and to note the differences (see later). Therefore as the second and third century Apologists applied Greek thinking to Scriptural texts, it is easy to see how the Trinity was produced, as the Biblical "Logos" (Jesus) instead of being God's Agent (Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10) became God himself. So in effect the early 'church fathers' where introducing Egyptian and Greek (and other) paganism into Christianity as the Greeks had assimilated the theology and wisdom of the Egyptian and their gods into their own religion as the next quotation shows:-

“It was commonplace to say the ancient Hellenic religion was a matter of cult, not creed. What really mattered was the due performance of sacrifices and other sacred rites according to what was believed to be immemorial tradition: this was as true of the worship of newly introduced deities from Egypt or the East as of those rites which centred round the old Greek gods and heroes: the newly arrived deities were either worshipped according to the traditions of their homeland or in the traditional Greek Mannor."-'The Legacy of Greece' Ed, by M.I. Finley page 347

As the add mix of religious thinking was the order of the day then, well for most, the amalgum was the start of the pagan Logos becoming the 'Chritsian' Almighty God:-

"CHAPTER 5
PHILOSOPHY THE HANDMAID OF THEOLOGY
Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. "For thy foot," it is said, "will not stumble, if thou refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence."
For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring "the Hellenic mind," as the law, the Hebrews, "to Christ." Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ."-FATHERS OF THE SECOND CENTURY, AMERICAN EDITION Chronologically Arranged, With Notes, Prefaces, And Elucidations, BY A. CLEVELAND COXE, D.D.

The warning is clear to see, that theology and philosophy where mixed. What is the base that philosophy is built on, from where did the Greek inherit their ideas?

"We usually refer to the work of Greece's theologians with their own name for it, "philosophy." We have thereupon been lead to think this must be a different kind of intellectual activity than theology, to which theology perhaps may appeal for oundational purpose or against which theology must perhaps defend itself. But this is a historical illusion; Greek philosophy was the theology of the historically particular Olympian-Parmenidean religion, later with the wider Mediterranean cultic world."-'Systematic Theology' Vol.1 The Triune God byRobert W. Jenson p.9-10

and

"Greek philosophy, which began as an attempt to understand the world without recourse to religious myth ended up as a rational theology which attempted to define in detail the relationship between God the soul, and the world. . . . . Greek philosophy was in no way indebted to Greek polytheism. it was rather the case that the religious consciousness of Greece was enhanced by her philosophers. This process is particularly clear in Plato and Aristotle. Plato wanted to refine religion, not reject it, and so he combined stringent criticism of the traditional stories about the gods with a reasoned presentation of the divine nature as totally honest and benevolent in word and deed. Aristotle's extraordinary achievement in theology was to deduce an elevated and monotheistic view of the deity from the nature of the physical world."-'An introduction to Greek Philosophy' by J.V. Luce pp.12 and 13

So Philosophy is in fact Theology whereing another name for itself but the same stuff, paganism, but from where? For the answer to that question we will turn to the theology of ancinet Egypt which Jehovah God so detested, in the following expressions:-

"the distinctive idea of tri-unity we must turn to Egypt, where the New-Kingdom* theology began to treat the triad as a trinity. In the early Christian centuries this development was endorsed by Greek influance: the Platonic triadic system sometimes close to the dimension of trinitarianism, and popular Greek syncretism was often regarded three deities as one"-'Triads and Trinity' by John Gwyn GriffithsBA, DD (Wales), MA (Liverpool), D.Phil., D.Litt. (Oxon,) is Professor Emeritus of Classics and Egyptology at the University of Wales, Swansea page 306-307 *About the time of Moses etc.

But what of the Egyptian gods I mentioned?

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge further goes on to say the following about the Egyptian god Thoth (Greek-Hermes, Roman-Mercury) and how it parallels Plato's Logos (via Heralclitus) which was later absorbed into the Churches doctrines as Plato received his ideas via the Egyptians:-

"We are now able to sum up the attributes ascribed to Thoth, and to consider how he employed them in connection with the dead. In first place, he was held to be both the heart and the tongue of Ra, that is to say, he was the reason and the mental powers of the god, and also the means by which their will was translated into speech ; from one aspect he was speech itself, and in later times he may well have represented, as Dr. Birch said, the logos of Plato. In every legend in which Thoth takes a prominent part we see that it is he who speaks the word that results in the wishes of Ra being carried into effect, and it is evident that when he had once given the word of commend that command could not fail to be carried out by one means or the other."-'The gods of the Egyptians' by E.A. Wallis Budge Vol. 1 p.407

So now we need to ask how on earth did Plato get this Egyptian Theology which the Greeks called philosophy? The following is taken form Plutarch's 'Moralia Vol. V on how pagan Egyptian theology was viewed in his day and equated to philosophy:-

"9. The kings were appointed from the priests or the military class, since the military class had eminence and honour because of valour, and the priests because of wisdom (Gk. sofian). But he who was appointed from the military class was at once made one of the priests and a participant in their philosophy (Gk.filosofiaV), which for the most part, in veiled in myths and in words containing dim reflexions and adumbration of truth, as they themselves intimate beyond question by appropriately placing sphinxes before their shrines to indicate that religious teaching has in it an enigmatical sort of wisdom (Gk. sofian). ...
10. Witness to this also are the wisest of the Greeks: Solon, Thales. Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, who came to Egypt and consorted with Priests; and in this number some would include Lycurgus also. Eudoxus, they say, received instruction from Chonphis of Memphis, Solon from Sonchis of Sais, and Pythagroas from Oenuphis of Heliopolis. Pythagroas, as it seem, was greatly admired, and he also greatly admired the Egyptians priests, and, copying their symbolism and occult teaching, incorporated his doctrines in enigmas."-Plutarch's 'Moralia Vol. V pp.23, 25, 27. Loeb Classical Library

In the eyes of the ancient Egyptian mystical theologians, their priests, ideas were put into forms, the way they explained and depicted their gods, and here we will see the concept of the trinity, a Father, Son, and Spirit, (Osiris, Hours, Isis and others) which was to the Ancient Egyptians a 'Most Holy Trinity' (or Triad). This theological concept found it's way into Christendom's teaching because of the adoption of these concepts by the Greek and Roman philosophers via the Alexandrine school of philosophy (and the Chaldean Oracles) which was influenced by the surviving pagan Egyptian priesthood, which were in turn adopted by the apostate early Church Fathers of the third and fourth centuries as they very faultily tried to explain the Bible teachings of the 'Logos' (and others, e.g. Catholic indulgences, Isis and Hours as the Virgin Mary and Jesus) in the background of pagan theological philosophy, which in turn was followed by the Catholic Church scholars, thus into the majority of the main stream theological teachings of Christendom's Churches down to this 20th century.

Barryrob

PS sorry about the quotes but I cannot afford the fare to go to Egypt and see all of this personaly!
Hope not to many spelling errors?

[barryrob]

A. Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

B. Immanuel means "God is with us." Jesus means "the LORD saves." Who does it say will do the saving in verse 21? Jesus.

Continued at: http://www.saveme.org/articles/trinity.htm
(edited to go to web link to avoid back-to-back posts.)
First of a few thought on your quotes, what more quotes! now we have somthing to work on.


A. In the quote from Origen we see the classic case of confusing the Greek philosphhial Logos with the person of the Logos namely Jesus. To the Greeks the Logos was the mind/wisdom of god(s), the facility of reason used by all so part of all so when applied to God it -The Logos- becomes him (the same substance) but this is not what John said in hie prolog, he said the the person of The Logos was incarnated as in human form on the earth (Jihn 1:14) as Jesus not a somekind of emination (part of the person of God) from God, his words/mind/wisdom (which is what it ment ot the Pagan Greek philosophers) becoming fleash as intimated to by Origin.


B. 1. Immanuel means "God is with us." So God walked on earth, well he did or did not, it cannot be both? Not according to the Bible as God cannot be seen:-

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time*; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
*I think "any time" is pretty comprehensive

Exodus 33:20 And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”

John 6:46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.

1 John 4:12 At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.


So now we say are but Jesus is not the same person as the father well this is true so how can he be God, are but he is made of the same stuff so are the angels and the bible calls the angels gods true but in a lesser way as we all know, well we should do by now, Origen does not seem to work!


As it is said of Jesus that He IS God incarnated as a man, men must have seen God, but the Bible says that is not the case!

In fact Justin Maytyr makes this clear:-

Justin Martyr's writings based on Prov Ch 8. agreeing, for the most part, with our position of Jesus being created and lesser god, (whole chapter quoted). Taken from: THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION VOLUME 1 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS JUSTIN MARTYR, IRENAEUS p.437-8:-




DIALOGUE OF JUSTIN PHILOSOPHER AND MARTYR WITH TRYPHO, A JEW

CHAPTER 61 - WISDOM IS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, AS FIRE FROM FIRE



""I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; ..."





All of which would seem to agree with Jesus being "begotten" (created) and The Father being "unbegotten" (uncreated).




2. Jesus means "the LORD saves."
Correction Jesus is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew word "Yeshua" meaning "Salvation of Jehovah" which showed well as Jesus was God's provison as God's Lamb, but if he -Jesus- was God then we have 'God The Lamb' somthing else that does not seem to work! If we use the Hebrew way of Worship as a lesser pattern for worship, which the Book of Hebrews shows that it is, we would have the Jews worshiping Sheep and the High Preist as he also set the pattern that Jesus would follow but in the fuller way?!

I will get to some MORE of your Quotes aaaaahhhhhhhh latter?

All the best
Barryrob

[Sparko]

First of a few thought on your quotes, what more quotes! now we have somthing to work on. Just so you dont go crazy, The quotes I used are short, concise and relevant to my article.



A. In the quote from Origen we see the classic case of confusing the Greek philosphhial Logos with the person of the Logos namely Jesus. To the Greeks the Logos was the mind/wisdom of god(s), the facility of reason used by all so part of all so when applied to God it -The Logos- becomes him (the same substance) but this is not what John said in hie prolog, he said the the person of The Logos was incarnated as in human form on the earth (Jihn 1:14) as Jesus not a somekind of emination (part of the person of God) from God, his words/mind/wisdom (which is what it ment ot the Pagan Greek philosophers) becoming fleash as intimated to by Origin. Can you explain this? I am not understanding what you mean. Origen is affirming that the Son was with the Father always. That there was never a time that he "became" or was created. He always existed. If the Word always existed, then he is uncreated and therefore GOD. not A God, but THE God. What John speaks about is similar, He said the in the beginning the Word was with God, and the word WAS God. Then goes on to say that all things are made through him, and that he became flesh (Jesus). Origen is speaking of the same thing. That the Word is uncreated, and IS God.



B. 1. Immanuel means "God is with us." So God walked on earth, well he did or did not, it cannot be both? Not according to the Bible as God cannot be seen:-

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time*; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
*I think "any time" is pretty comprehensive

Exodus 33:20 And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”

John 6:46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.

1 John 4:12 At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. er, Barryrob,

It is speaking of God the Father, as shown in John 6:46. Since the Son is also God, yet man, he can be seen.

This is a good place to bring up Isaiah 40. in the NWT, no less:

3 (http://3) Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up the way of Jehovah, YOU people! MAKE the highway for our God through the desert plain straight.... 5 (http://5) And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh must see [it] together, for the very mouth of Jehovah has spoken [it].”

9 (http://9) ...Say to the cities of Judah: “Here is YOUR God.” 10 (http://10) Look! The Sovereign Lord Jehovah himself will come even as a strong one, and his arm will be ruling for him. Look! His reward is with him, and the wage he pays is before him. 11 (http://11) Like a shepherd he will shepherd his own drove. With his arm he will collect together the lambs; and in his bosom he will carry [them]. Those giving suck he will conduct [with care].

So,

Not only does Isaiah say that Jehovah himself will be coming, but they will be able to see him. And who came? Who did John the baptist announce with these same words? Was it... Jesus?

Yes it was. And Isaiah says it will be Jehovah. Hmmmm. could that mean that Jesus IS Jehovah? Why, I believe so.








2. Jesus means "the LORD saves."
Correction Jesus is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew word "Yeshua" meaning "Salvation of Jehovah" which showed well as Jesus was God's provison as God's Lamb, but if he -Jesus- was God then we have 'God The Lamb' somthing else that does not seem to work! If we use the Hebrew way of Worship as a lesser pattern for worship, which the Book of Hebrews shows that it is, we would have the Jews worshiping Sheep and the High Preist as he also set the pattern that Jesus would follow but in the fuller way?! Again, this argument fails as a strawman, showing you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity at all and does nothing to defeat it. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are three persons of one substance.

First, don't forget Jesus' other name "God is with us" - Emmanuel. Taken together you get "Salvation is of Jehovah" and "Jehovah is with us" - and Isaiah saying that Jehovah himself is coming to save and will be seen. Therefore we get that Jesus is Jehovah, that as the second person of God, he can be seen since he has a body, and can be the lamb of God the Father, and still be God the son. No problem there.

[barryrob]

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)



Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TARSIANS Ch. 7

“How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.”-From ‘THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION VOL. 1 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS JUSTIN MARTYR IRENAEUS.’ AGES Software Albany, Oregon © 1996, 1997



The subject of Ignatius is relating in the above is how "The Word" came into existance, to whit "The Lord [YHWH] created me" which must here be refering to the begining of The Word (Jesus) as a living being and as being begat of God which contridicts the thought that he existed before time began, but he -Jesus- become immortal. The Word (Jesus) here is shown to be a creation of Jehovah God as Rev 14:3 (see also Prov. Ch. 8) shows:-

KJV "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness [Jesus], the beginning of the creation of God [YHWH]."

This latter quote seems to show how was realy responsible for the thoughts and person in the one you posted.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TARSIANS Ch. 7

“How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.”-From ‘THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION VOL. 1 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS JUSTIN MARTYR IRENAEUS.’ AGES Software Albany, Oregon © 1996, 1997



The subject of Ignatius is relating in the above is how "The Word" came into existance, to whit "The Lord [YHWH] created me" which must here be refering to the begining of The Word (Jesus) as a living being and as being begat of God which contridicts the thought that he existed before time began, but he -Jesus- become immortal. The Word (Jesus) here is shown to be a creation of Jehovah God as Rev 14:3 (see also Prov. Ch. 8) shows:-
Well, first let's revisit your quote and highlight words you missed:

“How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

He clearly says that the WORD WAS GOD. Not "A" God, but GOD. So as God and the Word, how could Jesus be "created?" The Word never "came into existance" the Word WAS God and always was. Uncreated.

The rest of the quote:

And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.”

This is not even talking about the Son, but about Wisdom. It is a quote from Proverbs 8 (verses 22-26)

Let's look at that proverb.

Proverbs 8
1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

The proverb is about Wisdom, not the Word. And Wisdom is feminine. If Wisdom were Jesus, does that mean Jesus was a woman?

Continuing:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

--
The hebrew word that was translated into "create" in Ignatius' quote you have, means "to possess" - and left out of Ignatius' quote is verse 23, set up from everlasting. which means from eternity, or ALWAYS and never created. Which the rest of the verses go on to clarify.



And don't just stop with Ignatius, as if that refutes my entire article. That particular quote did not even talk about the trinity, but only the uncreatedness of Christ.

[barryrob]

Well, first let's revisit your quote and highlight words you missed:

[/font]“How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

He clearly says that the WORD WAS GOD. Not "A" God, but GOD. So as God and the Word, how could Jesus be "created?" The Word never "came into existance" the Word WAS God and always was. Uncreated.

The rest of the quote:

And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.”

This is not even talking about the Son, but about Wisdom. It is a quote from Proverbs 8 (verses 22-26)

Let's look at that proverb.

Proverbs 8
1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

The proverb is about Wisdom, not the Word. And Wisdom is feminine. If Wisdom were Jesus, does that mean Jesus was a woman?

Continuing:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

--
The hebrew word that was translated into "create" in Ignatius' quote you have, means "to possess" - and left out of Ignatius' quote is verse 23, set up from everlasting. which means from eternity, or ALWAYS and never created. Which the rest of the verses go on to clarify.

And don't just stop with Ignatius, as if that refutes my entire article. That particular quote did not even talk about the trinity, but only the uncreatedness of Christ.
I think there are quite a few others that would take issue with "possessed" as being an accurate rendering here, as we do:-






VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS OF PROVERBS 8:22



TANAKH - THE HOLY SCRIPTURES Jewish Publication Society

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his of His course As the first of His works of old."

The Holy Scriptures - The Jewish Publication Society of America

"The LORD made me as the beginning of his way, The first of his works of old."

The Bible In Living EnglishTranslated by Steven T. Byington

"Jehovah framed me first in line, foremost of his works in the past."

The Bible - Moffatt

"The Eternal formed me first of his creation, first of all his works in days of old."

The New Jerusalem Bible

"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works."

THE WAY - The Catholic Living Bible

"The Lord formed me in the beginning, before he created anything else."

The Bible In Basic English

"The LORD made me as the start of his way, the first of his works in the past."

The Septuagint and Apocrypha: Greek and English by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

"The LORD made me the beginning of his ways for his works."

The Bible N.I.V.

"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old."

Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his acts of long ago."

The New English Bible

"The LORD created me the beginning of his works, before all else that he made long ago."

The Revised English Bible

"The LORD created me the first of his works long ago, before all else that he made."

THE BIBLE - An American Translation

"The LORD formed me as the first of his works, The beginning of his deeds of old."

GOOD NEWS BIBLE

"The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago."

The Holy Bible - R.S.V. Catholic Edition

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago."







All pointing to the fact that Jesus is a created being here spoken of or addressed as wisdom, which would also be in keeping with Biblical metophors as He -Jesus- spoke of himself as "The Way, Life and Truth"



In Hebrew the word for Spirit is also femine so now you God the Holy Spirit is a Goddesss:-


RUAH - 'Spirit' in Hebrew
It is taught in Christendom's Churches that the holy spirit is a person, because at John 14:16 parakleton (paraklhton, helper) is in the masculine gender and the spirit is addressed as he, (dwsei, he will give) so referring to the grammar of the Greek the holy spirit must be a person, Male in gender , if this is true then referring to the Hebrew word that is translated, 'spirit' is 'RUAH' (Greek Septuagint O.T. (LXX) pneuma, pneuma, is Neuter) is in the feminine gender. This would mean that by using the same kind of rule the holy spirit is female in gender, a she and not a he or both thus effecting our view of God as being hermaphroditic? This cannot be the case as seen above.The Hebrew word jur, Ruah, wind , breath , mind , spirit this noun occurs 387 times in the O.T., usually feminine.

See Theological Word Book Of The O.T. Vol. 2 p.836
" Gesenius Heb. - Eng. Lex. of the O.T. p.760
" B-D-B-G " " " p.924
" Langencheidt pocket dictionary Heb. - Eng. p.314
" Strong's Heb. Lex. No. 7307

All the above Hebrew text books state that Ruah is in the feminine gender.

John Ch. 1:1 = Was a created God as John 1:18 supports:-


'The N. T.', A new translation by Richmond Lattimore, "among the most distinguished translators of the Greek classics."

John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God; the only-born God who is in the bosom of his father, it is he who told of him."

John I:I is delt with well on other threds.





Your points are not substantiated or supported by scripture.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

barryrob,

The points just whizz by your head, don't they? The point was not about the femininity of the word Wisdom. Or the word possessed.

The point was that the verses were talking about God's WISDOM. Now are you saying that there was a point where God did not possess wisdom? That he was unwise and foolish until he created wisdom?

No. God always had his wisdom, it was NOT created, so to try to use those verses to say wisdom was created and then turn around and try to use that to say that wisdom is Jesus, is some major twisting of scripture.

Wisdom is intrinsic to God. He always had it. It is part of his nature. If you want to equate the Word and the Son with God's wisdom, then you have to admit that He is part of God's nature and has always existed too.

So if you are doing so, then you just admitted to two persons of the trinity.

One to go.

[barryrob]

barryrob,

The points just whizz by your head, don't they? The point was not about the femininity of the word Wisdom. Or the word possessed.

The point was that the verses were talking about God's WISDOM. Now are you saying that there was a point where God did not possess wisdom? That he was unwise and foolish until he created wisdom?

No. God always had his wisdom, it was NOT created, so to try to use those verses to say wisdom was created and then turn around and try to use that to say that wisdom is Jesus, is some major twisting of scripture.

Wisdom is intrinsic to God. He always had it. It is part of his nature. If you want to equate the Word and the Son with God's wisdom, then you have to admit that He is part of God's nature and has always existed too.

So if you are doing so, then you just admitted to two persons of the trinity.

One to go.
I am well aware of the above but do not you see the wider application as the Church Fathers did, the alusion to Jesus as the Ch. goes on to say:-

KJV
30 Then I was by* him, as one brought up with* him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

*Wisdom is IN God not "BY" "with him" at his side as the words seem to paint that kind of picture or Wisdom personified. Wisdom is a facutly or quality thus in reality does not of it's self feel or "delight" wisdom as a quality does not literaly rejoice but, the points you make are good, but you miss the main one.

In reailty we can say the Jesus is God's Wisdom in the flesh simlaier to his Word (John 1:14):-

Colossians 2:3 Carefully concealed in him {Jesus} are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.

"wisdom n. 1 experience and knowledge together with the power of applying them. 2 prudence; common sense. 3 wise sayings. [Old English: related to *wise1]."-Oxford Dic.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

The point remains. Either Ignatius and Proverbs 8 were saying God created Wisdom, meaning that at one time, God was foolish and had no wisdom,

or you are misreading the verses to suit your own purposes and it does not mean that Wisdom was created, and therefore does not mean the Word was created, and does not mean Jesus was created.

You can't have it both ways.

[barryrob]

The point remains. Either Ignatius and Proverbs 8 were saying God created Wisdom, meaning that at one time, God was foolish and had no wisdom,

or you are misreading the verses to suit your own purposes and it does not mean that Wisdom was created, and therefore does not mean the Word was created, and does not mean Jesus was created.

You can't have it both ways.

We could just have a quike look at what Tertullian thought about Prov. 8:-


TERTULLIAN THE SON BY BEING DESIGNATED WORD AND WISDOM, (ACCORDING TO THE IMPERFECTION OF HUMAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE) LIABLE TO BE DEEMED A MERE ATTRIBUTE. HE IS SHOWN TO BE A PERSONAL BEING Ch.7 p.1091
"Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.” This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God — formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom — “The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;” then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect — “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart — even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “hath emitted my most excellent Word.” The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee;” even before the morning star did I beget Thee. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”

Now bearing in mind that Tertullian is said to be a Trinertarian he sounds remarkable not so here. True Jesus existed before all material things (they came into being "through" (not 'by') him as God's agent (John 1:3)) hence the comments above, of which we agree with as you know. But along with them we see the direct quote from Prov. 8:22 to whit "“The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;”" and then this is also repeted in the the text "The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”" so as we teach Jehovah "created" His Son called when on Earth Jesus.
You are quite right when you say God did not have to create his own wisdom that would be a silly situation, but the text does use the term "created" so there must be a deeper meaning to it that first appers on the surface, to this Tertullian pointed, namely Jesus, The Frist thing God Created as vs 30 says (KJV):-


"Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him"


How well theses words apply to Jesus a loving son before his loving Father.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Same problem Barryrob,

If you claim that the Word is Wisdom, and that God created Word, and so Wisdom, then you have God being a fool before he created Wisdom.

So obviously that is not so. Therefore you are reading the verses wrong and it does NOT mean God created Wisdom, he always had it. And if that is the case, then by logic, if the Word is Wisdom and Jesus, then he was not created either, but always was.

Remember, I told you the word that is translated as "formed" and "created" in some english translations also means "possessed" - I am not making this up. Go to studylight.org and look up the verses and research the hebrew words used. Remember, Ignatius and Tertullian did not write in english.

Summary:

1. Barryrob: Wisdom was created therefore the (Word) Jesus was created.
2. Conclusion: God was without Wisdom at one point and therefore a fool.

(buzzz. Wrong answer!)

1. John: Wisdom was always part of God, despite the figurative language used in Proverbs 8, (which can also mean "possessed") - Therefore Jesus was always God too.
2. Conclusion: Harmony in the Scriptures.

(Seems to be a right answer.)

[k4cym]

Hello to you all,

There is a powerful spirit behind the trinity doctrine, one that has blinded the eyes of people to the truth of God's Son. Many bibles translations have been translated by men with a Trinitarian mindset. They have made many changes to some of these translations to fit their theology. The King James bible is very Trinitarian which makes it hard to study from. You really have to be a student of God's word to be able to discern truth.

One of the verses that the King James translators tampered with is 1 John 5:7, the words used by the KJ translators are not found in the original language. The KJ translators added some words so that people would more easily swallow the trinity concept. If you look at other translations you won't find the same words because they're not in the original language.

-- King James
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

-- American Standard
1 John 5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

-- Revised Standard
1 John 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

-- New American Standard
1 John 5:7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

The KJ translators allowed much of the pagan influences to enter into God's word and the church. Words such as Easter are found the KJV bible in the book of Acts. Easter is not a Christian word, Easter or Eshtar is the pagan god of fertility and sun worship. If I didn't study this word I would have believed it was a Christian word because it's in the KJV bible. You also find the name Lucifer given to Satan which is not a biblical name either. The word Lucifer is Latin which is the RC Church official language. The bible was written in Greek and Hebrew.

You can also find many words changed only for the reason of the translators theological mindset when translating the language. You find this when the "W"in word is capitalized like it's a person. Jesus is the word only in that He was obedient to His Father and spoke His Father's truth.

John 8:28 ...I am only saying the things which the Father teaches me.

John 12:50 And I know his instructions lead to eternal life; so whatever he tells me to say, I say!''

John 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I say are not my own but are from my Father who lives in me. And he does his work through me.

Jesus and God's word are two different things. We have been taught that they are the same but Jesus had His own will/words but He didn't do His will He only did His Father's will.

Hebrews 10:7 Then I said, `Behold, I have come in the volume of the book it is written of Me to do Your will, O God.' ''

Luke 22:42 Jesus saying, "Father, if it is Your will, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.''

Jesus had His own will but He chose not to follow His will but was obedient even onto death.

Philippians 2:8 He humbled himself. He obeyed, though it meant dying, even dying on a cross!

Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;

The book of Revelations helps to show how Jesus and His Father's word are two different things.

Revelation 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Revelation 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Remember, Jesus is not Almighty God but Almighty God was in Jesus, in other words, Jesus was anointed.

2 Corinthians 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

It doesn't say Jesus was God.

Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

Also keep in mind that Christ wasn't Jesus' last name, Christ means anointed.

The word of Almighty God is His wisdom and power. It was used in the making of creation.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Jesus was God's wisdom and power because God was working through Christ reconciling the world.

1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

2 Corinthians 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

We really have to be a faithful student of God word allowing God's word to speak for itself as the Spirit directs and leads into all true.

1 John 3:18-21 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

Many blessings in Jesus,
John

[Sparko]

One of the verses that the King James translators tampered with is 1 John 5:7, the words used by the KJ translators are not found in the original language.

Unlike the NWT (sarcasm) - The NWT is the absolute WORSE english translation ever. It adds words all over the place, takes out words too. All to promote their own "brand" of "Christianity"


-- King James
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The KJV was translated in the 1600's - and they did not have as many manuscripts to translate from as we do now. They relied on a copy of the Latin Vulgate to translate from. They did not have the original greek and hebrew. So it is a translation of a translation. All modern english translations mention this in a footnote as regards to this verse. It was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but an honest translator mistake. Unlike the NWT who DOES deliberately mistranslated verses.

And I never claimed anything about the KJV in the verses I used in my trinity article so you are beating a strawman.

:strawman:




John 8:28 ...I am only saying the things which the Father teaches me.

John 12:50 And I know his instructions lead to eternal life; so whatever he tells me to say, I say!''

John 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I say are not my own but are from my Father who lives in me. And he does his work through me.

Jesus and God's word are two different things. We have been taught that they are the same but Jesus had His own will/words but He didn't do His will He only did His Father's will.
Er, That doesn't preclude the Trinity. The trinity affirms that Jesus submitted his will to the Father's. They are two persons, yet one being. One God.



The book of Revelations helps to show how Jesus and His Father's word are two different things.

Revelation 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Revelation 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Most of those verses are random and do not show anything of the sort. Of course Jesus was the Word. John wrote both John and Revelation, do you think he would write one thing in one book and contradict himself in another?

Read John chapter 1.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made...


14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Take particular note: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. Who came among us? Jesus.

And John the baptist testifies about the word, saying "he who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me" - who was he speaking of? the Word. And Jesus. These are the words he used before he baptized Jesus.

So the WORD is JESUS.

And not only that, verse 18 calls him "God the One and Only" who is at the Father's side (so we know he is not the Father, but yet he is Still God the One and Only") - BTW this verse is a good example where the NWT butcher's the greek. I will go into it if you insist.



Also keep in mind that Christ wasn't Jesus' last name, Christ means anointed.
no one claimed that Christ was his name. It is his title. and Jesus was not just annointed, he was THE Annointed One. The Messiah, Savior of the world. Who if you go back and read my article, is plainly shown to be YHWH in the OT.




Jesus was God's wisdom and power because God was working through Christ reconciling the world.

So without Jesus, a creation, God was a weak fool? Check.


1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

We really have to be a faithful student of God word allowing God's word to speak for itself as the Spirit directs and leads into all true.

Really? Well how nice of you to take a verse out of context. Let's look at your verse IN context.

1 Cor 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In fact it does not say Christ IS God's wisdom and power, as if Jesus somehow fulfills that function for God... It says that to those who have been called, Christ is the wisdom and power of God. He is the wisdom and power of God TO US! As compared to the foolishness for Jews and Gentiles who are perishing. It is saying that what the unsaved think of as foolishness, is really the power and wisdom that will save our souls. They can't understand it and it is a stumbling block for them.

[k4cym]

Hi JohnSparks,


Unlike the NWT (sarcasm) - The NWT is the absolute WORSE english translation ever. It adds words all over the place, takes out words too. All to promote their own "brand" of "Christianity"

The KJV was translated in the 1600's - and they did not have as many manuscripts to translate from as we do now. They relied on a copy of the Latin Vulgate to translate from. They did not have the original greek and hebrew. So it is a translation of a translation. All modern english translations mention this in a footnote as regards to this verse. It was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but an honest translator mistake. Unlike the NWT who DOES deliberately mistranslated verses.

And I never claimed anything about the KJV in the verses I used in my trinity article so you are beating a strawman.

I don't use the NWT, I use the KJV. I was just stating some facts to show how the translators have allowed certain things into their translations that can cause someone to get the wrong idea such as capitalizing the 'W' in the word logos. The same word and use of the word logos is not capitalized in other areas of the bible. It's only capitalized when the translators want to push their theology.


[/QUOTE]Er, That doesn't preclude the Trinity. The trinity affirms that Jesus submitted his will to the Father's. They are two persons, yet one being. One God.[/QUOTE]

Remember your trinity doctrine, Jesus is co-eternal, co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. Co-equal and co-eternal means there can never be a time when one summits to the other if one does then they are not eternally equal.

[/QUOTE]Most of those verses are random and do not show anything of the sort. Of course Jesus was the Word. John wrote both John and Revelation, do you think he would write one thing in one book and contradict himself in another?

Read John chapter 1.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made...


14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Take particular note: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. Who came among us? Jesus.

[/QUOTE]And John the baptist testifies about the word, saying "he who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me" - who was he speaking of? the Word. And Jesus. These are the words he used before he baptized Jesus.[/QUOTE]

To come before does not mean that Jesus was literally before John the Baptist it just means that Jesus is superior or above/over John the Baptist.

[/QUOTE]So the WORD is JESUS.

And not only that, verse 18 calls him "God the One and Only" who is at the Father's side (so we know he is not the Father, but yet he is Still God the One and Only") - BTW this verse is a good example where the NWT butcher's the greek. I will go into it if you insist.[/QUOTE]

We have used Greek and pagan philosophy to interpret John chapter 1. God's word is God's thoughts/will/plan. God's plan and will was lived out through Jesus just like God had planned from the beginning. Jesus is not somehow a mystical spirit word of God made flesh. Jesus was a man who, like us, had to obey His Father's word. Jesus had His own will but He choose to obey His Father's will, in other words, God was in Jesus. (2 Corinthians 5:19 For God was in Christ,)

[/QUOTE]no one claimed that Christ was his name. It is his title. and Jesus was not just annointed, he was THE Annointed One. The Messiah, Savior of the world. Who if you go back and read my article, is plainly shown to be YHWH in the OT.[/QUOTE]

To be anointed means not eternally equal....


[/QUOTE]So without Jesus, a creation, God was a weak fool? Check.[/QUOTE]

God didn't create this word through Jesus. God created the world/age to come through and for Jesus.

Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

This age or world to come was created for Jesus' rulership and inheritance. This is the world that God is speaking, not the one we live in now.

Hebrews 2:5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.



[/QUOTE]Really? Well how nice of you to take a verse out of context. Let's look at your verse IN context.

1 Cor 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In fact it does not say Christ IS God's wisdom and power, as if Jesus somehow fulfills that function for God... It says that to those who have been called, Christ is the wisdom and power of God. He is the wisdom and power of God TO US! As compared to the foolishness for Jews and Gentiles who are perishing. It is saying that what the unsaved think of as foolishness, is really the power and wisdom that will save our souls. They can't understand it and it is a stumbling block for them. [/QUOTE]

Jesus is the wisdom and power of God in that God gave Jesus His Spirit without measure. (John 3:34 "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.) For whom God sent speaks His words. Why? Because God gave Him His Spirit without measure.

Jesus is the power of God in that God has anointed Jesus with His power.

Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

God anointed Jesus with power to be able to do miracles.

Jesus is the wisdom and power of God which is the context of the whole bible.

Many blessings,
John

[Sparko]

John you need to fix your post, I cant parse it, you have my stuff all mixed up with your stuff.

[k4cym]

I'm not sure how to capture a quote.

[Sparko]

Go to student services area of tweb and search for instruction on using tags. But an easy way to do it is to select the text you want to put in quote boxes and while it is highlighted, click the icon on the editor toolbar that looks like a cartoon speech baloon with an ! in it.

[k4cym]

Go to student services area of tweb and search for instruction on using tags. But an easy way to do it is to select the text you want to put in quote boxes and while it is highlighted, click the icon on the editor toolbar that looks like a cartoon speech baloon with an ! in it.

Hi JohnSparks,

I don't find a cartoon speech balloon with a ! in it on my toolbar. I also looked for student services but I counld not find it. I'll have to wait until I have more time. Right now I'm getting ready to leave for work.

Have a blessed day,
John

[Sparko]

Hi JohnSparks,

I don't find a cartoon speech balloon with a ! in it on my toolbar. I also looked for student services but I counld not find it. I'll have to wait until I have more time. Right now I'm getting ready to leave for work.

Have a blessed day,
John
Just look at this picture below, click to enlarge it. see where the red arrow is pointing?

[Rushing Jaws]

Well, first let's revisit your quote and highlight words you missed:

[/font]“How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

He clearly says that the WORD WAS GOD. Not "A" God, but GOD. So as God and the Word, how could Jesus be "created?" The Word never "came into existance" the Word WAS God and always was. Uncreated.

The rest of the quote:

And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.”

This is not even talking about the Son, but about Wisdom. It is a quote from Proverbs 8 (verses 22-26)

Let's look at that proverb.

Proverbs 8
1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

The proverb is about Wisdom, not the Word. And Wisdom is feminine. If Wisdom were Jesus, does that mean Jesus was a woman?

Continuing:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

--
The hebrew word that was translated into "create" in Ignatius' quote you have, means "to possess" - and left out of Ignatius' quote is verse 23, set up from everlasting. which means from eternity, or ALWAYS and never created. Which the rest of the verses go on to clarify.


And don't just stop with Ignatius, as if that refutes my entire article. That particular quote did not even talk about the trinity, but only the uncreatedness of Christ.


## St. Ignatius of Antioch did not write that letter - "To the Tarsians" is a late addition to the genuine Ignatian Corpus.

And, if Jesus is a creature, He cannot be our Mediator with God - because His mediation is no good if he is not fully God and Fully Man. He ends up being no more exalted in honour than the Blessed Virgin Mary His mother :) The Arian Christ cannot mediate, cannot redeem, cannot be our High Priest, cannot secure the right place of His mother as a creature. Only a Christ Who is fully God and Fully man, consubstantial with His Father, Consubstantial with us men, can do what the Christ of the Bible does.

"Aut Deus et Homo - aut nihil" more or less sums it up :smile:

As for the Trinity - "God is Love". This sums up Christian faith in the Trinity, because where there is Love, there is a Lover and a Beloved. ##

[barryrob]

1. And, if Jesus is a creature, He cannot be our Mediator with God - because His mediation is no good if he is not fully God and Fully Man.


As for the Trinity - "God is Love".
1. You are very wrong! The Bible says:-




1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men (Greek - "anthropon"), a man (Greek - "anthropos), Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.







2. Yes you are right but the Bible does not say 'God is a Trinity."






Barryrob

[Sparko]

Jesus can be the mediator between the God and Man, precisely because he is both MAN and GOD.

[barryrob]

Jesus can be the mediator between the God and Man, precisely because he is both MAN and GOD.
Not according to scripture:-




Philippians 2:7 No, but he emptied himself* and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. . .






*of all heavenly things!






Barryrob

[Sparko]

sorry barryrob but your little "*of all heavenly things" is not in the scripture and is just commentary

But interestingly enough, if we go by what you say, that does raise some queations with JW theology. According to your doctrine Jesus used to be the Angel Micheal right? and so when he became a man, he "emptied himself" and was no longer an angel? But don't you teach that he is the angel Michael again now that he rose back to heaven and no longer a man? If so, then how do you explain the verse where it says that the mediator is the MAN Jesus and not the Angel Jesus or the Angel Michael?

[barryrob]

sorry barryrob but your little "*of all heavenly things" is not in the scripture and is just commentary

But interestingly enough, if we go by what you say, that does raise some queations with JW theology. According to your doctrine Jesus used to be the Angel Micheal right? and so when he became a man, he "emptied himself" and was no longer an angel? But don't you teach that he is the angel Michael again now that he rose back to heaven and no longer a man? If so, then how do you explain the verse where it says that the mediator is the MAN Jesus and not the Angel Jesus or the Angel Michael?
The value of a perfect sin free human life, body, blood, thus with the potential of everlasting life on earth as a human and producing sin and death free human race as God's 2nd Adam which he gave up and offer that as a sacrifice to his Father upon which humans can now believe as that which nullifies the 1st Adams inheritance of sin and death he gave to his descendants, thus a ransoming mediator after his reserrection back into Heaven.

Barryrob

[scholasticus]

An interesting philosophy! Is it Biblical?

1. "I am Jehovah (Heb. vuvh, YHWH). That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory,

2. God's Son was instructed to be called "Jesus" by God’s angel at Matt 1:21. He like God as you say have titles but they are not Personal Names.

3. According the what I have read in the Bible the name of the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit or power of God or the like. I find no personal name for it?

Just a point or two. I can see your personal Philosophy but I do not see Biblical Theology.

Barryrob

OK, my first post here... maybe I can throw some interesting ideas into the mixer:

1. It's true that the relationship between the Father and the Son seems to get more column inches in the Bible than that between Jesus and the Holy Spirit... why is this?

2. The Church Fathers often drew inferences not only from Holy Scripture (although this was their mainstay) but also from Church practise (e.g. even the Apostle Paul refers at one point to the unanimous rules of "the Churches of God") - why is this? Is there a link between Church ritual (e.g. baptism) and theology?

Peace

Scholasticus Minor

[Sparko]

The value of a perfect sin free human life, body, blood, thus with the potential of everlasting life on earth as a human and producing sin and death free human race as God's 2nd Adam which he gave up and offer that as a sacrifice to his Father upon which humans can now believe as that which nullifies the 1st Adams inheritance of sin and death he gave to his descendants, thus a ransoming mediator after his reserrection back into Heaven.

Barryrob
Excuse you Barryrob, but you totally blew off my post and did not answer my question.

Is Jesus (as he exists in heaven right now) still a man, a human being, or is he back to being an Angel?

[barryrob]

Excuse you Barryrob, but you totally blew off my post and did not answer my question.

Is Jesus (as he exists in heaven right now) still a man, a human being, or is he back to being an Angel?

He is the mightest spirit being in Heaven 2nd only to Jehovah. Michael The Archangel, The Word, Mighty God, Alpha & Omega, Savor are some of his titles along with King of Kings, Lord or Lords, 2nd Adam which all serve to help humans to understand just what he accomplished and how he fits into Jehovah's purpose for them if they whish to beleive in him.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

So Jesus is a spirit being and NOT a man?

That is a YES or NO answer, by the way. Trying to pin you down to a solid statement is like trying to catch an eel with your hands. Why can't you just answer a question straight forwardly?

[barryrob]

So Jesus is a spirit being and NOT a man?

That is a YES or NO answer, by the way. Trying to pin you down to a solid statement is like trying to catch an eel with your hands. Why can't you just answer a question straight forwardly?
Tell me how I can be more straight forward than:-

"He is the mightest spirit being in Heaven 2nd only to Jehovah" that is my answer as that is as it is!


Barryrob

[Sparko]

Tell me how I can be more straight forward than:-

"He is the mightest spirit being in Heaven 2nd only to Jehovah" that is my answer as that is as it is!


Barryrob
Well you could have just answered YES or NO, since my question was a yes or no question. Let me try again. Please only answer yes or no to the following questions. Very easy.

For all questions, the time period I am talking about is RIGHT NOW in heaven.

1. Is Jesus NOW, in Heaven, a spirit being?

2. Does he now have a body?

3. Is he now a man?


I am just trying to figure our your JW doctrine and I want ONLY YES OR NO.

[barryrob]

Well you could have just answered YES or NO, since my question was a yes or no question. Let me try again. Please only answer yes or no to the following questions. Very easy.

For all questions, the time period I am talking about is RIGHT NOW in heaven.

1. Is Jesus NOW, in Heaven, a spirit being?

2. Does he now have a body?

3. Is he now a man?


I am just trying to figure our your JW doctrine and I want ONLY YES OR NO.
1. Yes

2. A spirit body again.

3. not now

[Sparko]

1. Yes

2. A spirit body again.

3. not now
OK. Thank you. Now I understand your doctrine.

Our doctrine teaches that Jesus still has a human body in heaven. He is still a man and still God.

1 Timothy 2:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1TIM+2:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

This was written after Jesus went back to heaven, and is written in the present tense. It did not say Jesus WAS a man, or WAS a mediator, it said hi IS a man and mediator between God and man.

This he can only do because he is both man and God.

Also in revelation we see John falling at Jesus' feet
Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

We know this is Jesus because he says "I was dead" - Only Jesus died and came back to life.

He has feet and hands to put on John, so he has a body. He is not a spirit.

Jesus also is talking here:

Revelation 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+2:8&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.


he says died and came back to life and he is the First and the Last. A title God reserves for himself.



Isaiah 44:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+44:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"This is what the LORD says- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+48:12&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 22:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+22:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

[barryrob]

1 Corinthians 15:50





However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, . . .







1 Peter 3:18





he [Jesus] being put to death in the flesh ["a man"], but being made alive in the spirit [ref. No. 2].







thus Jesus cannot be "a man" now.

[Sparko]

Er, either the bible is lying then or you are misreading your verses, barryrob. It CLEARLY says Jesus IS still a man.

Nice dodge of not addressing any of my points again.

I think I am about done debating with you in any thread. If you can't actually address anything a person says, and just ignore things that show you are wrong and just sidestep the issue, then you are not worth bothering with.

But even though you dont answer my points, I will address YOUR argument.



1 Corinthians 15:50


However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, . . .
If you read the whole chapter you will see that Paul is contrasting our present mortal corrupted bodies with the new glorified bodies we will have. We will have the same type of body Jesus has now as his resurrection body. When Paul calls it "spiritual" verses "natural" he is speaking of the natural body being fallen and controlled by carnality and lusts, verses the glorified body being controlled by the Spirit. Spiritual body does not mean a Spirit Body, but a spirit controlled body. If I say you, Barryrob are a spiritual man, I do not mean you are a spirit, but that spiritual matters and mores control your life, not lusts and worldly things.

Jesus had a physical fleshly resurrection body. He ate bread and fish, he even still had his wounds. He had the apostles touch him to prove he was not a spirit. He had a fleshly body

Luke 24: 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.







1 Peter 3:18
he [Jesus] being put to death in the flesh ["a man"], but being made alive in the spirit [ref. No. 2].
Keep reading. He is talking about the time between the death of Jesus' body and the time he was resurrected in his body. His spirit went to the Father until the resurrection. The same body, by the way, he still had the wounds. He could have healed the wounds but he left them for one reason only. To show his disciples that the body he died in was the one that was standing before them.

Now I fully expect you will post a bunch of non related verses in order to try to deflect the subject again, or to post some watchtower article. But I am going to ask nicely that you don't do that. I hope you will even go back and answer my previous post about the first and the last and other points.

If I want to read the watchtower I can get it pretty easily myself. I dont need your help.

If you can't actually debate my posts yourself, then I won't bother addressing your posts anymore, other than if I have to moderate them.

[heaven]

What about the incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary, gave birth to baby Jesus.
Jesus could not be part angel and part human.....Since the evil angels had intercourse
with the daughters of men and created the race of giants, that practice has been
banned by God and the angels tied in the abyss.
There is no angelic connection with Jesus aside from the angelic visitations in scripture.
The incarnation of God in Jesus in the womb of Mary is so beautiful, so awesome.

[barryrob]

Also in revelation we see John falling at Jesus' feet
Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

We know this is Jesus because he says "I was dead" - Only Jesus died and came back to life.

He has feet and hands to put on John, so he has a body. He is not a spirit.

Jesus also is talking here:

Revelation 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+2:8&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.


he says died and came back to life and he is the First and the Last. A title God reserves for himself.



Isaiah 44:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+44:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"This is what the LORD says- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+48:12&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 22:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+22:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Here in Rev22:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+22:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Jehovah God saying of himself he emphasizes his eternal sovereignty and the fact that what he first purposes he will at last perform.

------------


Revelation 1:17b, 18a “And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one.’”

At Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah rightly describes his own position as the one and only almighty God, saying: “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.” When Jesus presents himself by the title “the First and the Last,” he is not claiming equality with Jehovah, the Grand Creator, he is using a title properly bestowed on him by God.
In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection. Jesus was indeed “the First” human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life. (Col 1:18) Moreover, he is “the Last” to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally. Thus, he becomes “the living one . . . living forever and ever.” He enjoys immortality. He is now like his immortal (the power of an indestructible life) Father, who is called “the living God.” (Rev 7:2; Ps 42:2) For all others of humanity, Jesus himself is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) In harmony with this, he says to John: “I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Rev 1:18b) Jehovah has given him the authority to resurrect the dead. That is why Jesus can say that he has the keys to unlock the gates for those bound by death and Hades.


Barryrob

[Sparko]

hee hee.

Nice try barryrob. I knew I could count on you to twist it out of context. Jesus is the first and the last in the same sense Jehovah is, because HE IS JEHOVAH.

[barryrob]

hee hee.

Nice try barryrob. I knew I could count on you to twist it out of context. Jesus is the first and the last in the same sense Jehovah is, because HE IS JEHOVAH.
That is what you must say, as you except the Trinity as true, where as I do not except it a true Christian dotrine, so we will never agree will we.

Barryrob

[scholasticus]

What about the incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary, gave birth to baby Jesus.
Jesus could not be part angel and part human.....Since the evil angels had intercourse
with the daughters of men and created the race of giants, that practice has been
banned by God and the angels tied in the abyss.
There is no angelic connection with Jesus aside from the angelic visitations in scripture.
The incarnation of God in Jesus in the womb of Mary is so beautiful, so awesome.

Very nice thought - though perhaps not with a greatly logical basis?!

Can you elaborate on the precise details of this angelic crime and its "banning", giving Scriptural references?

I would have thought a more fruitful line to take would be to point out that the Holy Spirit is identified also with God, and that Jesus is the one who "pours out what He has promised", i.e. only God can give God as a gift; therefore Jesus is also God (Paul has already said that "the Spirit *is* the Lord").

As a Catholic I would also point out verses like the one in Peter's letters where he says we are called to share the divine nature - how can Christ give us this gift unless He first possesses it Himself (albeit in a *hidden* way - another OT reference to an attribute of the Lord! - in His Incarnation)? Catholics (and Orthodox I assume) would say that theology arises *firstly* out of the integral experience of Christ present in the Church, and that experience is given expression and validation in the Scriptural arguments and proofs. That's why it's so important to preserve the original "experience" that Christ bestowed on the Church (we would claim to preserve it not primarily by our "own merits", but entirely by the grace of Christ freely given!).

Peace

Keir

[kofh2u]

Very nice thought - though perhaps not with a greatly logical basis?!

Can you elaborate on the precise details of this angelic crime and its "banning", giving Scriptural references?
Keir

hello keir,

The ancient metaphysical ideas generated to explain God's role in the birth of Jesus were offered up in absence of our present knowledge about genetics.

I agree that the hybriding of "sons of God with daugthers of men" was not prohibited nor condemned as far as scripture is concerned. That story makes no comment beyond the general disapproval of all humanoids in general, except Noah, of course.

My take on God's intervention with
Mary's pregnacy is that a genetic mutation of the Y-chromosome intervened in Mary's conception. Hence, God was essentially responsible for the first born of an advance form of man, beyond Modern Homo sapiens, Jesus, the first Homoiousian Man.

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), saw the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors), that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[kofh2u]

barryrob:

Rev22:13[/url] "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End"


Jehovah God saying of himself he emphasizes his eternal sovereignty and the fact that what he first purposes he will at last perform.

KOFH:
Or, another non-metaphysical interpretation which may appeal to the secular community that refuses to buy into your traditional explanation of this hard to understand symbolism is offered here:

Rev. 1:8 I am the Alpha, (the macrocosms, the external Universe), and the Omega, (the mental image of it's abstraction within), the beginning (of Universe) and the ending (in the last evolution of the Homooiusian Mind), saith the Lord, (Modern Homoiousian Sapiens), which is (the presently sub-conscious Mind), and which was (the once totally unrecognized and unconscious Mind), and which is to come, (the Totally Conscious Mind).

barryrob:
Revelation 1:17b, 18a “And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one.’”

In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection. [b]Jesus was indeed “the First” human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life.

KOFH:
Again, for those who find your metaphysical insights too irrational for this age, and who remain unconvinced by your elaborations:

Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, (as I become aware of this psychic entity within myself), I fell (as in an uncontrollabe psychic episode) at his feet, (prostrate) as dead. And, he laid his right hand, (holding all the seven stars of my Freudian archetypal psyche) upon me: saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first, (the macrocosms, the external Universe), and the last, (the mental image of it's abstraction within):


Now this all follows from the interpretation given to Genesis 1:26,... way, way back in the First chapter of the Word and making continuous contextual sense as it harmonizes here in the Last book of the Word, Revelation:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macro cosmos), said, Let us, (that is, the Natural Laws), make man, (in his mind, as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe), IN OUR IMAGE, (after our orderly organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


These other verses you present are apparently compatible with both the ancient, traditional Metaphysical interpretation, and this Theistic Freudian Evolutuionary explanation, IMO.


What think you?
Is your faith in your ancient doctrine too strong to allow flexibility here, or are you opened minded enough to see that a personal choice is equally acceptable to both?

[heaven]

As to the Trinity:

Through Him and with Him and in Him in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory
are yours al,ighty Father, forever and ever. Amen

God the Father is spirit
God the Holy Spirit is Spirit
Jesus is truly man and truly Spirit

The Holy Spirit possesses attributes , He grieves, He rejoices and as Jesus said, you onlly see His effects as in the conversation with Nicodemus ; also Jesus did everything
in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said "The Father and I are ONE"

The Trinity is based upon many passages in the OT, the NT and the words of Jesus.

[kofh2u]

As to the Trinity:

Through Him and with Him and in Him in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory
are yours al,ighty Father, forever and ever. Amen

God the Father is spirit
God the Holy Spirit is Spirit
Jesus is truly man and truly Spirit

The Holy Spirit possesses attributes , He grieves, He rejoices and as Jesus said, you onlly see His effects as in the conversation with Nicodemus ; also Jesus did everything
in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said "The Father and I are ONE"

The Trinity is based upon many passages in the OT, the NT and the words of Jesus.


Yes, the concept of Trinity.

It is true that Hinduism presents the trinity of Krishna merging with Vishnu to form Shiva. However, whether this is a Pagan religion in the western sense I will not say.

I don't remember th blending of mythological Gods to create a separate distinct God, a product from such union.

The metaphysical Trinity that was approved by Constantine in 313AD, set the foundation for orthodoxy still with us.

Nevertheless, St John's Revelation foretold that this idea of Father = Son = Holy Spirit, Trinity, would be established:

Rev. 3:12 ... and I will write upon him my new name, (Christ, Homoousiosian sapiens).







Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

[Krusader]

Here in Rev22:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+22:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Jehovah God saying of himself he emphasizes his eternal sovereignty and the fact that what he first purposes he will at last perform.

------------


Revelation 1:17b, 18a “And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one.’”

At Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah rightly describes his own position as the one and only almighty God, saying: “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.” When Jesus presents himself by the title “the First and the Last,” he is not claiming equality with Jehovah, the Grand Creator, he is using a title properly bestowed on him by God.
In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection. Jesus was indeed “the First” human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life. (Col 1:18) Moreover, he is “the Last” to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally. Thus, he becomes “the living one . . . living forever and ever.” He enjoys immortality. He is now like his immortal (the power of an indestructible life) Father, who is called “the living God.” (Rev 7:2; Ps 42:2) For all others of humanity, Jesus himself is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) In harmony with this, he says to John: “I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Rev 1:18b) Jehovah has given him the authority to resurrect the dead. That is why Jesus can say that he has the keys to unlock the gates for those bound by death and Hades.


Barryrob

Barryrob, don't you see that nobody reading the Bible on their own could have ever come to the conclusion about the meaning of Jesus being the "first and the last," except by seeing those words through distorted Watchtower glasses.

As you have proven through posting long segments of Watchtower propaganda, JWs just can't think for themselves - and are afraid to do so, because they just might come to different conclusions than those reached by the organization.

And, of course, if they did - they'd have to keep their mouths shut or face discipline.

Barry, you are in a cult.

[barryrob]

Barryrob, don't you see that nobody reading the Bible on their own could have ever come to the conclusion about the meaning of Jesus being the "first and the last," except by seeing those words through distorted Watchtower glasses.

As you have proven through posting long segments of Watchtower propaganda, JWs just can't think for themselves - and are afraid to do so, because they just might come to different conclusions than those reached by the organization.

And, of course, if they did - they'd have to keep their mouths shut or face discipline.

Barry, you are in a cult.

When I started my Bible study I read lot of terching from many churches and what I was being taught by JWs showed logic against the mystery of the Trinity. God is no mystery:-

Deuteronomy 6:4
"Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Clear and to the point!

Barryrob

[Krusader]

When I started my Bible study I read lot of terching from many churches and what I was being taught by JWs showed logic against the mystery of the Trinity. God is no mystery:-

Deuteronomy 6:4
"Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Clear and to the point!

Barryrob
Barry, the Tetragrammaton is YHWH not Jehovah, as the Watchtower falsely states. How would you like it if your bame was Robert and people called you Rubert? Johovah has nothing to do with YHWH, which is properly Yahweh.

Furthermore, haven't you ever heard of the "mystery of Godliness," spoken of by Paul? God's ways are not your ways, Barry, and His thoughts are far above yours.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death.

You really need to get your head out of the Watchtower and do some critical research. It sounds to me as if you embraced the WT heresy because it sounded good. So does Mormonism, but is it true?

[barryrob]

Barry, the Tetragrammaton is YHWH not Jehovah, as the Watchtower falsely states. How would you like it if your bame was Robert and people called you Rubert? Johovah has nothing to do with YHWH, which is properly Yahweh.

Furthermore, haven't you ever heard of the "mystery of Godliness," spoken of by Paul? God's ways are not your ways, Barry, and His thoughts are far above yours.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death.

You really need to get your head out of the Watchtower and do some critical research. It sounds to me as if you embraced the WT heresy because it sounded good. So does Mormonism, but is it true?
If you think you can do any better try me out?

Barryrob

[Krusader]

If you think you can do any better try me out?

Barryrob
Barry, I hope your not counting your postings as hours put in for the WT.

Tell me how long you've been in the organization. And, also, are you aware that the society has cautioned its members against reading Christian critiques of the society on the Internet, or dialogue with Christians on the Internet? You could get in trouble if the elders find out.

[kofh2u]

Barryrob, don't you see that nobody reading the Bible on their own could have ever come to the conclusion about the meaning of Jesus being the "first and the last," except by seeing those words through distorted Watchtower glasses.

As you have proven through posting long segments of Watchtower propaganda, JWs just can't think for themselves - and are afraid to do so, because they just might come to different conclusions than those reached by the organization.

And, of course, if they did - they'd have to keep their mouths shut or face discipline.

Barry, you are in a cult.

The JW's I spoke with recently admit that Jehovah is a mistranslation. They deny that their major thrust in the early 1900's conce ned their insight into the translation and they told me taht the correct name is not so important. Perhaps.

As regarding other things they believe I have found them not any more pecular than the other major mainstream denominations. Every denomination seems to hold sacred its own special ways of understanding/interpreting. This, of course, is Faith... gaith in one's Faith. Certainly, they all need to equate faith with their Faith or they are guilty of believing in something other than Jesus, their faith is not directly in Jesus but is faith in their Faith about Jesus.
Now, sure. If their Faith is the Faith or exacty the same veiw as Jesus himself holds/held, then they have no problem. Their faith is The Faith of Jesus, Christ. Their faith is in Jesus and his Faith.

The problem is that the twelve major denominations can not ALL be absolutely correct. So, faith in Jesus with such detailed adendum and commentary seems the wisest of paths.

Consider this, I was told that Orthodox Christianity outlaws, in the Second Coming, in the re-appearance of Christ in power, honor, glory, etc, orthodox Christian views outlaw Christ announcing that he is the messiah.
I assume the interpretations of scripture insist we, the Christians, anoint him, crown him, announce and accept him.


My feelings are that Christ will give everyone a break. He'll judge by Matthew 25:31.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

[heaven]

The JW's I spoke with recently admit that Jehovah is a mistranslation. They deny that their major thrust in the early 1900's conce ned their insight into the translation and they told me taht the correct name is not so important. Perhaps.

As regarding other things they believe I have found them not any more pecular than the other major mainstream denominations. Every denomination seems to hold sacred its own special ways of understanding/interpreting. This, of course, is Faith... gaith in one's Faith. Certainly, they all need to equate faith with their Faith or they are guilty of believing in something other than Jesus, their faith is not directly in Jesus but is faith in their Faith about Jesus.
Now, sure. If their Faith is the Faith or exacty the same veiw as Jesus himself holds/held, then they have no problem. Their faith is The Faith of Jesus, Christ. Their faith is in Jesus and his Faith.

The problem is that the twelve major denominations can not ALL be absolutely correct. So, faith in Jesus with such detailed adendum and commentary seems the wisest of paths.

Consider this, I was told that Orthodox Christianity outlaws, in the Second Coming, in the re-appearance of Christ in power, honor, glory, etc, orthodox Christian views outlaw Christ announcing that he is the messiah.
I assume the interpretations of scripture insist we, the Christians, anoint him, crown him, announce and accept him.


My feelings are that Christ will give everyone a break. He'll judge by Matthew 25:31.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).
==========================================================

Dear Barryrob,

Your understanding of the orthodox groups is incorrect. Please go to
http://www.liturgica.com/ and go to http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/.

There you will find that christianity was founded by the apostles and their
followers, jews, who founded the early church and which did hand down
their traditions to the catholic church. This church , early and catholic church
wrote and compiled the canon of the NT. The early church had only
hebrew tradition and the tanakh or OT. All christian churches emerge from
this root. The catholic church had two main addresses, the latin rite in the
West and Hagia Sophia for the church in the East. In 1054 the catholic
church split. Please go to ERP Thesaurus at http://www.kosovo.com/schism.html

Many schisms followed, however these schisms or denominations have the
same basic doctrines or tenets of faith, of which the Trinity is the major
doctrine. Many heresies have come and gone. Many cults have arisen,
none have their roots in the apostolic succession and have many ideas that
they expound upon and often change.

I hope that I have been helpful:sigh:

[barryrob]

The JW's I spoke with recently admit that Jehovah is a mistranslation. They deny that their major thrust in the early 1900's conce ned their insight into the translation and they told me taht the correct name is not so important. Perhaps.

As regarding other things they believe I have found them not any more pecular than the other major mainstream denominations. Every denomination seems to hold sacred its own special ways of understanding/interpreting. This, of course, is Faith... gaith in one's Faith. Certainly, they all need to equate faith with their Faith or they are guilty of believing in something other than Jesus, their faith is not directly in Jesus but is faith in their Faith about Jesus.
Now, sure. If their Faith is the Faith or exacty the same veiw as Jesus himself holds/held, then they have no problem. Their faith is The Faith of Jesus, Christ. Their faith is in Jesus and his Faith.

The problem is that the twelve major denominations can not ALL be absolutely correct. So, faith in Jesus with such detailed adendum and commentary seems the wisest of paths.

Consider this, I was told that Orthodox Christianity outlaws, in the Second Coming, in the re-appearance of Christ in power, honor, glory, etc, orthodox Christian views outlaw Christ announcing that he is the messiah.
I assume the interpretations of scripture insist we, the Christians, anoint him, crown him, announce and accept him.


My feelings are that Christ will give everyone a break. He'll judge by Matthew 25:31.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).The offical Jehovah's Witness stance on God's personal name is as follows:-

Reasoning From The Scriptures p. 191
"Jehovah
Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. "Jehovah" is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה, which means "He Causes to Become." These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH."

Barryrob

[Krusader]

The offical Jehovah's Witness stance on God's personal name is as follows:-

Reasoning From The Scriptures p. 191
"Jehovah
Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. "Jehovah" is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, יהוה, which means "He Causes to Become." These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH."

Barryrob
Barryrob: you are a classic example of a Watchtower cultist. You cannot process information apart from Watchtowerisms, nor can you post anything demonstrating independent thought. You are a true Jonadab!

[Sparko]

Barryrob has a CD version of the watchtower and he loves to quote from it.

[barryrob]

Barryrob has a CD version of the watchtower and he loves to quote from it.

There is nowhere else to find true Christian teachings when compaired with what the Bible says e.g. they teach True Peace Among Men of Good Will and as I said before thay do not get involved in the bloody slaughter of War of the godless religions that say they worship the "Prince of Peace" and then have no qualms about killing Men, Women, and Children in their godless mudering of each other and even kill thier allies with 'friendly fire'! What did Jesus say:-

Matthew 23:23- "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things.


Matthew 23:25-26 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of plunder and immoderateness. 26 Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside of it also may become clean.

Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In that way YOU also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside YOU are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Mark 7:6-8 He said to them: "Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’ 8 Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men."

Peace be with the Godly
Barryob

[Krusader]

There is nowhere else to find true Christian teachings when compaired with what the Bible says e.g. they teach True Peace Among Men of Good Will and as I said before thay do not get involved in the bloody slaughter of War of the godless religions that say they worship the "Prince of Peace" and then have no qualms about killing Men, Women, and Children in their godless mudering of each other and even kill thier allies with 'friendly fire'! What did Jesus say:-

Matthew 23:23- "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things.


Matthew 23:25-26 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of plunder and immoderateness. 26 Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside of it also may become clean.

Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In that way YOU also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside YOU are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Mark 7:6-8 He said to them: "Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’ 8 Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men."

Peace be with the Godly
Barryob
Barryrob, go to the "Silent Lambs" website before you accuse everyone else but the Watchtower of hypocrisy!

[Sparko]

See? he posted from the watchtower instead of responding directly..

By the way Barryrob...

Merry Christmas!

May you find the truth and may our Lord Jesus bless you this Christmas and the coming new year.

[Krusader]

See? he posted from the watchtower instead of responding directly..

By the way Barryrob...

Merry Christmas!

May you find the truth and may our Lord Jesus bless you this Christmas and the coming new year.
Sadly, most Watchtower followers are actually unable to inform themselves apart from the Society's literature. The Watchtower is literally a mind-control cult, with its own mantra, "We have the truth."

[barryrob]

Barryrob, go to the "Silent Lambs" website before you accuse everyone else but the Watchtower of hypocrisy!
To see "hypocrisy" in action I just watch the News on TV and see what the church and islam are doing to each other again! Then compaire what they do againt Bible teachings and see the Chasm between the two!

Love Barryrob

[barryrob]

Sadly, most Watchtower followers are actually unable to inform themselves apart from the Society's literature. The Watchtower is literally a mind-control cult, with its own mantra, "We have the truth."
What you know about us is dwarfed by what you do not know, which is very plain to see by your comments.


Barryrob

[barryrob]

See? he posted from the watchtower instead of responding directly..

By the way Barryrob...

Merry Christmas!

May you find the truth and may our Lord Jesus bless you this Christmas and the coming new year.All my own word except for Jesus words which are far more important then mine.

I have found it, thanks for the thought.

Well we do not get involved with all the X-mass stuff but I will have a few days out to put my feet up and knock a door or two to see if anyone is intrested in Jesus during the Holiday.

I hope all enjoy some time at home with the folks and a brake from work, we all need it.

Love to all
Barryrob

[Brian37]

Hi Barryrob,

Rather than answering your post point by point, I think this is a good place to just post an article on what we Trinitarians really do believe and why we believe it. It is an article I wrote for my web site a few years ago.

------

Discovering the Trinity for Yourself



By John Sparks


(some of the research for this paper was gathered from the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY Web Site. Please visit them for many many articles on the Christian faith and defense of Christian Doctrines)

Introduction

The word Trinity was coined to describe the way that the Bible describes God. The Bible teaches in various places that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet, it also teaches that there is only ONE God, and that Jesus is not the Father, or Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus, and so on. So since the Bible is infallible and is the true word of God, we must conclude that there are three persons who are all fully God, and yet there is only ONE God. So the there are three "who"s and one "what." This means that God is one in substance and essence, but three in persons. This concept is called the Trinity. The word doesn't appear in the Bible (neither does the word "Bible" for that matter), but the concept is clearly taught by scripture. We will discuss how this can be below.


Part 1 The history of the concept of the Trinity:

The trinity wasn't "invented" in the fourth century as many believe. It goes back to the very beginning of the church. It is also taught, though not explicitly, in the Bible (I will go into that later). We have many records from early church fathers, going back to the time of John (near 100 ad). I will be quoting some of these sources below, showing that they believed in the Trinity and that Jesus was actually God (note: When a Trinitarian talks about Jesus being God, he doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.)


Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Agn. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

========
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire.


Part 2 - Why do we believe there IS a Trinity?


Trinitarians believe that there are three persons in ONE God. Not three Gods. To believe that Jesus is divine and Son of God, but completely separate, would mean that there are TWO Gods. There is only ONE God, the old and new testament says this over and over.

If Jesus was just the Son of the Father (who is God), then he would have to either have been created by the Father (which we know he wasn't, since ALL things were created by and through him) or he would have to be a second God (since like begets like. A human begets a human, a God would beget a God). So Jesus would have to be another God, or he would have to be a creature, an angel, or cherubim. We know he is not, because he accepts worship, and only God is to be worshiped. And we know that there cannot be two Gods, because the LORD in the Old Testament categorically denies any God before, beside, or after Him. That leaves only ONE logical conclusion, Jesus is the same God that the Father is. But they are two persons. So we have two persons in ONE God. The Holy Spirit is also shown to be a person and God in the New Testament (especially in John chapter 14). This makes three persons in one God. It is hard to understand, but it is the only logical explanation of the various scriptures without going to three different Gods, or saying that the Bible contradicts itself.

Below are some verses that demonstrate this reasoning:

First we must establish that there is only ONE God and no other:

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

The LORD's servant is Jesus (read the passage in context). The LORD says that "I am he", stating that He and the Servant are the same! Also, note no God was formed before the LORD nor after.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Next, we show that Jesus is God

In the list below, you will see that there are many passages in the Bible that equate Jesus with the God of the old testament, known as Yahweh (YHWH), or LORD, or Jehovah. There are verses in the Bible that give YHWH certain titles and attributes, and other verses that give Jesus those same attributes and titles.

YHWH is Creator

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is "I AM" (ego eimi)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

See also Deut. 32.39

Jesus is "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

YHWH is Judge

Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)

Rom. 14:10 "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..."

2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

YHWH is King

Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath."

Isaiah 44:6-8 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

See also Psalm 47

Jesus is King

Matthew 2:2 "...Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Luke 23:3 So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

See also John 19:21

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

YHWH is Shepherd

Psalm 23:1 Psalm 23 A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.

Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Jesus is Shepherd

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

YHWH is the Rock

Deut. 32:4 "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."

See also 2 Sam. 22:32 and Isaiah 17:10.

Jesus is the Rock

1 Cor. 10:4 "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

See also 1 Peter 2:6-8.

YHWH is the Light

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"

Isaiah 60:20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.

1 John 1:5 "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Jesus is the Light

John 8:12 "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Luke 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

See also John 1:7-9

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the NIV Bible.

Some additional comparisons between the LORD and Jesus:

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

Immanuel means "God is with us." Jesus means "the LORD saves." Who does it say will do the saving in verse 21? Jesus.

Continued at: http://www.saveme.org/articles/trinity.htm
(edited to go to web link to avoid back-to-back posts.)

Triinty concepts and other mythologies are not original to Christanity. Long before the bible in ancient Egypt Horus assended into heaven to sit at the right hand of Osirus in judgment of the dead. Ra-Osirus and Horus were a much older trinity.

Other myths include "spitting in the eye to cure blindness", Thot, the healing god of ancient Egypt spit in the eye of Horus (the eye on the pyrimid on the back of the dollar bill btw)(That is what our modern Rx symbol on pharmacies comes from). Long before December 25th was used by Christians, Mythra and Atlas also celebrated their birthdays on that same day.

Dyonysus also died on a cross as well.

Occum's Razor would say that the simplist solution is the most likely answer. Since humans have never existed in a vacuume, and have had many periods of mass contact with prior and competiting cultures, it is infinately more likely that modern religion came out of prior religion, than any actuall deity being real. Thats just my take on it.

We accept that humans compete, in love, in familys, in sports, in business , but when it comes to the eyes of one group regarding religion, (I'm talking about any group of any lable) it seems to reject the aplication of that logic to their own belief.

Everyone, but their own group, is full of human competition, but somehow, their own group is immune to the same human nature.

"Saying that any deity of any lable is the first one is like saying Coke is the first beverage because it's can is red"-Brian37 (http://www.infidelguy.com/?ref=Brian37)

[Krusader]

Barryrob, I know a great deal about the Society - and obviously more than you, since you are still a member.

Why not comment on the Silent Lambs website? A lot of sexual abuse being covered up by Watchtower elders.

Christians have nothing to do with terrorism (I'm referring to born-again believers) - other than joining in the battle against Islamic jihadists so that mind-controlled people like you can enjoy your freedom.

[barryrob]

Barryrob, I know a great deal about the Society - and obviously more than you, since you are still a member.

Why not comment on the Silent Lambs website? A lot of sexual abuse being covered up by Watchtower elders.

Christians have nothing to do with terrorism (I'm referring to born-again believers) - other than joining in the battle against Islamic jihadists so that mind-controlled people like you can enjoy your freedom.

Jehovah's witnesses office of public information 1


Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection

Child abuse is abhorrent to us. This is in harmony with the principle recorded at Romans 12:9. Even one abused child is one too many. For decades The Watchtower and Awake! have featured articles to educate both Witnesses and the public regarding the importance and the need to protect children from child abuse. Among others, there was the article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked!" published in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower ; "Help for the Victims of Incest" in the October 1, 1983, Watchtower, "Your Child Is in Danger!", "How Can We Protect Our Children?", and "Prevention in the Home", all in the October 8, 1993, Awake!, as well as "Child Molesting—Every Mother's Nightmare," in the January 22, 1985, Awake!

When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.

However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

If, when confronted, the accused confesses that he is guilty of child abuse, the elders take appropriate congregational action. If he is not repentant, he will not be permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant—is cut to the heart and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future—what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower applies. The article said: "For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of Jehovah's Witnesses] or serve in any other special, full-time service." He would not qualify Scripturally. (1 Timothy 3:2, 7-10) We take such action because we are concerned with maintaining Bible standards and protecting our children. Everyone in our organization is expected to meet the same requirements, namely, to be clean physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually.—2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 4:17-19; 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All the factors are considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation.

Our procedures have been refined over time. Over the years, as we have noted areas where our policies could be strengthened, we have followed through. We are continuing to refine them. We do not believe that our system is perfect. No human organization is perfect. But we do believe that we have a strong, Bible-based policy on child abuse. Anyone in a responsible position who is guilty of child abuse would be removed from his responsibilities without hesitation. We certainly would not knowingly allow him to serve elsewhere, either because he moved or through a transfer.

The Bible teaches that individuals can repent of their sins and "turn to God by doing works that befit repentance," and we accept what the Bible says. (Acts 26:20) Still, the safety of our children is of the utmost importance. We take it very seriously.

Copyright © 2002 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

http://www.jw-media.org/releases/bg_molestation.htm


Jehovah's witnesses office of public information 2


Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection in Britain

Paul Gillies, spokesman for the Britain branch of Jehovah's Witnesses comments: "Sexual abuse of children is not just a terrible sin but also a crime that can leave lasting emotional scars on its victims. Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere abhor the sexual abuse of children and will not protect any perpetrator of such repugnant acts from the consequences of his gross sin. This is in harmony with the principle recorded at Romans 12:9."

Recognizing that religion is in the spotlight for its handling of matters relating to this complex issue, Jehovah's Witnesses have made sure the public has access to detailed information regarding their means of responding to these matters when they may arise within a congregation. Mr. Gillies explains, "It is of deep concern to us if there is a victim of abuse who says his or her case has not been handled with sensitivity or understanding in our religion."

And Mr. Gillies continues, "Elders in Britain are directed to ensure that secular laws are adhered to. When a report is received, elders contact our National Office in London for guidance to ensure that (1) the alleged victim, and other potential victims, are protected from possible abuse and (2) that counsel is given to report crime to the proper authorities and to comply with any additional legal requirements. Jehovah's Witnesses further believe that it is the absolute right of the victim, his or her family, or any others to report the matter to the authorities if they so choose. There are certainly no sanctions against any congregation member who reports an allegation of child abuse to the authorities."


National Contact Paul Gillies, telephone: 020 8906 2211



16/07/02 Copyright © 2002 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

http://www.jw-media,org/release/020714.htm

[Krusader]

You obviously didn't go to the Silent Lambs website. The Watchtower split into 2 separate corporations to protect themselves from lawsuits - no the least of those by the sexually abused.

You're really such a good example of total mind-control that I really don't believe any real truth could ever penetrate through the Watchtower mindset.

Have you ever thought of putting aside the mind control mechanisms and responding with original thoughts?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Barry, posting whole articles in response is not appropriate. Further, you are posting entire copyrighted pieces, and unless you send us some notification that there is permission to do this, we have to ask that you not do so.

[barryrob]

Barryrob, I know a great deal about the Society - and obviously more than you, since you are still a member.

Why not comment on the Silent Lambs website? A lot of sexual abuse being covered up by Watchtower elders.

Christians have nothing to do with terrorism (I'm referring to born-again believers) - other than joining in the battle against Islamic jihadists so that mind-controlled people like you can enjoy your freedom.
Being this post was addressed to the Watchtower why cannot they be allowed to answer?

[Krusader]

Barryrob, reread the post. It was addressed to "Barryrob," not the Society. We want you to respond, in your own words. Just as I attempt to respond to you with my own thoughts, you should at least make an effort to do the same. Think outside the box for once!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Being this post was addressed to the Watchtower why cannot they be allowed to answer?

Barry our forum rules prohibit and highly discourage the posting of whole articles in response - our members want to talk with each other not dueling articles. Articles are fine to start a conversation but after that it is people. Also we have concerns that the WatchTower has not given copyright permission for this kind of use. Until you can let us know that they have given permission for the posting of whole articles, we are going to have to disallow this use.

[barryrob]

You obviously didn't go to the Silent Lambs website. The Watchtower split into 2 separate corporations to protect themselves from lawsuits - no the least of those by the sexually abused.

You're really such a good example of total mind-control that I really don't believe any real truth could ever penetrate through the Watchtower mindset.

Have you ever thought of putting aside the mind control mechanisms and responding with original thoughts? Take a look here Crusader:-

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1993/10/8a/article_01.htm


Barryrob


Barryrob,
Posting just a link to an article is just as bad as posting the entire article as your argument. We do not allow argument by hyperlink-only either. You need to find a happy medium. Post only relevant portions of articles, one or two paragraphs, give link to rest of article for reference, and/or cite the source, and explain why the relevent section IS relevant.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

[MKJV, 1 John 5:7] "...For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

[Topherlee]

[MKJV, 1 John 5:7] "...For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."


I would suggest researching the historical evidence that shows that this particular verse did not exist in the bible until the 1600's. In fact, research the history of the Trinity itself. It is not a biblical teaching of Jehovah or his Son Jesus. Nor was it a teaching of the apostles. God did not suggest the word Trinity, man did. God said he is one - without any interpretation or suggestion of a compound oneness.
Your right, it was coined by a man years after the bible had been written through interpretation, as was the word incarnate (of the Hindu religion). Neither word originally appeared in the bible.
The Trinity only exists because it is interpretation, not because it's biblical. If God says he is one, then I would take God's word for it, not mans.

[John from Ebla]

I would suggest researching the historical evidence that shows that this particular verse did not exist in the bible until the 1600's. In fact, research the history of the Trinity itself. It is not a biblical teaching of Jehovah or his Son Jesus. Nor was it a teaching of the apostles. God did not suggest the word Trinity, man did. God said he is one - without any interpretation or suggestion of a compound oneness.
Your right, it was coined by a man years after the bible had been written through interpretation, as was the word incarnate (of the Hindu religion). Neither word originally appeared in the bible.
The Trinity only exists because it is interpretation, not because it's biblical. If God says he is one, then I would take God's word for it, not mans.


The Jewish law of agency is not biblicla either. It was put in by pagan Jews that started to beleive in the same god as the muslims. There is one thing their god cannot do " interract'

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

I would suggest researching the historical evidence that shows that this particular verse did not exist in the bible until the 1600's.

And how do you know the information you researched is true? Have you exmaine the manuscripts? Or did you just dig around online, flip through some publications etc?


In fact, research the history of the Trinity itself. It is not a biblical teaching of Jehovah or his Son Jesus.

This is an asserstion. Can you please provide textual evidence, from a set of manuscripts to prove this?


Nor was it a teaching of the apostles.

Wrong. I would suggest going through the Epsitles and few times and counting the referrences to to "God our Savior".


God did not suggest the word Trinity, man did.

Trinity no, Godhead? Yes. How do you explain "Melech YHWH" speaking to Abraham?


God said he is one - without any interpretation or suggestion of a compound oneness.

Yes, the bible states "The Lord our God is one". Which He is.

Can you please explain how a person is to understand a "compound oneness"? Can you explain what a compound oneness is? I've never heard of it before...


t, it was coined by a man years after the bible had been written through interpretation,

Okay, so instead of Trinity, perhaps we shold use Godhead? That's found in the bible... Can you explain, in depth, what Godhead means?

Addintionally, can you explain what "written through interpretation" means? I thought the Scriptures were written by men as moved by the Holy Spirit?

Have you bothered to study Theophanies? It doesn't appear like it.


[]incarnate[/I] (of the Hindu religion). Neither word originally appeared in the bible.

Which bible did this not originally appear in??? How do you explain John 1:14??? Or are we being picky over EXACT words. Because, if that's the case, then you have no right called Jesus "Jesus". Seeing how that exact word isn;t from the bible either...

I think I can see problems with your understanding of the historical evidence. Much of it is based on Watchtower dogmatism.



The Triniy only exists because it is interpretation, not because it's biblical. If God says he is one, then I would take God's word for it, not mans.

This is a false statement, an asserted false statement to be accurate.

Ther Lord is one, meaning. - He is not three gods, but one God.

Here's a FACT you are oblivious to; This personality you suspect might be "god" has REVEALED HIMSELF TO US, through the DEITY of JESUS CHRSIT, and TEACHES US the TRUTH of HIS TRIUNE BEING.

It's not as though we just have this book laying around, and an orgainization pmping out magazines, where we get our ideas from. We have actual fellowship with Him. One that involves instruction, which is taught by the author of the Scriptures, The PERSON of the Holy Spirit.

(Pro 24:13-14) My son, eat honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb is sweet to your palate; so shall the knowledge of wisdom be to your soul; when you have found it, then there shall be a reward, and your hope shall not be cut off.

(Pro 1:7) The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

[Topherlee]

Deut 6:4 originally written as "Hear O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH. The Ten Commandments is written as "Thou shall not take YHWH thy Gods name in vain. Moses did know Gods name. It is a historical fact that Gods name had been removed from the OT an estimated 6 to 7000 times and replaced with LORD.

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD (YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Jeremiah 16:21 Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD (YHWH).

Jesus declares his Fathers name:
John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

As God is one, God has one name, YHWH. God created Jesus (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) and appointed him our King (the Christ - anointed with Gods wisdom), not another god. There is a difference between being a King and God. Time and time again, Jesus says that "the Father is greater than I", "what I teach is not mine, but of the one who SENT me", Jesus is the mediator between God and man, Jesus grew in favor with God and man, etc... But apparently, you do not hear him.

I think you need to understand why Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, and why angels are also known as sons of God. People like you and I consider God our Creator, our Father, hence, Gods children. This is not some illogical thinking, it's what the bible refers to as practical or sound wisdom. God YHWH is not the author of confusion.

You use the term Godhead and relate it to the Trinity because of ideology. Look at the following meaning per Wikipedia: In Christianity, the Godhead is a term denoting deity or divinity. It is a unity comprised of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Though often used interchangeably with the concept of Trinity, the word Godhead is itself a word that simply means "godhood" and, thus, it is erroneous to use it as synonymous with the English word "trinity." In those English translations of the Bible that use "Godhead," such as the King James Bible, there are only three passages of scripture where it is used - Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9 - and each time it is used, it is translated from a different Greek word: theios (godlike, divinity), theiotes (divinity, divine nature), and theotes (deity, divinity), respectively.

[John from Ebla]

Deut 6:4 originally written as "Hear O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH. The Ten Commandments is written as "Thou shall not take YHWH thy Gods name in vain. Moses did know Gods name. It is a historical fact that Gods name had been removed from the OT an estimated 6 to 7000 times and replaced with LORD.

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD (YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Jeremiah 16:21 Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD (YHWH).

Jesus declares his Fathers name:
John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

As God is one, God has one name, YHWH. God created Jesus (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) and appointed him our King (the Christ - anointed with Gods wisdom), not another god. There is a difference between being a King and God. Time and time again, Jesus says that "the Father is greater than I", "what I teach is not mine, but of the one who SENT me", Jesus is the mediator between God and man, Jesus grew in favor with God and man, etc... But apparently, you do not hear him.

I think you need to understand why Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, and why angels are also known as sons of God. People like you and I consider God our Creator, our Father, hence, Gods children. This is not some illogical thinking, it's what the bible refers to as practical or sound wisdom. God YHWH is not the author of confusion.

You use the term Godhead and relate it to the Trinity because of ideology. Look at the following meaning per Wikipedia: In Christianity, the Godhead is a term denoting deity or divinity. It is a unity comprised of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Though often used interchangeably with the concept of Trinity, the word Godhead is itself a word that simply means "godhood" and, thus, it is erroneous to use it as synonymous with the English word "trinity." In those English translations of the Bible that use "Godhead," such as the King James Bible, there are only three passages of scripture where it is used - Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9 - and each time it is used, it is translated from a different Greek word: theios (godlike, divinity), theiotes (divinity, divine nature), and theotes (deity, divinity), respectively.

So now you started playing the name game. Can you pronounce it, l know Jews (that denounce Jesus) that would not dare pronounce it because it is impossible, they use the word adonia and have no idea on how to pronounce it- but l guess it's easy for you to type four letters and say, "It's God name" Why didn’t the apostles teach us this? Why isn’t in the New Testament? Jesus didn’t use a name for God- he said, “Father” and taught us to say the same, ‘Father”

What is the word for moon in Hebrew “Yah- reah” Oh! l forgot to mention “ l found this site using the Yah-oo search engine. Yah, Yah, Yah, interesting isn’t it.

l would like to post more but l think l will leave it for latter. “Yah” is going to be a good subject. (Must have been a crazy century in Germany 1750 to 1850) :ahem:

Kind regards
John form Ebla

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The Trinity doctrine began its slow development over a period of centuries. The Trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, gradually crept into church teachings. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says [page 52]:[/font]

BarryRob. Could you please point me to the Trinitarian idea of Plato? I know of no one who followed Plato who was a pagan who came to the conclusion from Plato that God is triune.

[QUOTE=Barryrob] “We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”[/font]

Yes. The church did invest some in the ideas of Plato. Truth is truth regardless of where it's found. I'm sure the WT society abides by the Law of Noncontradiction. Do you want me to say then that you are using Aristotle? If something Plato said is true, go with it.

That being said, the central tenet of Christianity, the resurrection of the Son of God, was definitely NOT a Platonic idea. The Greek world was quite clear on resurrection. It didn't happen. The ANF were immersed in Scripture and probably more so than many of us today. Plato also believed in transmigration, which is something none of the ANF accepted. The Greek thought also saw the body as a prison. (By the way, isn't it interesting that the WT disregards the body then in their idea of the resurrection as something being spiritual implying non-physical? Such a distinction wouldn't have been known until Descartes anyways. Who's really borrowing from philosophy?)












"The Alexandrian school with its Platonic emphasis was the popular school of it time. In its more moderate form it set the christological pattern for many centuries."

BarryRob. Could you please remind me of where Arius was from? Remember him? Leading Arian whose actions called about the council of Nicea? By the way, didn't he believe in Plato's idea of the Monas and that was why he rejected the Trinity?




















As the Christian gospel encountered the gentile world questions inevitably arose about the relationship between the Christian faith and other religious traditions. In the writings of the Greek apologists, most notably Justin Martyr, there is a willingness to recognise the religious philosophy of Platonism in particular, as providing a preparation for the gospel. Just as the Jewish prophets pointed forward to Christ, so a preparation for the gospel can be traced in Greek philosophy. Just as the revelation of God to Moses at the burning bush was interpreted as the appearance of the divine Logos, so that the same was seen as present in the 'seeds' on the word in the truth witnessed to by pagan philosophers. Christ is therefore the fulfiller of other religious yearnings as he is of the Jewish prophets.

Those darn Gentiles. When they went into other cultures, they also learned their language. If you want to be a missionary in China, it can help to learn Chinese. Is there anything wrong with using words your audience would be familiar with? Not at all. Paul frequently quoted pagan writers in the NT even! That darn pagan Paul borrowing from the pagans and building Chirstianity on them.

And are you denying that Christ is the fulfillment of the yearning of all men? It would seem that if anyone is approaching truth from any viewpoint, the closer they get to the truth, the more their words will line up with Christianity. You seem to think truth of philosophy is of a different degree than truth of theology. Both are equally true. Now there is difference in rank of course, but there aren't "degrees" of truth.


Not all Christian theologians were willing to follow this line. Others, most notably perhaps Tertullian, drew a sharp line between Greek philosophy and the Jewish/Christian revelation, asking 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' There were many who characterised pagan religion as 'demonic'. And even those like Justin who had a positive attitude towards pagan philosophy, tended to combine this with a clear condemnation of pagan worship."

Yes. So Tertullian avoids philosophy and becomes a Trinitarian. Justin supposedly indulges in it and is a Trinitarian. So what are we going to blame? If you follow Greek philosophy, you become a Trinitarian. If you don't, you become a Trinitarian. Seems like the whole article shoots itself in the foot.




In the above the Church of England synod admits its to the use of Greek philosophy in the formulation of it's doctrines and in the following quote which is taken from the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (pocket edition) copyright 1994 Geoffrey Chapmam-Libreia Editrice Vaticano page 59, It is worth bearing in mind that the Catholic Church establish the Trinity doctrine:-

You know, despite what you think, the church at the time of Nicea was not mindless. There was nothing new introduced at Nicea. There was merely discussion of what was already known. The church officials did not come out and say "Hey! Believe in the Trinity!" and the whole church just went, "Duh....Okay! Let's go with this Trinity thing!"




"251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: 'substance', 'person' or 'hypostasis', relation' and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand'. (ftn, Paul VI CPG § 2.)"[/font]

They also used that pagan Law of Noncontradiction. How dare they! By the way, that the Trinity is so hard to understand shows we're not making it up. If we had been making it up, we would have made something much simpler for us to understand. You can't play games though when you're dealing with facts.




In the above statement "with the help of certain philosophical origin" this can be non other than pagan Greek philosophy terminology, as will be shown latter that the early Church fathers used it and admitted it into the Catholic Church as show by the Church of England Synod in the previous but one quote. Also note the italics in the above quote it says this use of philosophy was "not" a submission " to human wisdom", this cannot be the case as Greek philosophy means 'love of wisdom', also it says "unprecedented", but if it was the use of Scripture then how can it be unprecedented and again as it -philosophy- is not from the Bible (the Bible is Theological) so it must be from a human source, so this is a blatant contradiction. We should remember that during the period in which the trinity doctrine was being formulated it was also a time of great syncratic religious activity e.g. Gnosticism was a mix of Egyptian, Hellenistic philosophy and Judaic and Christian theology and likewise the Phibionites and others, this kind of thinking wrongly flooded into the Christian congregation as Jehovah's Witnesses claim as the origin of the trinity is also noted by John Gwyn Griffiths in 'Triads and Trinity' page 223:-

And the Bible teaches the hatred of wisdom? Truth is truth no matter how one comes about it. If God is the God of all truth, then when a pagan philosopher says something in accordance to God, he is not going against what God has said.

Also, this seems to imply that philosophy was the only tool used. Nonsense. Again, the ANF were soaked in Scripture.




"The influence of Greek terminology is apparent from time to time in Christian writings about the trinity, and since these writings were mostly in Greek up to the time of Augustine, it was inevitable that the Greek philosophical and religious traditions should be reflected. Its philosophical rigour in unquestioned and at its best it rivals Plato himself."

Do you apply the same rule to the Greek LXX and other Greek translations of the OT and the NT which was written in Greek? The Pauline epistles were written in Greek. How should I treat them then?




If the above comment is erroneous, why should Quintus Tertullian (160-220 C.E.) the Carthaginian theologian and so-called 'Church Father', ask the questions "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to de with the Church? what have heretics to do with Christians?" and then add "Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic and dialectic Christianity" (see A new Eusebius Edited by J. Stevens SPCK London p.178) it is because in his day he perceived that pagan Greek philosophy was being exploited and added to Biblical teachings, otherwise why ask the question? As philosophy has its roots in pagan theology it must not be amalgamated with Bible's teachings which is confirmed by a comment in the book 'Students History of Philosophy' by Arthur Kenyon Rogers, Ph.D. page 195-196 which reads as follows:-

And yet, with all his disavowal of it, he never gave up the Trinity........




" The spiritualization of the world in which Neo-Platonism results, and the absence of any adequate feeling for natural law, opened the way for an appeal to non-physical agencies . . . The world is a great hierarchy of souls - Gods, demons, men, - and mystical affinities and relationships between souls, which find expression in divination, astrology, and magical rites, take the place of sober investigation. . . . Historically, this last outcome of Greek thought gets an importance which it does not possess intrinsically, through the fact of its making itself the champion of Paganism, in the now losing struggle which this was carrying on with Christianity. The struggle was wholly unsuccessful. The future belonged to Christianity ; philosophy could hope to survive, not by antagonising it, and joining forces with its rival, but by accepting the new and vigorous contribution which it was making it the life of the world, and moulding this into its own form."

You should really check out what these "wicked pagans" wrote on morality. They'd put many of us to shame.

And yes, this is a word where spiritual beings can intervene. One we call "God." the others, we call "angels and demons."






"The Subordination theorise of Origen and later, those of Arius were prepared for speculatively by the orthodox Platonism of Clement of Alexandria. Interpreting the gospel of John in frankly philosophical categories, Clement assimilated the Father figuratively to the Platonic One, who is the transcendent source of the universe. Then, taking a hint from Johannine theology, he likened the Word of God the nous, or intelligence, of middle Platonic thought. While Clement himself was cautious in suggesting possible speculative parallels between divine revelation and Platonic metaphysics, his suggestive description of the Son as a Platonic hypostasis, or subsistent entity, paved the way for more dramatic theological developments that were soon to follow."

Who's that name in here? It looks like Arius. Wasn't he the one who truly understood that God wasn't triune and.......oh my.....influenced by pagan Greek philosophy.......

And yes, Logos had a specific meaning in Greek philosophy as did the Hebrew counterpart Memra in the Targums. You might want to check that out.

Really, the claim that the Trinity is pagan falls drastically short.

[Topherlee]

So now you started playing the name game. Can you pronounce it, l know Jews (that denounce Jesus) that would not dare pronounce it because it is impossible, they use the word adonia and have no idea on how to pronounce it- but l guess it's easy for you to type four letters and say, "It's God name" Why didn’t the apostles teach us this? Why isn’t in the New Testament? Jesus didn’t use a name for God- he said, “Father” and taught us to say the same, ‘Father”

What is the word for moon in Hebrew “Yah- reah” Oh! l forgot to mention “ l found this site using the Yah-oo search engine. Yah, Yah, Yah, interesting isn’t it.

l would like to post more but l think l will leave it for latter. “Yah” is going to be a good subject. (Must have been a crazy century in Germany 1750 to 1850) :ahem:

Kind regards
John form Ebla


Shocking, John from Ebla, you call it a game; how arrogant... I guess God's commandments mean nothing to you as your are comparing it to Yahoo. Whether the correct pronunciation of the name is truly known or not, one thing is for sure, that is does it exist.

God himself did inspire that his name be known. Do you not read scripture:
Jeremiah 16:21 Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD (YHWH).
The LORD is not a name, it is a title. God Almighty is not a name, it is a proclamation of strength. Jesus referred to God as his Father because he is the Father. But yes, he did preach his Fathers name;
John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What part of scripture do you not understand?

[John from Ebla]

Shocking, John from Ebla, you call it a game; how arrogant... I guess God's commandments mean nothing to you as your are comparing it to Yahoo. Whether the correct pronunciation of the name is truly known or not, one thing is for sure, that is does it exist.

God himself did inspire that his name be known. Do you not read scripture:
Jeremiah 16:21 Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD (YHWH).
The LORD is not a name, it is a title. God Almighty is not a name, it is a proclamation of strength. Jesus referred to God as his Father because he is the Father. But yes, he did preach his Fathers name;
John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What part of scripture do you not understand?

How did the LXX treat it. Never existed. You know the Jew know spell "Yahreah" "Ya-reah"

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[Topherlee]

How did the LXX treat it. Never existed. You know the Jew know spell "Yahreah" "Ya-reah"

Kind Regards
John From Ebla


I am not sure what you mean by, it never existed. Did you not read Jer 16:21? How about the Lord's Prayer, or the Ten Commandments. What name are they referring to?
You need to realize that this is the greatest injustice to have removed the name of God and replace it with LORD. As I said earlier, God inspired that his name be known. It was the arrogance and interpretation of man that had it removed. This is Gods true identity of who he really is; YHWH. Remove it and you are at where we are today.

[FideiDefensor]

I am not sure what you mean by, it never existed. Did you not read Jer 16:21? How about the Lord's Prayer, or the Ten Commandments. What name are they referring to?
You need to realize that this is the greatest injustice to have removed the name of God and replace it with LORD. As I said earlier, God inspired that his name be known. It was the arrogance and interpretation of man that had it removed. This is Gods true identity of who he really is; YHWH. Remove it and you are at where we are today.


Yes, and how about the Lord's Prayer? Isn't that where Jesus taught His followers how to pray? 'Our Father....hallowed (sacred) be your name...'? Wasn't Jesus showing us to use the intimate word 'Father' when we pray and confirming the sacredness of His Father's name? We do have a sacred name to use according to Acts 4:12 and Stephen used it when he prayed (Acts 7:59). God's name was not removed from any Hebrew/Greek manuscripts. Some translations use 'LORD" in the OT in deference to the NT since God's name is not in ANY extant Greek NT manuscript (except for word composites). The ASV that I use does have God's name in it in the OT, which is fine by me. By all means use God's name. But don't create a problem which is not there. God did perserve His scriptures and what we have today is what He wanted us to have. BTW, what is the 'name' used at Matt. 28:19?

Pax Christi
Randy

[Topherlee]

Yes, and how about the Lord's Prayer? Isn't that where Jesus taught His followers how to pray? 'Our Father....hallowed (sacred) be your name...'? Wasn't Jesus showing us to use the intimate word 'Father' when we pray and confirming the sacredness of His Father's name? We do have a sacred name to use according to Acts 4:12 and Stephen used it when he prayed (Acts 7:59). God's name was not removed from any Hebrew/Greek manuscripts. Some translations use 'LORD" in the OT in deference to the NT since God's name is not in ANY extant Greek NT manuscript (except for word composites). The ASV that I use does have God's name in it in the OT, which is fine by me. By all means use God's name. But don't create a problem which is not there. God did perserve His scriptures and what we have today is what He wanted us to have. BTW, what is the 'name' used at Matt. 28:19?

Pax Christi
Randy

God is our Father and the Father of Jesus - this is said in scripture. When he says "hallowed be thy name", you are right, it is sacred, consecrated, and sanctified. None of which means that it is not known or to be pronounced. You said some translations use LORD, well, this is my point, the LORD is used to replace Gods name, period. When you pray to the Father, who are you praying to? What is his name? This is the name that should not be taken in vain.
As for Matthew 28:19, interpretation of scripture is the product of how you were taught. We can agree to disagree. I can give you my thoughts and you can give me yours. I am not here to create problems, just doing my responsibilty as a Christian.

[FideiDefensor]

God is our Father and the Father of Jesus - this is said in scripture. When he says "hallowed be thy name", you are right, it is sacred, consecrated, and sanctified. None of which means that it is not known or to be pronounced. You said some translations use LORD, well, this is my point, the LORD is used to replace Gods name, period. When you pray to the Father, who are you praying to? What is his name? This is the name that should not be taken in vain.
As for Matthew 28:19, interpretation of scripture is the product of how you were taught. We can agree to disagree. I can give you my thoughts and you can give me yours. I am not here to create problems, just doing my responsibilty as a Christian.

The point of my post was that Jesus Himself taught us how to pray and it did not include using His Father's name. We can use 'Father' or we can do as Stephen did and use 'Lord Jesus'. By all means use God's name in prayer if you want to. But don't question others who may choose to follow Jesus' teaching and do otherwise when they pray. If 'Lord' was good enough for the NT writers than it should be good enough for us today. (John 20:28, Romans 10:9-13)

Pax Christi
Randy

[John from Ebla]

God is our Father and the Father of Jesus - this is said in scripture. When he says "hallowed be thy name", you are right, it is sacred, consecrated, and sanctified. None of which means that it is not known or to be pronounced. You said some translations use LORD, well, this is my point, the LORD is used to replace Gods name, period. When you pray to the Father, who are you praying to? What is his name? This is the name that should not be taken in vain.
As for Matthew 28:19, interpretation of scripture is the product of how you were taught. We can agree to disagree. I can give you my thoughts and you can give me yours. I am not here to create problems, just doing my responsibilty as a Christian.


No it did Not. You are playing a guesing game by typing 4 letters. What was wrtten and and spoken. Adonia, Kurios Lord.

Why dom't you type in the Hebrew letters "yod-heh-vav-heh"- did you for get Hebrew?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Topherlee]

No it did Not. You are playing a guesing game by typing 4 letters. What was wrtten and and spoken. Adonia, Kurios Lord.

Why dom't you type in the Hebrew letters "yod-heh-vav-heh"- did you for get Hebrew?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

As I said, LORD is not a name, it is a title, such as god, king, etc... Apparently you do not understand scripture when it refers to the name of God. God says in more than one verse that he has a name. Even the RCC knows the name of the Father; they wrote and own the doctrine of the Trinity. Where do you think this ideology came from?
One things is for certain, the bible correlates with history. Look into history.

[John from Ebla]

As I said, LORD is not a name, it is a title, such as god, king, etc... Apparently you do not understand scripture when it refers to the name of God. God says in more than one verse that he has a name. Even the RCC knows the name of the Father; they wrote and own the doctrine of the Trinity. Where do you think this ideology came from?
One things is for certain, the bible correlates with history. Look into history.


Four letter is not a name either, so stop fooling yourself. Spell it the way you say it- oops, "l don't know how" it can be any variation. Why? Because it's a guessing game.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[heaven]

No it did Not. You are playing a guesing game by typing 4 letters. What was wrtten and and spoken. Adonia, Kurios Lord.

Why dom't you type in the Hebrew letters "yod-heh-vav-heh"- did you for get Hebrew?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

The catholic church by council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit

discerned that YHVH reveals Himself as a Trinity.

[John from Ebla]

The catholic church by council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit

discerned that YHVH reveals Himself as a Trinity.

But once again, 4 letters is not a name, key in the way you say it- good as a guess, Yehevah, Yihevah, Yahivah :ahem:

Lets play the game and see- how many combination we come up with?


Kind regards
John from Ebla

[Topherlee]

But once again, 4 letters is not a name, key in the way you say it- good as a guess, Yehevah, Yihevah, Yahivah :ahem:

Lets play the game and see- how many combination we come up with?


Kind regards
John from Ebla


You say the name does not exist because it cannot be pronounced, yet, God himself says that this is his name. I understand your point whether it is correctly pronounced or not, but you can see for yourself that it is a name.
You can play all you want, you're the one playing with a commandment.

[John from Ebla]

You say the name does not exist because it cannot be pronounced, yet, God himself says that this is his name. I understand your point whether it is correctly pronounced or not, but you can see for yourself that it is a name.
You can play all you want, you're the one playing with a commandment.


Sorry, it is not a name- it is Just 4 letters, nothing more. Guess, Guess, Guess. Mmm! how do l call God?

Kind Regards
John From bla

[heaven]

Sorry, it is not a name- it is Just 4 letters, nothing more. Guess, Guess, Guess. Mmm! how do l call God?

Kind Regards
John From bla

Hi John from bla,

The Hebrew lacks vowels, hence YHVH or Yahweh

[John from Ebla]

Hi John from bla,

The Hebrew lacks vowels, hence YHVH or Yahweh

It Could Yehovah- and why not Yahveh? My mum told me we do't have W so we use Vav Vav VaV, not WaW Waw when it comes to www.com. YAHOO :ahem:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Topherlee]

It Could Yehovah- and why not Yahveh? My mum told me we do't have W so we use Vav Vav VaV, not WaW Waw when it comes to www.com. YAHOO :ahem:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

I am not sure whether you are saying God has a name or not. I would turn to scripture where it says that God has a name. This is stated multiple times in the bible. Whether the pronunciation is correct or not, well, that is another issue.
You sound very young and arrogant Mr. John from Elba. This shows in your writing. It appears that you still live with your mom. Ask her to help you out with scripture.

- topherlee

[John from Ebla]

I am not sure whether you are saying God has a name or not. I would turn to scripture where it says that God has a name. This is stated multiple times in the bible. Whether the pronunciation is correct or not, well, that is another issue.
You sound very young and arrogant Mr. John from Elba. This shows in your writing. It appears that you still live with your mom. Ask her to help you out with scripture.

- topherlee

God has many names thoughout the scriptures. No l don't live with mum but l know what mum taught me- l have two kids and l am married.

Yod-heh-vav-heh- did your mum teach you Waw Waw Waw and Y H V H.

Good as a guess and it could be anything Y-H- V-H =YeHeVih =Yehaviho = Yoheviha= Yohevahe= any combination- it is just four letters. :ahem:

Shalom
John From Embla

[heaven]

Right on, Hebrew has the v and hence it should be Yahveh for YHVH.

[John from Ebla]

Right on, Hebrew has the v and hence it should be Yahveh for YHVH.


Well, l am glad that you are not "Waw Waw Waw" which is related to the Babylonian moon god that Israel served. The Yah is a contraction from Ya-reah which is the same as say Yahreah, then just add the “ Waw” and they call it the name of God.

But even what you wrote is still a guess because it can be anything- anyway look at the verse in the tanankh that say's " l will give you a pure :tongue: " why do you think we need one? :smile:


Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Topherlee]

God has many names thoughout the scriptures. No l don't live with mum but l know what mum taught me- l have two kids and l am married.

Yod-heh-vav-heh- did your mum teach you Waw Waw Waw and Y H V H.

Good as a guess and it could be anything Y-H- V-H =YeHeVih =Yehaviho = Yoheviha= Yohevahe= any combination- it is just four letters. :ahem:

Shalom
John From Embla

God has one name. He is known by others, that are not really names, but declarations. Where does it say that God has many names? The commandments do not suggest this. The Lord's prayer does not suggest this. God himself does not say he has many names, only one.

What is another one of God's names? Enlighten me. :wink:

- topherlee

[Sparko]

What is another one of God's names? Enlighten me. :wink:

- topherlee

Jesus.

[Topherlee]

Jesus.

Where does it say that?

[Topherlee]

Right on, Hebrew has the v and hence it should be Yahveh for YHVH.

The same could be said for the name Jesus. There are no J's in the Hebrew alphabet as well.

[Sparko]

Where does it say that?

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

[Pythagoras]

Hi my Trinitarian friend Sparko,

How are you feeling today?


Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Even Satan is called God in 2 Cor. 2:4, and with the article!

What's your point?

[John from Ebla]

The same could be said for the name Jesus. There are no J's in the Hebrew alphabet as well.

In English there IS

Matt. 12:21. " And in his name shall the Gentiles trust"

Mal. 1:11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense (prayer/worship) shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering (spirit and in truth): for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Whose name do Gentiles call out to when they want to be saved? In whose name are we sent? In whose name do we pray, preach, teach, and exercise Divine authority?

Is it in the name of ... Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, YESHUA, YESHUAH, YEHSHUA, YEHSHUAH, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yahshuah, YAHSHUA, YAHSHUAH, YASHUA, YASHUAH, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, YAOHUSHUA, Yaohushuah, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, or Iahushuah? :ahem:

JESUS the most hated name by unbelieving Rabbi's and muslims

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Sparko]

Hi my Trinitarian friend Sparko,

How are you feeling today?



Even Satan is called God in 2 Cor. 2:4, and with the article!

What's your point?

1. thats not the right verse you quoted

2. Satan is not called OUR Great God and Savior. But Christ IS.

If you want to worship Satan as your God, go right ahead.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko, worshipper of the triune god,





1. thats not the right verse you quoted

Indeed. I was quoting from memory. It should be 2 Cor. 4:4 instead of 2 Cor 2:4 .


2. Satan is not called OUR Great God and Savior. But Christ IS.

(1) Even if we adopt your translation of the above verse, it proves nothing about the "Deity" of Christ. Whether a being is called Great God and Saviour or simply God does not make it Yahweh . Infact Yahweh is more often than not referred to simply as God, just like Satan is adressed in 2 Cor. 4:4. But that doesn't mean either Satan or Jesus are Yahweh God.

(2) Did you know the KJV translates this verse as follows: "the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ"? See the difference ?



If you want to worship Satan as your God, go right ahead.


That's just my point! Just because Satan is referred to as God in Scripture does not mean he's God. Just because Jesus is called Great God(Theos) or Saviour in the Bible does not make him God. : Satan is called Theos in 2 Cor. 4:4, humans are referred to as Elohim in John 10:34, Moses is rendered Elohim in Ex.7:1 etc. etc.(from memory) . So what?

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko, worshipper of the triune god,






Indeed. I was quoting from memory. It should be 2 Cor. 4:4 instead of 2 Cor 2:4 .


The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Strange how the very verse you try to use to say Jesus is NOT God says that he is the image of God. He is the image. That means he is the visible portion of God to us.





(1) Even if we adopt your translation of the above verse, it proves nothing about the "Deity" of Christ. Whether a being is called Great God and Saviour or simply God does not make it Yahweh . Infact Yahweh is more often than not referred to simply as God, just like Satan is adressed in 2 Cor. 4:4. But that doesn't mean either Satan or Jesus are Yahweh God.

(2) Did you know the KJV translates this verse as follows: "the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ"? See the difference ?



That's just my point! Just because Satan is referred to as God in Scripture does not mean he's God. Just because Jesus is called Great God(Theos) or Saviour in the Bible does not make him God. : Satan is called Theos in 2 Cor. 4:4, humans are referred to as Elohim in John 10:34, Moses is rendered Elohim in Ex.7:1 etc. etc.(from memory) . So what?

best wishes,


So What?

Let me get this straight. You go around telling the trinitarians that they are wrong because they believe in three Gods when there is only ONE true God, yes? And that would make them polytheistic. Never mind the fact that we don't believe in three Gods, but in ONE God revealed in three persons.

So when I point out the fact that Titus 2:13 is calling Jesus God and Savior, your defense is that there are lots of Gods, like Satan for instance.

So...now your defense against Trinitarianism is POLYTHEISM??????

Excuse me while I laugh my butt off....


:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

"The GREAT GOD" referrs to none other than the one TRUE God of the universe. Not some false god like satan.

While I finish laughing at you, here is some light reading for you...


JFB Bible Commentary on Titus 2:13

the glorious appearing--There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on Tit_2:11) of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in 2Th_2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, "parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Sparko, worshipper of the triune god,














That's just my point! Just because Satan is referred to as God in Scripture does not mean he's God. Just because Jesus is called Great God(Theos) or Saviour in the Bible does not make him God. : Satan is called Theos in 2 Cor. 4:4, humans are referred to as Elohim in John 10:34, Moses is rendered Elohim in Ex.7:1 etc. etc.(from memory) . So what?

best wishes,

Hi Py. That's an interesting quote. Let's take it in tandem with what you've said here in this same thread.



Even Satan is called God in 2 Cor. 2:4, and with the article!

Pythagoras. I'm just curious. None of these can be called YHWH even though they're called God. Now before we get into the finer points of this verse, my question is, could I reject that YHWH is God even though he's called God also?

[Pythagoras]

Apologianick,


Pythagoras. I'm just curious. None of these can be called YHWH even though they're called God.

Correct.



Pythagoras. I'm just curious. Now before we get into the finer points of this verse, my question is, could I reject that YHWH is God even though he's called God also?


If you mean God[Elohim] in the sense of the great "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then no you could not honestly reject YHWH is God. Conversely, if you mean Satan or Christ is God[Elohim] in the sense of the "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then you could not honestly refer to either Satan or to Christ as God. In scripture the word God[Hebrew Elohim] is used on occasion to apply to human judges, angels and Satan. The word by itself does not denote "Deity". There is only one [i]Ha-Shem,as the Jews put it. Keep in mind that not all Gods[Elohim] are God.


The term God(Elohim), with or without the article, and on it's own without the context tells us very little. For example, Jesus referred to human judges as Elohim(John 10:34), citing Psalm 82:6. Remember "God[Elohim] created man in His own image". Christ was the perfect image of that God, he was the Second Adam, or as Origen would put it, a copy of God. Even the Angels are variously called Sons of God , the Elohim, etc.. Satan, the ape of God and a Cherub too is Elohim of this present dispensation.
But all of the above mentioned are creations and images of the Only God YHWH and if you use the term God to mean Him( this YHWH God who spoke to the God[Elohim] Moses(Ex.7:1) on the mountain) then no they are not God.

Do you understand? Perhaps alam would like to add his two cents?

best wishes,

[Topherlee]

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ


The keyword is AND. If scripture wanted all to believe that Jesus was indeed God, the word "AND" would have been left out. It would have Just said "2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God Jesus Christ. All scripture would confirm this belief and we would not be having this discussion. Reason being; "God is not the author of confusion".

Rev 22:20 reveals that two will be coming:
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly(God YHWH). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Lord Jesus, not God Jesus, but our appointed Lord.

- peace

[Sparko]

The keyword is AND. If scripture wanted all to believe that Jesus was indeed God, the word "AND" would have been left out. It would have Just said "2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God Jesus Christ. All scripture would confirm this belief and we would not be having this discussion. Reason being; "God is not the author of confusion".

Rev 22:20 reveals that two will be coming:
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly(God YHWH). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Lord Jesus, not God Jesus, but our appointed Lord.

- peace

Huh? that made no sense at all. Complete rationalization and failing miserably.

Jesus IS our Savior, is he not? Why would they leave that out? He is our God and our Savior. That is what he was saying.

Did you even read the JFB commentary I posted above? The single article for the phrase great God and Savior says that they are one and the same. The Great God is the Savior. And the phrase Great God has to refer back to "glorius appearing" - And Glorius Appearing can only refer to Jesus, since God the Father is not planning on making any appearences.

So, we are waiting on what?


The glorius appearing...

of who?


The great God and Savior

who is that?


Jesus Christ.

There is no other way to read that passage..

God IS our Savior, Topherlee, our only savior.


Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.




God is the only savior we should acknowledge and the only God we should acknowledge, yet Paul in Titus 2:13 acknowledged Jesus as both God and Savior explicitly. Either Paul was saying Jesus IS God, or he was blaspheming. No other choice, my friend.

[Pythagoras]

Hi there Sparkey,





The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.



Strange how the very verse you try to use to say Jesus is NOT God says that he is the image of God. He is the image. That means he is the visible portion of God to us.




Strange indeed ! The Scripture in that verse is saying Satan has blinded those who cannot understand that "Christ is the IMAGE OF GOD" and not God himself. In this Oregin is instructive. In his commentatory of John's gospel, Book 2, Chapter 2, he writes(pay special attention to the last sentence):


“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.”




So when I point out the fact that Titus 2:13 is calling Jesus God and Savior, your defense is that there are lots of Gods, like Satan for instance.


Read my post to Apologianick , you will get your answer. In a nutshell, not all Gods are God. Infact only YHWH is God in the actual sense of the word. As Oregin the Church father puts it, YHWH is "the prototype" and all others including Christ are copies(images) of this prototype, Christ being the perfect image or copy of the invisible God..




So...now your defense against Trinitarianism is POLYTHEISM??????

Excuse me while I laugh my butt off....


:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

"The GREAT GOD" referrs to none other than the one TRUE God of the universe. Not some false god like satan.


You have lots to learn. Anyhow keep on laughing.


best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Topherlee,


The keyword is AND. If scripture wanted all to believe that Jesus was indeed God, the word "AND" would have been left out. It would have Just said "2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God Jesus Christ. All scripture would confirm this belief and we would not be having this discussion. Reason being; "God is not the author of confusion".

Rev 22:20 reveals that two will be coming:
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly(God YHWH). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Lord Jesus, not God Jesus, but our appointed Lord.

- peace

Exactly.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,


Huh? that made no sense at all. Complete rationalization and failing miserably.

Jesus IS our Savior, is he not? Why would they leave that out? He is our God and our Savior. That is what he was saying. .....




God IS our Savior, Topherlee, our only savior.






etc.

The Hebrew word for "God" is applied to others apart from YHWH. So is the Hebrew word for "Saviour". . Read Obadiah 21 for example. So just because Jesus is dubbed "God" and "Saviour' doesn't make him YHWH, Sparko.

Do you follow?



best wishes,

[alam]

God IS our Savior, Topherlee, our only savior.


Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.




God is the only savior we should acknowledge and the only God we should acknowledge, yet Paul in Titus 2:13 acknowledged Jesus as both God and Savior explicitly. Either Paul was saying Jesus IS God, or he was blaspheming. No other choice, my friend.









These verses do not preclude God saving through creations.



וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה


And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... (also Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21; Acts 5:31; 13:23)



The principle by which such statements are reconciled with Hosea 13:4 may be applied in the other cases too.


Peace

[John from Ebla]

These verses do not preclude God saving through creations.



וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה


And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war... (also Judges 3:15; 2 Ki. 13:5; Obadiah 21; Acts 5:31; 13:23)



The principle by which such statements are reconciled with Hosea 13:4 may be applied in the other cases too.


Peace


What kind of savior was Othniel and what kind of delivery did he give. Let us reason and not be narrow minded -so please explain? You seem to be saying that even my dog (rusty) can be my savior because at the right time he scares of the intruders – (and of off course all things are by God)

Oh Rusty my savior- get real. Salvation in the bible is in reference to saving your soul. Who can do this "Othniel" "Rusty" -you must be desperate.

Shalom
John From Ebla

[alam]

What kind of savior was Othniel and what kind of delivery did he give. Let us reason and not be narrow minded -so please explain? You seem to be saying that even my dog (rusty) can be my savior because at the right time he scares of the intruders – (and of off course all things are by God)

Oh Rusty my savior- get real. Salvation in the bible is in reference to saving your soul. Who can do this "Othniel" "Rusty" -you must be desperate.

Shalom
John From Ebla




John from Ebla, you have unanswered mail over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1249526#post1249526) relating to this topic. I suggest you attend to it. :smile:

[John from Ebla]

John from Ebla, you have unanswered mail over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1249526#post1249526) relating to this topic. I suggest you attend to it. :smile:


Go read it- it is answered. You gave no response to John 1:1-3,10 When did the GOD (WORD) cease to be GOD ?

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



etc.

The Hebrew word for "God" is applied to others apart from YHWH. So is the Hebrew word for "Saviour". . Read Obadiah 21 for example. So just because Jesus is dubbed "God" and "Saviour' doesn't make him YHWH, Sparko.

Do you follow?



best wishes,

Let's see.

:check: Jesus is called God and Savior DIRECTLY Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1

:check: Jesus is called God indirectly as the "Word" John 1:1

:check: The Father calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8

:check: Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28

:check: Jesus is said to be the CREATOR of everything, - John 1:3 Col 1:16-17 - yet YHWH says he did it ALL ALONE - Isaiah 44:24

:check: Jesus is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, just like YHWH - Rev 1:17, Rev 2:8, Rev 22:13

:check: YHWH says he HIMSELF will be the Judge in Ezek 34:17-22 and Jesus is said to be the one who judges in Matt 25:31 and John 5:22 and other places.

:check: And YHWH says

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."



--
and you say, "yeah he was a God but not YHWH" :lmbo:

There IS no other True God besides YHWH. All other Gods are FALSE Gods. Whether idols or Satan, they are not true Gods but false ones. Are you saying Jesus is a FALSE God? Are you saying that God gives a FALSE God glory and honor and tells all of his angels to worship a FALSE GOD??? Hebrews 1:6

How many false Gods do you know that are worshipped by angels and created the universe? How many false Gods will be judging all mankind? How many false Gods are saving YOUR soul?


There is no other conclusion but that Jesus is YHWH. If you want to continue to wear your blinders, go right ahead. But the evidence that Jesus is God is overwhelming.

I eagerly await your next dodge and slight of hand show.

[alam]

Go read it- it is answered. You gave no response to John 1:1-3,10 When did the GOD (WORD) cease to be GOD ?


Nope. Go see again

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Apologianick,



Correct.



If you mean God[Elohim] in the sense of the great "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then no you could not honestly reject YHWH is God. Conversely, if you mean Satan or Christ is God[Elohim] in the sense of the "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then you could not honestly refer to either Satan or to Christ as God. In scripture the word God[Hebrew Elohim] is used on occasion to apply to human judges, angels and Satan. The word by itself does not denote "Deity". There is only one [i]Ha-Shem,as the Jews put it. Keep in mind that not all Gods[Elohim] are God.


The term God(Elohim), with or without the article, and on it's own without the context tells us very little. For example, Jesus referred to human judges as Elohim(John 10:34), citing Psalm 82:6. Remember "God[Elohim] created man in His own image". Christ was the perfect image of that God, he was the Second Adam, or as Origen would put it, a copy of God. Even the Angels are variously called Sons of God , the Elohim, etc.. Satan, the ape of God and a Cherub too is Elohim of this present dispensation.
But all of the above mentioned are creations and images of the Only God YHWH and if you use the term God to mean Him( this YHWH God who spoke to the God[Elohim] Moses(Ex.7:1) on the mountain) then no they are not God.

Do you understand? Perhaps alam would like to add his two cents?

best wishes,

Very well Py. Now you've said that just because YHWH is called God doesn't make him God in the sense of the supreme being. Could you please tell me how you gather from Scripture then that YHWH is the supreme being since being called God isn't enough?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



You latest post is very colorful and flamboyant .






:check: Jesus is called God and Savior DIRECTLY Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1





check: Satan is called God in 2 Cor. 4:4.



check: Othniel the son of Kenaz is called a Saviour in Judges 3:9-10, as alam just pointed out.




:check: Jesus is called God indirectly as the "Word" John 1:1



check: Human judges and prophets are called Theos in John 10:34.




:check: The Father calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8



check: The Father calles Moses God in Ex. 7:1.




:check: Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28



check:God refers to human rulers as Gods in Exodus 15:






:check: Jesus is said to be the CREATOR of everything, - John 1:3 Col1:16-17 - yet YHWH says he did it ALL ALONE - Isaiah 44:24





check: Jesus himself is a created being. Read Col. 1:15.






:check: Jesus is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, just like YHWH - Rev 1:17, Rev 2:8, Rev 22:13





check: Rev. 3:14 says Jesus was the beginning of God’s creation.








:check: YHWH says he HIMSELF will be the Judge in Ezek 34:17-22 and Jesus is said to be the one who judges in Matt 25:31 and John 5:22 and other places.





check: John 8:15 says Jesus judges no one. And 1 Cor 6:3 says the Saints will judge angels, and more.








Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."



check: Jesus cannot be YHWH because he can’t do nothing on his own, John 5:30-32. He cannot be YHWH because he died, Rev. 1:17. He cannot be YHWH because YHWH is greater than him, John 14:23. And this is just skimming the surface.





Best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


Very well Py. Now you've said that just because YHWH is called God doesn't make him God in the sense of the supreme being. Could you please tell me how you gather from Scripture then that YHWH is the supreme being since being called God isn't enough?



"I gather from scripture YHWH is the Supreme Being" but Jesus (and everyone else) isn't because of the following reasons (and more):

check: Only God is uncreated. (Jesus and everything else) is a created being,Col. 1:15.
check: God cannot die (but Jesus died, Rev.1:17.)
check: God is not a man (but Jesus is a man ,Luke 1:13.)
check: Jesus can't do anything apart from God, John 5:30.

etc. etc.

You see, even Satan is called God in scripture, so that word by itself proves proves absolutely nothing.

Read my posts 120 and 123 again.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



You latest post is very colorful and flamboyant .







check: Satan is called God in 2 Cor. 4:4.



check: Othniel the son of Kenaz is called a Saviour in Judges 3:9-10, as alam just pointed out.







check: Human judges and prophets are called Theos in John 10:34.







check: The Father calles Moses God in Ex. 7:1.







check:God refers to human rulers as Gods in Exodus 15:







check: Jesus himself is a created being. Read Col. 1:15.







check: Rev. 3:14 says Jesus was the beginning of God’s creation.









check: John 8:15 says Jesus judges no one. And 1 Cor 6:3 says the Saints will judge angels, and more.











check: Jesus cannot be YHWH because he can’t do nothing on his own, John 5:30-32. He cannot be YHWH because he died, Rev. 1:17. He cannot be YHWH because YHWH is greater than him, John 14:23. And this is just skimming the surface.





Best wishes,

Ah so Satan is your God. :check:

As I expected. You just try to use slight of hand to ignore the evidence and use a bit of misdirection too.

Nowhere is any "god" called the GREAT God who is not the TRUE God. Only Jesus is. Satan is never called the GREAT God. Neither is Moses or any angel or human. ONLY CHRIST IS.

the LOGOS was not created. He was in the beginning with God and IS God. Jesus is the Logos enfleshed.

Jesus created everything. NOT ONE THING was made without him. If he was created then HE would be "one thing".

YHWH said that he created alone, that means he did not create THROUGH someone, or by someone. YHWH created alone. and the NT says Jesus created everything. There is no other conclusion other than the NT is completly false or that Jesus is YHWH.


Everything that makes God the supreme being is also said of Jesus.

Nice try but you flopped.

You either have to claim that Jesus is a FALSE GOD and that YHWH encourages us and the angels to worship a false God, or Jesus IS YHWH.

...And I still find it completely and utterly hilarious and ironic that your last line of defense is to use POLYTHEISM as a defense against Jesus being YHWH. The very objection you have to Jesus being YHWH (you think we believe in three gods) you are using to say that Jesus is not YHWH. go figure.

:irony:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,





"I gather from scripture YHWH is the Supreme Being" but Jesus (and everyone else) isn't because of the following reasons (and more):

Let's look at these.


check: Only God is uncreated. (Jesus and everything else) is a created being,Col. 1:15.

Actually, this verse works against you. Let's look at some basic facts.

The firstborn of Jacob came after Jacob. The firstborn of Joseph came after Joseph. The firstborn of David came after David. This is something consistent. The firstborn of something comes AFTER that something.

Yet, if you're going to have Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, then that means that Jesus came AFTER the creation. In other words, creation created Jesus, yet let us look at what Col. 1:16 and 17 says.

16:"For by him all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities---all things have been created through him and for him.

17:He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, and in him all things hold together."

Yet this clearly teaches that Jesus is before creation and created creation. Are you sure you really want to use this verse?


check: God cannot die (but Jesus died, Rev.1:17.)

Again, you have a problem here depending on how you define death. Do you define death is the ceasing of existence? Then this is your problem. After all, Colossians 1:17 says that by Christ, al things hold together. So, if Christ ceased to exist, then all creation would cease to exist. However, if death means the separation of the soul from the body, then we have no problem. In fact, Jesus is still essentially the same regardless of the state of his body.


check: God is not a man (but Jesus is a man ,Luke 1:13.)

The "God is not a man" passages speak about functionary aspects and not essential aspects of nature.

Also, let's compare this to a passage such as the one started in Joshua 5:13. In this passage, Joshua sees a man who says he is the captain of the host of the Lord. Joshua falls on his face before him and the man says "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." It's the same wording used when YHWH commissioned Moses. Then verse 2 of the next chapter identifies this man saying, "The Lord said to Joshua."

Now if God can make a temporary appearance for a brief span of time in history in a body, then what's to stop him from doing it for a longer time? Is your God limited by matter?


check: Jesus can't do anything apart from God, John 5:30.

Please tell me how the Trinity disagrees with this.




You see, even Satan is called God in scripture, so that word by itself proves proves absolutely nothing.

Read my posts 120 and 123 again.

And none of your arguments thus far hold water.

[Topherlee]

Huh? that made no sense at all. Complete rationalization and failing miserably.

Jesus IS our Savior, is he not? Why would they leave that out? He is our God and our Savior. That is what he was saying.
[/font]


Explain Sparko, how Jesus is our Savior?

[Sparko]

Explain Sparko, how Jesus is our Savior?

Are you questioning that Christ is our Savior?

He atoned for our sins on the cross. Through his sacrifice we have SALVATION and do not have to go to hell.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
(notice again, it is speaking of his APPEARING, just like in Titus)

--

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

[alam]

Apologianick,



Correct.



If you mean God[Elohim] in the sense of the great "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then no you could not honestly reject YHWH is God. Conversely, if you mean Satan or Christ is God[Elohim] in the sense of the "I am that I am", the one and only self-existent, uncreated God, then you could not honestly refer to either Satan or to Christ as God. In scripture the word God[Hebrew Elohim] is used on occasion to apply to human judges, angels and Satan. The word by itself does not denote "Deity". There is only one [i]Ha-Shem,as the Jews put it. Keep in mind that not all Gods[Elohim] are God.


The term God(Elohim), with or without the article, and on it's own without the context tells us very little. For example, Jesus referred to human judges as Elohim(John 10:34), citing Psalm 82:6. Remember "God[Elohim] created man in His own image". Christ was the perfect image of that God, he was the Second Adam, or as Origen would put it, a copy of God. Even the Angels are variously called Sons of God , the Elohim, etc.. Satan, the ape of God and a Cherub too is Elohim of this present dispensation.
But all of the above mentioned are creations and images of the Only God YHWH and if you use the term God to mean Him( this YHWH God who spoke to the God[Elohim] Moses(Ex.7:1) on the mountain) then no they are not God.

Do you understand? Perhaps alam would like to add his two cents?

best wishes,



Hi Pythagoras,


Some biblical terms for divinity are common nouns and do not of themselves presuppose the True God. Others do. 'ĕlohīm and 'ēl are common nouns and do not necessarily presuppose God. We can see this from the fact that many false gods, even devils, and pagan national rulers are described by these terms. There are words that presuppose God with capital 'G.' These include YHWH and `elyōn (the Most High, when used of divinity) as two predominant examples.


The distinction between the sorts of terms can be seen in this way: throughout the Bible, the children of Israel are warned to stay away from "other gods" ('ĕlohīm 'ªhērīm). However, they are never warned to stay away from "other YHWH's". The use of this name already presupposes God in Himself and in His many operations.


An important qualification: theologically speaking, even common nouns like 'ĕlohīm and 'ēl presuppose the True God, as does "savior" and the adjective "good" (Mark 10:18). However, the point is that these words in and of themselves do not refer us to God. The distinction may be seen again in the fact that, whereas God several times says that besides Him there is no god/savior/good etc, He never says that besides Him there is no YHWH, or no Most High. These words already presuppose Him.


Yet is it true that these terms, especially YHWH, not only presuppose God, but cannot ever but denote Him, directly, in Person? This will turn on factors such as whether you see the principle of delegation as having validity, and what you believe about the nature of God, such as whether one of God's attributes can suppress another. The early church fathers did not believe that, and so, as per the Logos doctrine, they saw in the theophanies the manifestation of a subordinate degree of divinity, divinity-at-second-hand.


YHWH can and does "cause His name to dwell" in places/objects (e.g. Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:6,11; 26:2). These will be treated by proxy as YHWH. A notable example is the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, which was also the direction of earthly worship. The activity and presence of the ark is identified with that of YHWH by Moses: "And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, O LORD, unto the ten thousands of Israel" (Numbers 10:35-36). According to Gesenius, the expression l'šakkēn š'mō (cause His name to dwell) is synonymous with sūm š'mō, to place His name (Deut. 12:5,21; 14:24; 1 Ki. 9:3; 11:36 etc).


It is fascinating that this same phenomenon, the indwelling of the name (remembering that the name of God is a verb) appears to have held true of a living, sentient being: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him" (Exodus 23:20-21). This great Angel is normally called YHWH in the Exodus account, and acts as the extension of YHWH: "But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries" (v. 22). Apparently this Angel is the one relaying the words of YHWH, and appearing as YHWH, during the time in the wilderness. The Angel was the one in the pillar of cloud (Exod. 14:19; Num. 14:14) and seems to have been the one who came down to Sinai, while God Himself, who spoke by him, remained in heaven: "Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" (Exod. 20:22).


The question may emerge as to whether this Angel was indeed a living, sentient being, and not a mere appearance or automaton. Some early Karaites such as Dani'el al-Qumisi denied the reality of angels in general, considering them to be either metaphors for natural forces, or automatons that are generated specially for each task and then annihilated (though al-Nahawendi, and the Jewish sect of the Magharians, held the Logos doctrine).


However, the plural utterances of YHWH in Genesis tend to suggest personal distinctions between the Transcendent God and His angelic manifestation. "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). "Go to, let us go down" (Gen. 11:7). "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I intend to do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation...?" (Gen. 18:18). Unlike the absolute Deity, the angelic manifestation does not transcend time: "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God..." (Gen. 22:12). "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know" (Gen. 18:21).


Now, one could still deny all this, say that the principle of agency was invented by "pagan Jews," that the Angel spoke and was treated as YHWH not because YHWH's name was in him, but because the Angel was God in person, and that God suppresses some of His attributes including omniscience in order to deal with people. I think this is an unenviable position, however, because it amounts to saying that God is not necessarily omniscient, and that's one of the core attributes of God. For this reason and others, the early church accepted Logos doctrine as their orthodoxy. At any rate those are my two cents.


God bless,

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Sparko,



Nowhere is any "god" called the GREAT God who is not the TRUE God. Only Jesus is. Satan is never called the GREAT God. Neither is Moses or any angel or human. ONLY CHRIST IS.


You're wrong as usual. Satan is called "great" in Rev. 12:3 and he's called "God"( with the article to boot!) in 2 Cor. 4:4. Let me guess, Satan's got to be called "Great" and "God" in the same sentence to qualify as YHWH right? Lol.



As I expected. You just try to use slight of hand to ignore the evidence and use a bit of misdirection too.




...And I still find it completely and utterly hilarious and ironic that your last line of defense is to use POLYTHEISM as a defense against Jesus being YHWH. The very objection you have to Jesus being YHWH (you think we believe in three gods) you are using to say that Jesus is not YHWH. go figure.


Look it. So far this is all you have presented: Jesus is YHWH because the verb "great" is used in conjunction with "God" to describe him. But even if your translation of titus 2:13 is correct, this proves diddly - squat as shown above. The sad part is your rendering of Titus 2:13 is inferior.

The way I see it you got bigger problems Sparko: For starters, how can Jesus be YHWH being that he was a man and he died. The bible clearly says in Numbers God is not and man and he doesn't die.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,



Actually, this verse works against you. Let's look at some basic facts.


I doubt it. Let's see your "facts":




The firstborn of Jacob came after Jacob. The firstborn of Joseph came after Joseph. The firstborn of David came after David.


And Jesus comes after the God. Where's the genius in that? Which also means Jesus is not God. Ruben is the first born of all Jacob's creations(children), Jesus is God's first creation . You just shot yourself in the foot again.





Yet, if you're going to have Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, then that means that Jesus came AFTER the creation.


No, The Father created Jesus first(Col. 1:15) and then through Jesus He created the Universe(John 1:1-18). Col. 1:15 clearly says Jesus is the first of God's creation. There is no logical way around this.



Yet this clearly teaches that Jesus is before creation and created creation. Are you sure you really want to use this verse?


Absolutely. It proves the trinity false everytime. Col. 1:15.



Again, you have a problem here depending on how you define death. Do you define death is the ceasing of existence? Then this is your problem.


Hab. 1:12 says God does not die, period. How you define death is irrelevent.



However, if death means the separation of the soul from the body, then we have no problem. In fact, Jesus is still essentially the same regardless of the state of his body.


I guess then Hab. 1:12 says God cannot separate His soul from His body.



The "God is not a man" passages speak about functionary aspects and not essential aspects of nature.


Unfortunately that verse says God is not essentially a man and goes on to explain why. Read it again.



Also, let's compare this to a passage such as the one started in Joshua 5:13. In this passage, Joshua sees a man who says he is the captain of the host of the Lord. Joshua falls on his face before him and the man says "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." It's the same wording used when YHWH commissioned Moses. Then verse 2 of the next chapter identifies this man saying, "The Lord said to Joshua."


Unfortunately Joshua 5:13 does not say "God temporarily indwelt" the "captain of the Lord's host" . That particular Angel is God's representative and not God Himself, same way an envoy of the Queen of England is not the Queen herself.



Now if God can make a temporary appearance for a brief span of time in history in a body, then what's to stop him from doing it for a longer time? Is your God limited by matter?


The God of the bible does not "make a temporary appearance for a brief span of time in a body". Hindus (who are trinitarians of sorts) also hold to such beliefs. Hindus believe God temporarily enters the idols they worship. That's why they consider their idols holy.


Please tell me how the Trinity disagrees with this.

If Jesus was God why would he say "I can't do anything apart from God"? Do you go around telling people "I can't do anything apart from myself"? Unless of course you're out of your mind.


And none of your arguments thus far hold water.

Keep on kidding yourself. Common sense and logic, on my side.


best wishes nonetheless,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Alam,



Greetings and God bless.






YHWH can and does "cause His name to dwell" in places/objects (e.g. Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:6,11; 26:2). These will be treated by proxy as YHWH. A notable example is the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, which was also the direction of earthly worship.





Example: The "name" of the Queen of England dwells in the British Consulate-General (place/object) in Jerusalem, together with the glory and power of her Kingdom , but we do not say the Queen literally inhabits that embassy. This is how YHWH's "name" and His power "occupy" the tabernacle , in my opinion. Just as a British citizen most acutely feels the "power" of the Queen of England within the confines of the Consulate office or Embassy away from home, so too God's priests sense His presence most directly in the tabernacle . Infact the prophets of God may be likened to envoys with diplomatic immunity , though many were scornfully treated , killed by the powers that be with no quarter and without regard to convention. God will certainly extract retribution for this personal insult.









It is fascinating that this same phenomenon, the indwelling of the name (remembering that the name of God is a verb) appears to have held true of a living, sentient being: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him" (Exodus 23:20-21). This great Angel is normally called YHWH in the Exodus account, and acts as the extension of YHWH:




The Angel speaks God's words the same way an envoy of the Court of St. James speaks the words of the Queen of England. An envoy is an extension of the Queen but we do not say such a man is literally the Queen of England. Yet trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord representing God is God Himself.


Peace in Christ,

[John from Ebla]

Hi Pythagoras,


Some biblical terms for divinity are common nouns and do not of themselves presuppose the True God. Others do. 'ĕlohīm and 'ēl are common nouns and do not necessarily presuppose God. We can see this from the fact that many false gods, even devils, and pagan national rulers are described by these terms. There are words that presuppose God with capital 'G.' These include YHWH and `elyōn (the Most High, when used of divinity) as two predominant examples.


The distinction between the sorts of terms can be seen in this way: throughout the Bible, the children of Israel are warned to stay away from "other gods" ('ĕlohīm 'ªhērīm). However, they are never warned to stay away from "other YHWH's". The use of this name already presupposes God in Himself and in His many operations.


An important qualification: theologically speaking, even common nouns like 'ĕlohīm and 'ēl presuppose the True God, as does "savior" and the adjective "good" (Mark 10:18). However, the point is that these words in and of themselves do not refer us to God. The distinction may be seen again in the fact that, whereas God several times says that besides Him there is no god/savior/good etc, He never says that besides Him there is no YHWH, or no Most High. These words already presuppose Him.


Yet is it true that these terms, especially YHWH, not only presuppose God, but cannot ever but denote Him, directly, in Person? This will turn on factors such as whether you see the principle of delegation as having validity, and what you believe about the nature of God, such as whether one of God's attributes can suppress another. The early church fathers did not believe that, and so, as per the Logos doctrine, they saw in the theophanies the manifestation of a subordinate degree of divinity, divinity-at-second-hand.


YHWH can and does "cause His name to dwell" in places/objects (e.g. Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:6,11; 26:2). These will be treated by proxy as YHWH. A notable example is the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, which was also the direction of earthly worship. The activity and presence of the ark is identified with that of YHWH by Moses: "And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, O LORD, unto the ten thousands of Israel" (Numbers 10:35-36). According to Gesenius, the expression l'šakkēn š'mō (cause His name to dwell) is synonymous with sūm š'mō, to place His name (Deut. 12:5,21; 14:24; 1 Ki. 9:3; 11:36 etc).


It is fascinating that this same phenomenon, the indwelling of the name (remembering that the name of God is a verb) appears to have held true of a living, sentient being: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him" (Exodus 23:20-21). This great Angel is normally called YHWH in the Exodus account, and acts as the extension of YHWH: "But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries" (v. 22). Apparently this Angel is the one relaying the words of YHWH, and appearing as YHWH, during the time in the wilderness. The Angel was the one in the pillar of cloud (Exod. 14:19; Num. 14:14) and seems to have been the one who came down to Sinai, while God Himself, who spoke by him, remained in heaven: "Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" (Exod. 20:22).


The question may emerge as to whether this Angel was indeed a living, sentient being, and not a mere appearance or automaton. Some early Karaites such as Dani'el al-Qumisi denied the reality of angels in general, considering them to be either metaphors for natural forces, or automatons that are generated specially for each task and then annihilated (though al-Nahawendi, and the Jewish sect of the Magharians, held the Logos doctrine).


However, the plural utterances of YHWH in Genesis tend to suggest personal distinctions between the Transcendent God and His angelic manifestation. "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). "Go to, let us go down" (Gen. 11:7). "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I intend to do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation...?" (Gen. 18:18). Unlike the absolute Deity, the angelic manifestation does not transcend time: "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God..." (Gen. 22:12). "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know" (Gen. 18:21).


Now, one could still deny all this, say that the principle of agency was invented by "pagan Jews," that the Angel spoke and was treated as YHWH not because YHWH's name was in him, but because the Angel was God in person, and that God suppresses some of His attributes including omniscience in order to deal with people. I think this is an unenviable position, however, because it amounts to saying that God is not necessarily omniscient, and that's one of the core attributes of God. For this reason and others, the early church accepted Logos doctrine as their orthodoxy. At any rate those are my two cents.


God bless,

The “Jewish law of agency” was not taught by the apostles, it was invented by unbelieving Rabbi’s, when is God not God? When the Rabbi tells you- throw away your scriptures and listen to the rabbi. What a joke :lol:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[alam]

Hi JFE:


When you are ready to get real and start dealing with arguments, let me know. As it is, we all have spent enough time writing reasoned responses (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1236596&postcount=214) to you to waste any more time on you or put up with your cavils. Fortunately we don't have to do either, since the work is already done.




The “Jewish law of agency” was not taught by the apostles, it was invented by unbelieving Rabbi’s, when is God not God? When the Rabbi tells you- throw away your scriptures and listen to the rabbi. What a joke :lol:





Whatever you think of the rabbis, the law of agency is much better attested in the first century, including in the New Testament, than the whole theory of homoousios.



An answer may be found in the principle of delegation or shlichut, summed up by the Rabbinic saying שלוּחוֹ של אדם כמוֹתוֹ, "a man's messenger is as himself" (Berachoth 5:5) cited about nine times in the Talmud. The messenger or agent is empowered to act and to be received as the one who sent him.


We see this at work in the Bible in the parallel accounts of the healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. According to Luke, the officer sent out messengers to find Christ and present Him with his request. Matthew, writing from a Jewish perspective, simply did not think it necessary to mention the messengers, and wrote as though he had sought out Christ in person.


This principle of delegation seems to be assumed in Christ's teachings:



He that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him who sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.






...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?






He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.





Paul wrote,



And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.





Jesus, the Sent One of God, had a preeminent place among the other divine messengers and prophets of the Old and New Testaments. These other prophets, according to the ante-Nicene view, were sent by the Logos himself, not directly by God. Such a view is indicated in Matthew 23:34 and Luke 11:49-50:



Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city...





In the Incarnation, the Logos himself, the Son of God, who was with the Father from the beginning, came down from heaven as the messenger of God. During the thirty some years of Christ's sojourn on Earth, God was with us through Christ in a unique and unprecedented way.

[http://theologyweb.com/campus/showp...6&postcount=47]
[http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=12&pp=16]

[John from Ebla]

Hi JFE:


When you are ready to get real and start dealing with arguments, let me know. As it is, we all have spent enough time writing reasoned responses (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1236596&postcount=214) to you to waste any more time on you or put up with your cavils. Fortunately we don't have to do either, since the work is already done.









Whatever you think of the rabbis, the law of agency is much better attested in the first century, including in the New Testament, than the whole theory of homoousios.



[http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=12&pp=16]


You still have not refuted John 1:1-3,10-14

When you can prove God created his own word- Then reply- l am tired of reading about what idividual guru's say, or rabbi tic theology-Stick to scriptures


Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministy- and the Rabbi's where given their lot in 70AD = 40 years. The same as what the Jews had in the wildeness-40 years.

You love the lie of the Rabbi- God does not and he showed it again in 1945-48. If there is any truth in what they say, they would not have gotten what the got for 4000 years.

God sent the Assyrians, God sent the Babylonians, God sent the Romans and God sent the Nazis. You love the Rabbi lie, but God does not. There is not one scripture that supports the Law of agecy..

When did God create his Own "WORD" that was GOD? :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Sparko]

Greetings Sparko,



You're wrong as usual. Satan is called "great" in Rev. 12:3 and he's called "God"( with the article to boot!) in 2 Cor. 4:4. Let me guess, Satan's got to be called "Great" and "God" in the same sentence to qualify as YHWH right? Lol.

Uh I thought you were better than this? This is your BEST argument?

OK. Duh. Sure. you can take one word from one verse and another word from another verse and put them together and that means exactly the same thing as if the words are used together. If that's the way you want to play it then we can do that. :duh:

"Jesus is" (john 21:31) "the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath." (Jer 10:10)

There case closed. you lose.

Or...

We could stick to using verses and words IN CONTEXT????








Look it. So far this is all you have presented: Jesus is YHWH because the verb "great" is used in conjunction with "God" to describe him. But even if your translation of titus 2:13 is correct, this proves diddly - squat as shown above. The sad part is your rendering of Titus 2:13 is inferior.

Right. reading what the verse actually says is inferior to grabbing words out of context from other places to 'disprove' what the verse is actually saying. You go girl! :thumb:






The way I see it you got bigger problems Sparko: For starters, how can Jesus be YHWH being that he was a man and he died. The bible clearly says in Numbers God is not and man and he doesn't die.

The way I see it is you have major problem, Pythagoras. Because you completely skipped over the whole Jesus is creator and that means he is God thing and went straight to a complete strawman dodge. I know Apologia Nick is discussing this very point with you right now in this thread so I will let him explain it in detail, but I will say that Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus. There is more to the Godhead than just Jesus. He is only one person of the trinity, therefore God the Father did NOT die, Jesus, the second person of the trinity did. God the Father is not a man, but God the son is fully man and fully God. Not a problem for trinitarians.



So, now that I have dispensed with the :redherring: and :strawman:

Let's get back to the points you seem to have skipped in your last response.

1. YHWH says he created everything by himself. ALONE. That means no helpers and he did not create Jesus first who created everything else. YHWH created everything including the heavens and the earth, and he did it by HIMSELF, ALONE.

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,


2. But the NT says that JESUS created ALL THINGS, including heaven and earthly things.




John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.




So Christ could not have been merely the agent through which YHWH created everything since YHWH said he did it alone by himself. Jesus could NOT be created because it says NOTHING was made without him.

The only conclusion is that Jesus IS YHWH. Either that or we are both wrong and the new testament is a lie.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

*Picks self off of floor in hysterics after reading a supposed refutation.*


Hi Apologianick,



I doubt it. Let's see your "facts":

Already shown. Let's see you try to understand them.




And Jesus comes after the God. Where's the genius in that? Which also means Jesus is not God. Ruben is the first born of all Jacob's creations(children), Jesus is God's first creation . You just shot yourself in the foot again.

Sorry Py. You didn't read what the verse said. It doesn't say Jesus is the firstborn of God. It says he's the firstborn of all creation which means that Jesus had to come AFTER the creation. Yet Colossians 1:16-17 indicate that he came before the creation and the creation could not even exist were it not for Jesus.

And if you want to contest me on this, I do have a Greek NT right here. The passage about firstborn has him in relation to creation and not in relation to God.






No, The Father created Jesus first(Col. 1:15) and then through Jesus He created the Universe(John 1:1-18). Col. 1:15 clearly says Jesus is the first of God's creation. There is no logical way around this.

Yeah. There is a logical way around it. It's called reading the text. First off, you're still placing Jesus after creation. Secondly, as Sparko has pointed out, Isaiah 44:24 says that God created all things alone and with no one else. Thirdly, you're still assuming that firstborn is a chronological statement rather than a statement of relationship.




Absolutely. It proves the trinity false everytime. Col. 1:15.

Odd. This is one place I'd go to to start proving the Trinity. Can you tell me what aeons were in the thought of the time oh great scholar of Col. 1?




Hab. 1:12 says God does not die, period. How you define death is irrelevent.

Ah. What if I define death as existing forever? How you define death is entirely relevant. If definitions of words are meaningless, then the words themselves are meaningless. "God can't die, but it doesn't matter what you call death." Then I could call death, "the state of being a giant pink bunny rabbit." That would totally change the verse.

Also, I don't see it saying God can't die. I see Habakkuk saying, "we will not die." Of course, maybe you want to avoid Jesus being God by making Habakkuk God. That'd be an interesting move.




I guess then Hab. 1:12 says God cannot separate His soul from His body.

No. And it doesn't need to. You just need to understand how death was viewed from the people at the time.




Unfortunately that verse says God is not essentially a man and goes on to explain why. Read it again.

Already have. You're confusing function with ontology.




Unfortunately Joshua 5:13 does not say "God temporarily indwelt" the "captain of the Lord's host" . That particular Angel is God's representative and not God Himself, same way an envoy of the Queen of England is not the Queen herself.

Could you please define a representative? I'm curious if you're gonna shoot yourself in the foot again.






The God of the bible does not "make a temporary appearance for a brief span of time in a body". Hindus (who are trinitarians of sorts) also hold to such beliefs. Hindus believe God temporarily enters the idols they worship. That's why they consider their idols holy.

Hindus are Trinitarians?! Okay. I'm gonna be laughing for a week now. Exactly how long have you been ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity?

Exodus 23:21. the angel going before the people has God's name in him and he is able to pardon their transgressions. Now I shall ask the question of the Pharisees who understood the OT much better than you or I probably do. "Who can forgive sin but God alone?"




If Jesus was God why would he say "I can't do anything apart from God"? Do you go around telling people "I can't do anything apart from myself"? Unless of course you're out of your mind.

Wow. You are really confused on the Trinity. You've confused us with modalism. Please. Answer the original question. Jesus says he can do nothing of himself. Then he points to the Father. How does this go against Trinitarianism?




Keep on kidding yourself. Common sense and logic, on my side.


best wishes nonetheless,

Common sense and logic? Heh. If that's what you call common sense and logic, go outside and take a picture. I want to see what color the sky is in your world.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,




Sorry Py. You didn't read what the verse said. It doesn't say Jesus is the firstborn of God. It says he's the firstborn of all creation which means that Jesus had to come AFTER the creation. Yet Colossians 1:16-17 indicate that he came before the creation and the creation could not even exist were it not for Jesus.

And if you want to contest me on this, I do have a Greek NT right here. The passage about firstborn has him in relation to creation and not in relation to God.


Read the Greek again, and this time with understanding. Ofcourse "Jesus came after creation", because he's a created being, the first born of creation. He's the first of God's creation. Firstborn of creation must place the son within the sub-set of things created, and first.Since Christ is a creature , he's compared to other creatures like Adam, etc.

Alam has beat this horse to death with John from Ebla here :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=15&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=15&pp=16)

(spaning a few pages forlward and backwards.)

I will take the liberty to quote this learned Arian in this regard:




If "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.






Ah. What if I define death as existing forever? How you define death is entirely relevant. If definitions of words are meaningless, then the words themselves are meaningless. "God can't die, but it doesn't matter what you call death." Then I could call death, "the state of being a giant pink bunny rabbit." That would totally change the verse.


Hab. 1:12 is clear, God does not die. If you think death is "the state of being a giant pink bunny rabbit" , that's your problem, not the bible's . You see Apologianick, the built in bible definition of death[whatever that may be] is consistent in the Old as well as the in New testament.
Or are you suggesting the definition of death in the OT is different from the NT[whatever that may be]?


Also, I don't see it saying God can't die. I see Habakkuk saying, "we will not die."

Lol. Please go get an education.



Exodus 23:21. the angel going before the people has God's name in him and he is able to pardon their transgressions. Now I shall ask the question of the Pharisees who understood the OT much better than you or I probably do. "Who can forgive sin but God alone?"



Even the apostles are able to forgive sins. Go find out where it says this in the NT.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

Another colorful post. But where's the substance?



Uh I thought you were better than this? This is your BEST argument?..
OK. Duh... Sure....There case closed. you lose...strawman dodge....
(etc.)


1. YHWH says he created everything by himself. ALONE. That means no helpers and he did not create Jesus first who created everything else. YHWH created everything including the heavens and the earth, and he did it by HIMSELF, ALONE.


Regarding your point (1):

Ofcourse YHWH created everything ALONE. Christ is simply YHWH's instrument in this capacity. Sparko, we do not say both the axe and the woodcutter chops the tree, only the woodcutter. Do you understand?

Irenaeus is instructive in this regard:

" Just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king because the king, even though not personally in the battle, commanded the battle to take place, so the Father is credited with being the creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"(AH2, II.3). "Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).


You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure the above out Sparkey...

P.S. I did not see fit to respond to the rest of your post.

best wishes,

[alam]

You still have not refuted John 1:1-3,10-14


I do not need to refute these verses. It is your interpretation of them that is deficient.


Maybe you can answer this here, since you wouldn't in the other forum:


"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God."


See Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)


While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:


In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22


The chapter also calls the Logos monogenēs. The -genēs suffix is of that same root and the term can mean "uniquely-begotten" or "uniquely-generated," as autogenēs means "self-produced" (Liddell & Scott 7th ed.).



The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28)




God sent the Assyrians, God sent the Babylonians, God sent the Romans and God sent the Nazis. You love the Rabbi lie, but God does not. There is not one scripture that supports the Law of agecy..


Sure there is. See my last post.



Do you harbor sympathies for the Nazis, by any chance?



When did God create his Own "WORD" that was GOD? :smile:


You have been given the verses. Here is one of them again in Hebrew, Greek, and English.


Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם


Now what stands in the way of your belief?

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,

Another colorful post. But where's the substance?

exactly! your posts are without substance. Just a lot of fancy footwork and dancing around the issues.





Regarding your point (1):

Ofcourse YHWH created everything ALONE. Christ is simply YHWH's instrument in this capacity. Sparko, we do not say both the axe and the woodcutter chops the tree, only the woodcutter. Do you understand?

Jesus is not an AXE, he is a person. The word ALONE means without another person's help. You relegate Jesus to the role of an inanimate object. He is not. He is a person. When YHWH says he did something by HIMSELF and ALONE, those words mean without anyone else helping him, or working through anyone.

You can say a woodcutter chops a tree ALONE because the axe is not another person. But if he was sawing the tree down with a two man saw, he could not make that claim could he? There would be two people there even if one was the boss.


And besides don't forget that not only does Isaiah have YHWH claiming to create everything himself, even to spreading out the earth HIMSELF, but that John and Colossians have Jesus creating everything HIMSELF.
As in a personal act. Just as personal as Isaiah's verse that has YHWH creating everything HIMSELF. They are equivalent and no amount of fancy footwork or dodging can change that, Pythagoras.

Col. 1:17 ...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.





At this point, anyone reading this thread can easily see that you are not merely holding to an alternate interpretation of the scriptures, but that you are ACTIVELY DENYING the clear meaning of the verses and using every method at your disposal to run away from the facts and deny the truth of scripture. You are NOT looking for the truth, you already have your mind set on the idea that you do not want to honor Christ as being God, and so you will do ANYTHING to plug your ears and deny the truth.




Irenaeus is instructive in this regard:

" Just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king because the king, even though not personally in the battle, commanded the battle to take place, so the Father is credited with being the creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"(AH2, II.3). "Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).

A king claiming a victory is not the same thing as the King claiming the victory was his ALONE.


President Bush can't claim that he defeated Saddam Hussein ALONE, He can't say he defeated Saddam by HIMSELF, can he? The Army was his instrument, but they are PEOPLE.

The victory might be his but he can NEVER claim to have done it ALONE and BY HIMSELF.

If Bush said "I defeated Saddam Alone. I sought him out and drug him out of that hole BY MYSELF" he would be laughed out of office.

Also, You know that Irenaeus believed that Jesus was divine don't you? He was not trying to say that Jesus a mere instrument through which God created. He was arguing that if the Angels had done some creation at the behest of God that it was still God that was credited as Creator. It was in no way written as an answer to where Isaiah said that YHWH did it ALONE.

First, let me show you what Iranaeus really thought about Jesus:
Against heresies Book 1 X.1

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations132 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6370_1471344) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"133 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6371_1471679) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"134 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6372_1472006) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,
And let me point out that what you quoted above as his words are NOT what he said. Let me quote the entire section for you, and please show me where the words where it says "so the Father is credited with being the creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.
He was speaking against specific heresies here Pythagoras, that the Angels created the world. Part of some Gnostic heresy. Nothing about the Son is mentioned at all.

Nice try at forgery though, Pythagoras. Maybe you just figure nobody will actually look up the original quotes and see what was really said? You are a dishonest sneak.





You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure the above out Sparkey...

P.S. I did not see fit to respond to the rest of your post.

best wishes,

No. apparently you just have to be a nontrinitarian with his fingers in his ears to figure out how to deny the truth, pythagoras. And that is why you dont see fit to respond to my posts. Because that would mean taking your fingers out of your ears for a moment.

[alam]

exactly! your posts are without substance. Just a lot of fancy footwork and dancing around the issues.






Jesus is not an AXE, he is a person. The word ALONE means without another person's help. You relegate Jesus to the role of an inanimate object. He is not. He is a person. When YHWH says he did something by HIMSELF and ALONE, those words mean without anyone else helping him, or working through anyone.

You can say a woodcutter chops a tree ALONE because the axe is not another person. But if he was sawing the tree down with a two man saw, he could not make that claim could he? There would be two people there even if one was the boss.


And besides don't forget that not only does Isaiah have YHWH claiming to create everything himself, even to spreading out the earth HIMSELF, but that John and Colossians have Jesus creating everything HIMSELF.
As in a personal act. Just as personal as Isaiah's verse that has YHWH creating everything HIMSELF. They are equivalent and no amount of fancy footwork or dodging can change that, Pythagoras.

Col. 1:17 ...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.





At this point, anyone reading this thread can easily see that you are not merely holding to an alternate interpretation of the scriptures, but that you are ACTIVELY DENYING the clear meaning of the verses and using every method at your disposal to run away from the facts and deny the truth of scripture. You are NOT looking for the truth, you already have your mind set on the idea that you do not want to honor Christ as being God, and so you will do ANYTHING to plug your ears and deny the truth.





A king claiming a victory is not the same thing as the King claiming the victory was his ALONE.


President Bush can't claim that he defeated Saddam Hussein ALONE, He can't say he defeated Saddam by HIMSELF, can he? The Army was his instrument, but they are PEOPLE.

The victory might be his but he can NEVER claim to have done it ALONE and BY HIMSELF.

If Bush said "I defeated Saddam Alone. I sought him out and drug him out of that hole BY MYSELF" he would be laughed out of office.

Also, You know that Irenaeus believed that Jesus was divine don't you? He was not trying to say that Jesus a mere instrument through which God created. He was arguing that if the Angels had done some creation at the behest of God that it was still God that was credited as Creator. It was in no way written as an answer to where Isaiah said that YHWH did it ALONE.

First, let me show you what Iranaeus really thought about Jesus:
Against heresies Book 1 X.1

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations132 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6370_1471344) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"133 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6371_1471679) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"134 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6372_1472006) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,
And let me point out that what you quoted above as his words are NOT what he said. Let me quote the entire section for you, and please show me where the words where it says "so the Father is credited with being the creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.
He was speaking against specific heresies here Pythagoras, that the Angels created the world. Part of some Gnostic heresy. Nothing about the Son is mentioned at all.

Nice try at forgery though, Pythagoras. Maybe you just figure nobody will actually look up the original quotes and see what was really said? You are a dishonest sneak.





No. apparently you just have to be a nontrinitarian with his fingers in his ears to figure out how to deny the truth, pythagoras. And that is why you dont see fit to respond to my posts. Because that would mean taking your fingers out of your ears for a moment.


An argument against the Logos doctrine from Isaiah 44:24 is not a good argument. Notice that in the Hebrew noteh šāmayim (stretcher forth of the heavens) is the participle; likewise roqa` hā'āreş. The latter is in smikhut or the construct state, signifying its use as a substantive. By parallelism, such is also the case also of noteh šāmayim. These are divine titles.


With even this much said, it can be understood in what sense the title of Stretcher-forth of the heavens belongs to God the Father alone -- in the same way that He is "the only true God" (John 17:3). He is the principal of the title (cf. Psa. 136:4).


In apposition to l'bhaddī (by myself) in Isaiah 44:24 is mē'ittī, which, according to Gesenius, is the same as Greek "ap emautou, John 5:30." God of Himself is Spreader-forth of the earth. The Logos, as instrumental cause, would not share this status with God the Father who is the Principal, as can be seen from John 5:30.


In Deuteronomy 32:12, God says that He alone (bādhādh, from the root for l'bhādh) lead the children of Israel, in a context referring to the Exodus (cp. Exod. 19:4--> Deut. 32:10-11). Yet, Moses was an agent of God's leading the children of Israel (Exod. 32:34). What the statement that God alone led the children of Israel means is that "and there was no strange god with him," as the verse goes on to say.


And inasmuch as the judges themselves, and Moses, were 'ĕlohīm, we must understand "strange gods" to refer, not to subordinate gods like Moses and the judges, but gods purporting to be independent principles from YHWH, such as the be'alim and ashtarot. This principle can be applied back to Isaiah 44:24, and is in accord with the intent of the Isaiah passages understood from anathema 11 of Sirmium 1 (351 AD):


Whosoever shall explain 'I God the First and I the Last, and besides Me there is no God,' (Is. xliv. 6), which is said for the denial of idols and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, before ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema.

[http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/6arcon.htm]


God bless

[Sparko]

An argument against the Logos doctrine from Isaiah 44:24 is not a good argument. Notice that in the Hebrew noteh šāmayim (stretcher forth of the heavens) is the participle; likewise roqa` hā'āreş. The latter is in smikhut or the construct state, signifying its use as a substantive. By parallelism, such is also the case also of noteh šāmayim. These are divine titles.


With even this much said, it can be understood in what sense the title of Stretcher-forth of the heavens belongs to God the Father alone -- in the same way that He is "the only true God" (John 17:3). He is the principal of the title (cf. Psa. 136:4).


In apposition to l'bhaddī (by myself) in Isaiah 44:24 is mē'ittī, which, according to Gesenius, is the same as Greek "ap emautou, John 5:30." God of Himself is Spreader-forth of the earth. The Logos, as instrumental cause, would not share this status with God the Father who is the Principal, as can be seen from John 5:30.

If the LOGOS was a seperate entity, then you are correct, the titles and word "alone" would only be attached to YHWH and not to the Logos. But that would make John 1:3 and Colosians 1:17 a LIE. because they say that Christ/Logos created everything HIMSELF.

The only reconciliation is that LOGOS/Christ IS YHWH then the word ALONE has no problem as it is only one single entity that created, revealed in two persons. Trinitarianism is basically the only way you can reconcile it.

I am constantly amazed at the hoops non-trinitarians will go through to prove that a plain reading of the verses in context and using simple logic is not true. They will dodge, dance, sidestep and come up with a ton of obscure meanings of words and rationalization in their efforts to blind themselved from the simple truth: Jesus is God. It is said over and over.

One time might be an error in our interpretation, twice a coincidence, but Jesus is called God over and over in the bible. He is called the great God, mighty God, God, I AM, creator, savior, shepherd, rock, light, judge, the alpha and omega, the first and last. Every such title that is given to YHWH is given to Christ. We are told to worship him. To honor the son like the father, the angels are told to worship him.

If you guys would uncover your eyes and your ears you would see the bible is SCREAMING that Jesus is God.

If he isn't the God did real poor job of making it clear he wasn't so I feel comfortable in beleiving in the trinity and and explaining why to God when I seen him. I sure hope you can say the same.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,




Read the Greek again, and this time with understanding. Ofcourse "Jesus came after creation", because he's a created being, the first born of creation. He's the first of God's creation. Firstborn of creation must place the son within the sub-set of things created, and first.Since Christ is a creature , he's compared to other creatures like Adam, etc.

Alam has beat this horse to death with John from Ebla here :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=15&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=15&pp=16)

(spaning a few pages forlward and backwards.)

I will take the liberty to quote this learned Arian in this regard:




If "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.






Only if you want to twist the text. I doubt they'd last long in the biblical language forum. Sorry Py. The language of the text is clear. Christ came before creation and created all creation. He didn't come after. Now are you going to tell me what an aeon is because I find it so fascinating how many questions you don't answer.


Hab. 1:12 is clear, God does not die. If you think death is "the state of being a giant pink bunny rabbit" , that's your problem, not the bible's . You see Apologianick, the built in bible definition of death[whatever that may be] is consistent in the Old as well as the in New testament.
Or are you suggesting the definition of death in the OT is different from the NT[whatever that may be]?

No. I don't think that. I'm just saying the word has to have a clear meaning. It can't be "Whatever that may be." The idea of life after death is found in the OT as well as the NT, though not as developed in the OT. You might want to see N.T. Wright's work on this.




Lol. Please go get an education.

Does the pot usually call the kettle black?





Even the apostles are able to forgive sins. Go find out where it says this in the NT.

best wishes,









Without looking, I can tell ya it's in John 20, and I would say specifically in vs. 22-24. It's where Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit on them. Now is this something intrinsic the disciples do by nature or is it something they do by authority?

Real cute Py. Next time, post arguments that make me blink at least.

[alam]

If the LOGOS was a seperate entity, then you are correct, the titles and word "alone" would only be attached to YHWH and not to the Logos. But that would make John 1:3 and Colosians 1:17 a LIE. because they say that Christ/Logos created everything HIMSELF.

Hi Sparko,


When I read your posts you seem to be a good guy, and reasonable. But this is a strong claim, that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 are a lie if the Logos is a separate entity. It would be a service if you explained why that should be so. In case you do not have time, the request is open to ApologiaNick too.


Here are the verses:


All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be (NAB).

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (NAB).


My last post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251810&postcount=150) to JFE on this thread should give you some of my background on the issue.

[John from Ebla]

I do not need to refute these verses. It is your interpretation of them that is deficient.?

Yes you do need to refute the verse. When did God created his own word? John 1:1





"The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God." .?

The Logos was God John 1:1 The beginning is Genesis 1:1 Who said, let there be light? If God spoke the words then it is the Word of God.

John 1:18 ' the only begotten Son" Jesus was unique and one of the kind because the Word that became flesh was God- that is why he say's " who ever sees Me sees Him who sent me ' John 12:45.

1) Unless you think Mary exists in eternity with the Father-begotten can only refer to his Birth, when he was born, when the word became flesh


2)The eternal father say's 'I do not change' meaning, if he is a father in scriptures then there was never a time in eternity he was not a father because he does not change. This means the Son has always existed as the eternal word- as scripture say, the Word was God John 1:1 and the Father does not change.



While we are on John 1, what does it mean to you that the original reading of vv. 4-5, as found in the early fathers, was:


In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


The Light and the Life, which the chapter proceeds to identify with Christ himself (John 1:7-9; cf. 1 John 1:2), "came to be" in the Logos. Notice the different preposition: like Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:22
.?

No it does not. All flesh has life and we need nothing to generate life - the Husband and wife have babies. The babies are born, begotten. God did not have a baby with Mary in eternity/ Jesus came by the power of the Holy Spirit and he was Born, begotten.

Only God can give everlasting life- not creation uniquely-generated. At best the New testament says firstborn of all creation, but, "l am God l do not change" if the word was born sometimes in eternity, then God changed, because prior to his Firstborn he was not a Father



The statement that "all things came to be through him" distinguishes the uniquely generated God from the commonality of generated things. The content of "all" is governed by the context, which is the norm in the scriptures. For example, as you have been shown, Jesus does all that the Father does (John 5:19), but this does not mean he begets himself. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves (1 Cor. 6:19). God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6) -- does it mean that He will work Himself? (15:28).?

This means all things are by the Word that became flesh( The Lord God) Without the Word of God nothing is created.




You have been given the verses. Here is one of them again in Hebrew, Greek, and English.


Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם


Now what stands in the way of your belief?


Pick nicking different translation is easy- but tell, me why would God need to create his own wisdom? and he did not have Mary in eternity to beget him. Wisdom been personified in the latter verses of chapter eight does not mean it did not exist as a spirit, like God, without form.


Kind regards
John From ebla

[Topherlee]

Are you questioning that Christ is our Savior?

He atoned for our sins on the cross. Through his sacrifice we have SALVATION and do not have to go to hell.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
(notice again, it is speaking of his APPEARING, just like in Titus)

--

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.






Christ is considered our Savior because he made Salvation possible by dying so that we may live. He, in a way, did save the world from immediate destruction. He is the one hope of your calling (Eph 4:4). But does this automatically save? (John3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life).

If you are a Christian, you consider yourself saved because you walk in the word of God. If you are an immoral Christian, one who proclaims to be a loyal Christian, but continues to do evil in the sight of God, would you still consider yourself to be saved? Do you believe in the "once saved always saved" philosophy? How about those who refuse the fact that there is a God, are they saved? I am also speaking of murderers, thieves, child molesters, etc... you get the point. Are these people automatically saved? The bible does say that they will perish. If you do say that these people are saved, then why is it necessary for us to walk in the WORD of God? Jesus is the LAST, we will have no other Jesus to redeem us. Jesus made salvation possible.

Jesus is also considered our Savior because he spoke the WORD of God. He taught the apostles and his followers who his Father was and and our Father, and who is God is and our God (John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.) (See also Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3 and so many more). He taught the Word of God; God's laws, plan, etc... Jesus said himself; John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word (law, plan, etc...) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

- peace be with you

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,


When I read your posts you seem to be a good guy, and reasonable. But this is a strong claim, that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 are a lie if the Logos is a separate entity. It would be a service if you explained why that should be so. In case you do not have time, the request is open to ApologiaNick too.


Here are the verses:


All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be (NAB).

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (NAB).


My last post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251810&postcount=150) to JFE on this thread should give you some of my background on the issue.

Hi Alam,

My thinking is this:

The verse in Isaiah says that YHWH created ALONE and the titles you mentioned are given to him alone. the spreader of the earth, etc. He specifically says he did it by himself and alone. That means that he did not have the help of anyone else or worked through anyone else. I am not talking about maybe delegating some task to a subordinate here, I am talking about overall creation. If YWHW did work THROUGH another entity, who created everything else, Then YHWH could still claim to be the Creator of everything, since he created the entity who created everything else, yes? I would agree with that as a possible interpretation. But when it specifially says (and not only in that one verse) that YHWH did it by himself and alone, it is not just a random phrase. It is conveying a specific meaning. That he DID NOT create through someone else, or with someone else that he ALONE is creator.

So if YHWH alone created everything ALONE, then we have to look at the new testament verses that say Jesus/Logos created everything.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

(I meant to say Colossias 1:16-17) 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now.

If YWHW created everything alone. and...
Jesus created everything..

Logically you can only have three conclusions:

1. If Jesus is a separate entity from YHWH then either Isaiah was lying about YHWH doing it alone and by himself. or..

2. Isaiah is right and The NT is lying about Jesus creating everything

or

3. Jesus IS the same entity as YHWH and therefore YHWH did create everything alone and by himself.

Where verse 17 comes in is that not only does it say Jesus created everything (he is BEFORE everything) but that he sustains everything. Without him there would be no life or atoms and molecules or matter and energy. He holds all things together and sustains them. Only an omnimax being can do that. A human can't, an angel can't. Only an infinite being with absolute power and omniscience can do that. Only the true God and creator can do that. And that is Jesus/YHWH.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,



Only if you want to twist the text. I doubt they'd last long in the biblical language forum. Sorry Py. The language of the text is clear. Christ came before creation and created all creation. He didn't come after. Now are you going to tell me what an aeon is because I find it so fascinating how many questions you don't answer.


That's not an argument.




No. I don't think that. I'm just saying the word has to have a clear meaning. It can't be "Whatever that may be." The idea of life after death is found in the OT as well as the NT, though not as developed in the OT. You might want to see N.T. Wright's work on this.


Irrelevant because the definition of death [whatever it is] is the same in the OT and in the NT.

Hab. 1:12 says God does not die. The NT says Jesus died. Therefore Jesus is not God.



Without looking, I can tell ya it's in John 20, and I would say specifically in vs. 22-24. It's where Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit on them. Now is this something intrinsic the disciples do by nature or is it something they do by authority?


By authority. But it's irrelevant to the point under consideration since Arians argue Jesus "forgives sins" by authority just like the apostles.

Back to the drawing board you go,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,





Also, You know that Irenaeus believed that Jesus was divine don't you?


Lol! I don't think you know what you're talking about Sparkie. Irenaeus didn't believe Jesus was "Divine" or YHWH, not by a long shot. I bet yuo didn't know Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to be an old man (AH2, XXII. 4-6). Still think he believed Jesus to be YHWH? I guess God is indeed an old man with a white beard.

Irenaeus states that the Father is "God, the only Creator" and "of His own free will, He created all things" (AH2, I.1). And he gives the axe analogy in this regard. Irenaeus often says that the Son was begotten by the Father, and that the Father alone is the "Unbegotten God". Irenaeus announces that "there is only one God . . . He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made [all] things by Himself, that is, through His Word and Wisdom. . ." (AH2, XXX.9).

etc.



First, let me show you what Iranaeus really thought about Jesus:


Lol! Old man with a white beard!



"to gather all things in one,"133 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn63.htm#P6371_1471679) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father,


Lol! The Church fathers generally believed the word God to be a "common noun" as used in conjunction with Jesus. In this regard, I've repeatedly told you even Satan is called God(2 Cor. 4:4). Calling someone God doesn't make them YHWH, Sparkey.



Nice try at forgery though, Pythagoras. Maybe you just figure nobody will actually look up the original quotes and see what was really said? You are a dishonest sneak.


Lol!





No. apparently you just have to be a nontrinitarian with his fingers in his ears to figure out how to deny the truth, pythagoras. And that is why you dont see fit to respond to my posts. Because that would mean taking your fingers out of your ears for a moment</P>

</P>

</P>

Lol.</P>

</P>

</P>

best wishes,</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,





Lol! I don't think you know what you're talking about Sparkie. Irenaeus didn't believe Jesus was "Divine" or YHWH, not by a long shot. I bet yuo didn't know Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to be an old man (AH2, XXII. 4-6). Still think he believed Jesus to be YHWH? I guess God is indeed an old man with a white beard.

Irenaeus states that the Father is "God, the only Creator" and "of His own free will, He created all things" (AH2, I.1). And he gives the axe analogy in this regard. Irenaeus often says that the Son was begotten by the Father, and that the Father alone is the "Unbegotten God". Irenaeus announces that "there is only one God . . . He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made [all] things by Himself, that is, through His Word and Wisdom. . ." (AH2, XXX.9).

etc.



Lol! Old man with a white beard!

Dude you really need to learn how to format your posts. I can't even follow your points.

But regardless, I have shown you that YOU misquoted Irenaeus, you added words that were NOT there, and that makes you a dishonest sneak. I will not take anything you say at face value now. Your cut and pastes of Irenaus above to try to somehow prove that Jesus was an old man with a beard (which I do not see in your quote) mean nothing other than IF you are correct then Irenaeus was a complete loony heretic and your trying to use him as an authority earlier justs looks even MORE foolish than before.

And I am not going to let you side track this discussion. You are so afraid to confront the verses I posted showing that Jesus IS YHWH that you are trying anything you can to hand wave it away.

if you want to discuss Irenaeus, start a new thread. He is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether he beleives Jesus is God (as I quoted from his writings) or just as heretical as YOU are, makes no hill of beans to my arguement. I am using scripture and you are jumping through hoops to avoid it.






Lol! The Church fathers generally believed the word God to be a "common noun" as used in conjunction with Jesus. In this regard, I've repeatedly told you even Satan is called God(2 Cor. 4:4). Calling someone God doesn't make them YHWH, Sparkey.


Again with the dishonesty. You will do anything to rationalize away the truth won't you?

And again, IRRELLEVANT. Start a new thread.



If you want to discuss things with me, stay on the topic. If you CAN'T answer my points without changing the subject, making up things, taking things out of context, and changing early church father writings to say things that they never said, then I am done with you, and you show yourself for the dishonest fool that you are to all that read this thread.


once more:

Let's get back to the points you seem to have skipped in your last response.

1. YHWH says he created everything by himself. ALONE. That means no helpers and he did not create Jesus first who created everything else. YHWH created everything including the heavens and the earth, and he did it by HIMSELF, ALONE.

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,


2. But the NT says that JESUS created ALL THINGS, including heaven and earthly things.


John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


So Christ could not have been merely the agent through which YHWH created everything since YHWH said he did it alone by himself. Jesus could NOT be created because it says NOTHING was made without him.

The only conclusion is that Jesus IS YHWH. Either that or we are both wrong and the new testament is a lie.
Now answer this conundrum without resorting to slight-of-hand, quoting early church fathers with forged quotes, and changing the subject.

If you can't then just GO AWAY. You have nothing to add to this thread and you sure are not convincing anyone you are right with your current tactics.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



And I am not going to let you side track this discussion. You are so afraid to confront the verses I posted showing that Jesus IS YHWH that you are trying anything you can to hand wave it away.

if you want to discuss Irenaeus, start a new thread. He is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether he beleives Jesus is God (as I quoted from his writings) or just as heretical as YOU are, makes no hill of beans to my arguement. I am using scripture and you are jumping through hoops to avoid it.


You're the one who said Irenaeus believed Jesus is God! Now that you know Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to be an old man, he suddenly becomes irrelevant, and I'm "side tracking" the discussion by bringing him up. You're a real winner.



If you want to discuss things with me, stay on the topic.


I really don't have much interest in a discussion with you, to tell you the truth.



If you CAN'T answer my points without changing the subject, making up things, taking things out of context, and changing early church father writings to say things that they never said, then I am done with you, and you show yourself for the dishonest fool that you are to all that read this thread.


Lol!



If you can't then just GO AWAY. You have nothing to add to this thread and you sure are not convincing anyone you are right with your current tactics.


The only reason I bother with this forum is because of people like alam and apostoli. Even Eliyosef , the anti-missionary Jew (though he's annoying) is someone I can learn from. You , on the other hand, are irrelevant and incidental to me.

best wishes nonetheless,




Now answer this conundrum without resorting to slight-of-hand, quoting early church fathers with forged quotes, and changing the subject.








Unfortunately for you I'm not "quoting early church fathers with forged quotes." I can't help it if you're ignorant of his writings. You're still in shock . Don't worry you will get over it:



Irenaeus:




(4) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His

real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their AEons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:--



etc.

best wishes,

[John from Ebla]

Dear Alam, Pythagoras, Topherlee.


God cannot be divided. He is Spirit and the fullness of what he is, makes him God- the pagan philology that the Holy spirit is another god or power, and the Word/Son is another god, a lower form that is created is blasphemy.

John 12:45 whoever sees Me, sees HIM who sent me. Do you see a man Jesus because you divide God- that’s what the rabbi did, they said, “You’re a man and you make yourself to be God”

Mark 9:37 whoever receives me, receives NOT me.... but the ONE who sent me." Do you receive the one that sent him or a man Jesus, because you make another form out of him and say, Hey! Wait a minute you’re a man how can we see God. That is exactly what your rabbi did, two thousand years ago, and have suffered since.

God the Father; God the Word/ Son; God the Holy Spirit", means exactly what is says, "God is God", ONE GOD "God is Jesus", and "God is the Holy Spirit". It cannot be more clearly stated? "Things equal to the same thing, are equal to each other." God is God.

He does not change, "l am God l do not change" sciptures reveal him as eternal father- if he does not change then how can he be a GOD (Father) without a SON/Word. What is eternal is God- his word is eternal.

[B]Acts 4:24-24 Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain

Can it be any clearer? “ Sovereign Lord” one creator not divided.

Holy Spirit: God is Spirit and you are saying he spoke through another spirit. Can you see the way you are dividing God? Saying he even created his own spirit- What is eternal is God and is God undvided.

Don’t come back and say, "the Holy Spirit is not God it’s the Power of God" God is spirit and can only Talk though his own spirit, his own word. The holy spirit, feels, talks, grieves, and is identified as ‘Me” or “l” Is there another spirit that refers to himself with a singular personal pronoun “l” “Me” ? Yes God/ Spirit -are there two that talk and feel and grieve,- why do you keep on dividing God?


Kind regards
John From Embla

[alam]

Hi John from Ebla, and thank you for your response




Yes you do need to refute the verse. When did God created his own word? John 1:1





Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם





The Logos was God John 1:1 The beginning is Genesis 1:1 Who said, let there be light? If God spoke the words then it is the Word of God.


The Word was created before all things. "All things" include earth and heaven.



John 1:18 ' the only begotten Son" Jesus was unique and one of the kind because the Word that became flesh was God- that is why he say's " who ever sees Me sees Him who sent me ' John 12:45.


"The only begotten God" (NASB) or monogenēs theos is what appears in the main text of NA 27. No one has seen God at any time. The One whom they saw in the OT was the only begotten God.




1) Unless you think Mary exists in eternity with the Father-begotten can only refer to his Birth, when he was born, when the word became flesh



The generation or creation of the Son took place before the world. He was originally begotten without a mother, as the church fathers said, just as he was begotten of Mary without a father in the last times.


When there were no depths, I was brought forth (hōlāltī); when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (hōlāltī): while as yet he had not made the earth, or the fields, or the highest part of the dust of the earth.



The word translated as "brought forth" is binyan pu'al of hūl meaning "to be born" (Langenscheidt Pocket Hebrew Dictionary). In this case it is a metaphor for creation as it is in Psa. 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth (yullādū), and before ever thou hadst formed (wat'hōlēl) the earth and the world..."




2)The eternal father say's 'I do not change' meaning, if he is a father in scriptures then there was never a time in eternity he was not a father because he does not change. This means the Son has always existed as the eternal word- as scripture say, the Word was God John 1:1 and the Father does not change.



The name "Eternal father" appears in scripture only in Isaiah 9:6, where it is a title of the Son.


If you are saying that the Son co-existed unbegotten with the Father in eternity, how are they even Father and Son, and not brothers?



No it does not.


It seems so to me. Here is the verse again:


In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.




Only God can give everlasting life- not creation uniquely-generated. At best the New testament says firstborn of all creation, but, "l am God l do not change" if the word was born sometimes in eternity, then God changed, because prior to his Firstborn he was not a Father


If God was not the Father before He begat the Son, then He was not the Creator before He created the world. In both cases the change is not in God Himself, but in His relation to things.




tell, me why would God need to create his own wisdom?


When you are ready to acknowledge what the verse says, then we can talk about its theological import. Look at the verse again -- it is not a translation issue at all and I gave yo the Septuagint Greek and the Hebrew so you could see it yourself, since you have given out the impression of knowing some Hebrew and/or Greek.


Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם



and he did not have Mary in eternity to beget him.


God does not need Mary in order to beget/generate things. Even the elect have been "born" of God, and God did not need Mary to do it.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Regards,

[alam]

Hi Alam,

My thinking is this:

The verse in Isaiah says that YHWH created ALONE and the titles you mentioned are given to him alone. the spreader of the earth, etc. He specifically says he did it by himself and alone. That means that he did not have the help of anyone else or worked through anyone else. I am not talking about maybe delegating some task to a subordinate here, I am talking about overall creation. If YWHW did work THROUGH another entity, who created everything else, Then YHWH could still claim to be the Creator of everything, since he created the entity who created everything else, yes? I would agree with that as a possible interpretation. But when it specifially says (and not only in that one verse) that YHWH did it by himself and alone, it is not just a random phrase. It is conveying a specific meaning. That he DID NOT create through someone else, or with someone else that he ALONE is creator.

So if YHWH alone created everything ALONE, then we have to look at the new testament verses that say Jesus/Logos created everything.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

(I meant to say Colossias 1:16-17) 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now.

If YWHW created everything alone. and...
Jesus created everything..

Logically you can only have three conclusions:

1. If Jesus is a separate entity from YHWH then either Isaiah was lying about YHWH doing it alone and by himself. or..

2. Isaiah is right and The NT is lying about Jesus creating everything

or

3. Jesus IS the same entity as YHWH and therefore YHWH did create everything alone and by himself.



Hi Sparko,


We have different intuitions about what Isaiah 44:24 excludes. If you built a table using saw, hammer and other tools, you alone are builder of the table. The tools' contribution to the work is not the sort that makes them co-builders of the table.


You could say that this is because of what the tools are (impersonal objects) rather than the nature of their contribution to the work. But if this was the case, then if each of the tools had personalities but were used in the same way as before, you could no longer say that you alone are builder of the table.


To me that would be counterintuitive. "Builder of the table" is about an activity, and if the activity that goes into building the table is the same, then even if the hammer were to somehow have personality, you alone are still "builder of the table." In this case, you would no longer be alone while you are building the table, but that is a different thing. We already know that God was not alone while He was making the world; the angels were there (Job 38:7).


An "instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent" (source (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm)). A paradigm case of this is a carpenter and his tools. I know that at least two major scholastic theologians, Peter Lombard and Francisco Suarez, held that it is possible for God to create using a creation as instrumental cause.


To put this in another perspective, there is a title given to God in Psalm 136:4 (cf. 72:18) -- the Doer of great wonders (`ośēh nif'lā'ōth g'dholōth):


To him who alone is doer of great wonders


But many of God's wonders were performed through instrumental causes. For instance, Moses stretching forth his hand over the Red Sea, or (on a much smaller scale) striking the rock with his staff. That latter was the occasion of Moses' downfall, because he did not sanctify God, but spoke as if he and Aaron were principal agents of the miracle (Numbers 20:10-12).


Christ was the agent of many of God's great wonders, but he gave the credit to God: "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). I find it to be one of the New Testament's stupendous revelations that the miracle of the original creation, was done through Christ. It was accomplished by God alone, but through His Son. The level at which God was alone was at the level of principal agency.


Probably these distinctions were not in Isaiah's mind when he received Isaiah 44:24, nor his original audience. But I do not think the negation of them was suggested to them by the verse either. In Deuteronomy 32:12, where God said that He alone led the children of Israel in the Exodus, He follows the statement with, "there was no strange god with him." A "strange" or "foreign god" ('ēl nēkhār) is one who, as a god, is an independent principle from YHWH, whose presence subtracts from the majesty of YHWH. It was current in paganism to see creation as a joint endeavor of the gods. From a Babylonian creation text:


When the gods in their assembly had created [everything(?)], had fashioned the sky, had for[med the earth(?)], had brought forth living [creatu]res [....], [had created] the cattle of the field, [the beasts] of the field, and the creatures of [the city(?)]....


This is the kind of thing I think Isaiah 44:24 would have condemned for the original audience, not the Logos doctrine.




Where verse 17 comes in is that not only does it say Jesus created everything (he is BEFORE everything) but that he sustains everything. Without him there would be no life or atoms and molecules or matter and energy. He holds all things together and sustains them. Only an omnimax being can do that. A human can't, an angel can't. Only an infinite being with absolute power and omniscience can do that. Only the true God and creator can do that. And that is Jesus/YHWH.


Again we have different intuitions. Jesus Christ is certainly greater than anything in the universe, and without him nothing could exist. There is no upper limit to his greatness. But the universe and everything in it is still finite. I do not think we can define absolute Deity, the Infinite, in this way.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,


We have different intuitions about what Isaiah 44:24 excludes. If you built a table using saw, hammer and other tools, you alone are builder of the table. The tools' contribution to the work is not the sort that makes them co-builders of the table.


You could say that this is because of what the tools are (impersonal objects) rather than the nature of their contribution to the work. But if this was the case, then if each of the tools had personalities but were used in the same way as before, you could no longer say that you alone are builder of the table.

But we are talking about an intelligent entity in Christ, he is not an instrument or a tool. And it specifically says that he created EVERYTHING THAT WAS MADE. NOTHING that was made was made without him.

That pretty much excludes christ as a creature. If he was made, then he would have had to exist before he existed to make himself.

No, when the Lord is speaking in Isaiah he is making it a point not to just call himself "creator" but that he created ALONE. He is making a specific piont that no one helped him. Any other reading just doesn't hold water here. There would be no other reason to use the language Alone and by himself in that context.

No ammount of trying to find parallel verses in other parts of the bible can change that.

IF you would like to take that verse to Biblical Languages maybe someone there can clarify it for you.



But many of God's wonders were performed through instrumental causes. For instance, Moses stretching forth his hand over the Red Sea, or (on a much smaller scale) striking the rock with his staff. That latter was the occasion of Moses' downfall, because he did not sanctify God, but spoke as if he and Aaron were principal agents of the miracle (Numbers 20:10-12).

God can say he split the red sea because HE did it. Moses did not do it. It was not Moses power that split the sea. Moses cannot say that he split the sea. That would be wrong. Just like when he did not give God credit for the water when he hit the rock. Moses did not bring forth the water, God did and he did not give credit to God.

But, in the NT it DOES give all the credit to JESUS as actually being the creator. If he was merely an instrument like moses, then it would be wrong to give him the credit. It would be equivalent to Moses taking the credit for bringing forth the water. It would be WRONG for Christ to get the credit for creating everything in the NT if he was merely an instrument.

Can't you see that?

Your very example supports my point.

If God created everything ALONE and yet Christ is given the credit for it and all creation is acredited to HIM, then either the NT is lying or Christ IS God.




Christ was the agent of many of God's great wonders, but he gave the credit to God: "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). I find it to be one of the New Testament's stupendous revelations that the miracle of the original creation, was done through Christ. It was accomplished by God alone, but through His Son. The level at which God was alone was at the level of principal agency.


Sorry but that was not Christ giving the Father credit for creation, that was Christ claiming EQUALITY with the Father. He said if you have seen him you have seen the Father. He not only said the Father is in him, but that HE is in the FATHER.

You conveniently left that part of the verse out..

How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

and he also says "not JUST my own" so that his words ARE his own, but also the Father's words.

Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father. We say that Jesus is God, and the Father is God. They dwell in each other (as does the Holy Spirit) Each has a function. The Son does the Father's works. And yes the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation, and the Father did create through the Son. But YHWH can still claim to have done it ALONE because YHWH is three persons yet ONE entity: God.

If they WERE two different entities then John and Paul were being sacriligious when they wrote and gave credit for creation to Christ if he was just an instrument and not God himself.





Again we have different intuitions. Jesus Christ is certainly greater than anything in the universe, and without him nothing could exist. There is no upper limit to his greatness. But the universe and everything in it is still finite. I do not think we can define absolute Deity, the Infinite, in this way.

so you are attributing the powers of God to Jesus, saying he created everything, he holds everything together, meaning he has to be everywhere at once (omnipresence) know everything that is going on (omniscience) and being powerful enough to hold everything together and make it work (omnipotence) and yet you deny he is YHWH. Your only other choice is to say he is another God. He has all the powers of YHWH, and does all of YHWH's work. I suppose YHWH just sits back in his easy chair and does nothing? Christ is, in effect the God of this universe. If he is NOT YHWH then you have TWO Gods and you are promoting polytheism.

There is no other God with YHWH, none at all.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,



That's not an argument.

Geez Py. Does this count as a refutation in some circles? It is an argument and the question of what an aeon is is a point.

I'll be gentle Py. If you want to, Sparko and I will understand if you want to turn and run from this thread right now.





Irrelevant because the definition of death [whatever it is] is the same in the OT and in the NT.

Hab. 1:12 says God does not die. The NT says Jesus died. Therefore Jesus is not God.

"I don't know what death is, but death is the same in the OT and the NT!"

Py. Let's make this easy. In Col. 1:16-17, all things hold together in Christ, so if Christ ceases to exist, all things cease to exist. Therefore, death does not mean the cessation of existence and is thus, no problem.






By authority. But it's irrelevant to the point under consideration since Arians argue Jesus "forgives sins" by authority just like the apostles.

Back to the drawing board you go,

There's no indication it's by authority for the angel. It's something intrinsic to his nature.

Yes. I could go to the drawing board if I was someone like JP just to draw funny cartoons. They'd go great now.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,







"I don't know what death is, but death is the same in the OT and the NT!"

.


The same Spirit which inspired the OT prophet Hab. to say in 1:12 "God shall not die" also inspired Paul in Col. 1:18 to say Jesus is "the first born from the dead". Therefore Jesus cannot be God. Your lack of understanding of the definition of death is irrelevant.

Get it?

There is no way around this . Hab. 1:12 is perhaps the strongest argument against the trinity doctrine.

[alam]

But we are talking about an intelligent entity in Christ, he is not an instrument or a tool. And it specifically says that he created EVERYTHING THAT WAS MADE. NOTHING that was made was made without him.


1) The preposition it uses, dia, is instrumental. Everything was made through him, but by the Father. A preposition that would not have brought in instrumental connotation is hupo. You can take that to the Biblical languages forum and should get confirmation.


2) It was an anti-Arian innovation that began taking "ho gegonen" as part of verse 3.


What came to be: while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer Papyrus P75, some manuscripts, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with John 1:3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism.

[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm ]



You may nevertheless accept the reading you have chosen, and even consider it original, but I do not see any reason to do so.


3) The content of "all" is governed by the context. All things came to be/were generated through the Logos, and yet he himself is Monogenes, uniquely generated, according to the chapter. What it is doing is distinguishing the uniquely-generated Logos from the commonality of generated things.




That pretty much excludes christ as a creature. If he was made, then he would have had to exist before he existed to make himself.

No, when the Lord is speaking in Isaiah he is making it a point not to just call himself "creator" but that he created ALONE. He is making a specific piont that no one helped him. Any other reading just doesn't hold water here. There would be no other reason to use the language Alone and by himself in that context.


That is not my take, and thought my last post would help explain why.



IF you would like to take that verse to Biblical Languages maybe someone there can clarify it for you.


Sparko, I do know Hebrew (four years+) and have read the Hebrew passage several times today. There might be other opinions in the biblical languages forum, maybe even more learned and considered ones, but until I have time to get over there, or you start up a thread there, will have to stick to my guns. The only thing that has been presented to you that relates to the grammar of the passage is that stretcher-forth of the heavens (noteh shamayim) and spreader-forth of the earth (roqa` ha'arets) are substantives. Today I checked what the NIV interlinear (Kohlenberger) says and it's right on.





God can say he split the red sea because HE did it. Moses did not do it. It was not Moses power that split the sea. Moses cannot say that he split the sea. That would be wrong. Just like when he did not give God credit for the water when he hit the rock. Moses did not bring forth the water, God did and he did not give credit to God.


It would be correct to say that God brought water out of the rock through Moses. Moses did not just hit the rock with his staff for no reason did he, as part of a show? His action fits the definition of an instrumental cause: "instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent"



But, in the NT it DOES give all the credit to JESUS as actually being the creator. If he was merely an instrument like moses, then it would be wrong to give him the credit. It would be equivalent to Moses taking the credit for bringing forth the water. It would be WRONG for Christ to get the credit for creating everything in the NT if he was merely an instrument.

Can't you see that?



I see where you are coming from, but the prepositions used in John 1, dia and en, are both susceptible of an instrumental sense and this is reflected in some translations.


All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be (NAB).





Sorry but that was not Christ giving the Father credit for creation, that was Christ claiming EQUALITY with the Father. He said if you have seen him you have seen the Father. He not only said the Father is in him, but that HE is in the FATHER.

You conveniently left that part of the verse out..


There is nothing wrong with that part of the verse and you do not take it any more literally than I do. Take it literally and what you're going to get is Modalism.




How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

and he also says "not JUST my own" so that his words ARE his own, but also the Father's words.


"just" is supplied by the NIV; it's not in the Greek.




Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father. We say that Jesus is God, and the Father is God. They dwell in each other (as does the Holy Spirit) Each has a function. The Son does the Father's works. And yes the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation, and the Father did create through the Son. But YHWH can still claim to have done it ALONE because YHWH is three persons yet ONE entity: God.

If they WERE two different entities then John and Paul were being sacriligious when they wrote and gave credit for creation to Christ if he was just an instrument and not God himself.


What they wrote, AFAICT, is grammatically right on target if he was the instrument of creation.







so you are attributing the powers of God to Jesus, saying he created everything, he holds everything together, meaning he has to be everywhere at once (omnipresence) know everything that is going on (omniscience) and being powerful enough to hold everything together and make it work (omnipotence) and yet you deny he is YHWH. Your only other choice is to say he is another God. He has all the powers of YHWH, and does all of YHWH's work. I suppose YHWH just sits back in his easy chair and does nothing? Christ is, in effect the God of this universe. If he is NOT YHWH then you have TWO Gods and you are promoting polytheism.


You cannot define absolute Deity in terms of finite relationships. There is one principle of Deity, one principal of all divine acts, and only one true God, and this is the Father.

[Sparko]

Hi Alam,



1) The preposition it uses, dia, is instrumental. Everything was made through him, but by the Father. A preposition that would not have brought in instrumental connotation is hupo. You can take that to the Biblical languages forum and should get confirmation.

The verses say both "through" him and "BY" him and "FOR" him.

Trinitarians have no problem with creation being THROUGH Christ, but it is also clear that not only was it THROUGH him, but BY him and FOR him.

Again, Isaiah says God did it alone. I do not know hebrew like you say you do, but I can look up an interlinear and check out the words. Logically, saying he did it alone and by himself make no sense unless the meaning meant to be conveyed was, in actuality, that he did it alone and by himself. It was making a point there. The point being that he did NOT creat through another, or with another person.

Another problem I have is that you want to relegate Christ to a mere instrument here a non-essential tool in order to get away with allowing God to say he did it "Alone". You are saying Jesus was insignificant and so God can say "alone" and Christ doesn't count.

But you already admitted that Christ is not insignificant. He is not a tool or an instrument. You said


Jesus Christ is certainly greater than anything in the universe, and without him nothing could exist. There is no upper limit to his greatness.

So for such a significant entity as Christ, you can't say that God can brush him aside as an instrument and say he did it all alone. That would either be making him a liar or the NT writers were lying.

You still can't brush aside my point, Alam. The only way that it all functions as a comprehensive whole is if the Trinity is true. The Father created with and through the Son and Holy Spirit, and yet all are ONE entity, therefore YHWH did it alone and by himself.





3) The content of "all" is governed by the context. All things came to be/were generated through the Logos, and yet he himself is Monogenes, uniquely generated, according to the chapter. What it is doing is distinguishing the uniquely-generated Logos from the commonality of generated things.


Sorry it says all things were created by him. in heaven and earth. The bible goes to great lengths to state that everything was made by Christ, and that nothing was left out. Christ is before all things. He is the heir of Creation. He is the LOGOS, the Word, and the Word is GOD. You can try to come up with as many esoteric definitions as you want but the bible says it over and over that Christ is the creator, that nothing that exists without him creating it and holding it together. That he is GOD.

That's what the bible says in plain language. Only by misdirection and trying to snip everything up into single parcels and then trying to find some place elsewhere where you can show a certain word was used in a different way and so it must mean that in this case too when it is clear that is doesn't, can you even come close to denying the diety of Christ. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops and handwaving to come up with an alternate scenario than the plain reading gives and even when you do, you are still stuck with a being who has all the attributes of God and yet you claim he is not God.

Your only defense against the Trinity is to embrace polytheism, the very heresy you accuse us of.


It would be correct to say that God brought water out of the rock through Moses. Moses did not just hit the rock with his staff for no reason did he, as part of a show? His action fits the definition of an instrumental cause: "instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent"


Again, we have no problem with saying God did it through Moses. but I don't see God claiming anywhere that he did it without Moses, and Moses gets in trouble for letting people think that he did it without God.

But God does say he created without anyone else, and Christ does get the full credit for the creation and doesn't get in trouble for taking that title. Instead, the Father tells all his angels to worship him and says we should honor the Son, like we do the Father. This is the God who says he will not share his glory with another, remember.





You cannot define absolute Deity in terms of finite relationships. There is one principle of Deity, one principal of all divine acts, and only one true God, and this is the Father.

Blowing smoke up my butt isn't going to get you off the hook.

In order for everything to hold together in Christ, every attribute of God must be his. He has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so on. There is no way to do the job and not have the power.

Basically you are claiming that Christ can do everything that God can do, but he is not the true God. Well he either IS the True God or he is Another God, and that would be polytheism. Or perhaps he is a FALSE God?

[John from Ebla]

Hi John from Ebla, and thank you for your response









Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם







The Word was created before all things. "All things" include earth and heaven.





"The only begotten God" (NASB) or monogenēs theos is what appears in the main text of NA 27. No one has seen God at any time. The One whom they saw in the OT was the only begotten God.







The generation or creation of the Son took place before the world. He was originally begotten without a mother, as the church fathers said, just as he was begotten of Mary without a father in the last times.


When there were no depths, I was brought forth (hōlāltī); when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (hōlāltī): while as yet he had not made the earth, or the fields, or the highest part of the dust of the earth.



The word translated as "brought forth" is binyan pu'al of hūl meaning "to be born" (Langenscheidt Pocket Hebrew Dictionary). In this case it is a metaphor for creation as it is in Psa. 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth (yullādū), and before ever thou hadst formed (wat'hōlēl) the earth and the world..."







The name "Eternal father" appears in scripture only in Isaiah 9:6, where it is a title of the Son.


If you are saying that the Son co-existed unbegotten with the Father in eternity, how are they even Father and Son, and not brothers?





It seems so to me. Here is the verse again:


In him came to be life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.






If God was not the Father before He begat the Son, then He was not the Creator before He created the world. In both cases the change is not in God Himself, but in His relation to things.






When you are ready to acknowledge what the verse says, then we can talk about its theological import. Look at the verse again -- it is not a translation issue at all and I gave yo the Septuagint Greek and the Hebrew so you could see it yourself, since you have given out the impression of knowing some Hebrew and/or Greek.


Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

Protera pantwn ektistai sofia, kai sunesiV fronhsewV ex aiwnoV

לֽפְנֵי כל נִבְרְאָה חָכְמָה וְעָרְמַת תְּבוּנָה מֵעוֹלָם





God does not need Mary in order to beget/generate things. Even the elect have been "born" of God, and God did not need Mary to do it.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Regards,

The scripture's show God as eternal Father and he say’s “l am God l do not change” If there was a time he was not a father because you say the word is begotten, then that means God lied- since God cannot lie, we are left with alam twisting the scripture, because he love having many gods

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[alam]

The scripture's show God as eternal Father and he say’s “l am God l do not change” If there was a time he was not a father because you say the word is begotten, then that means God lied- since God cannot lie, we are left with alam twisting the scripture, because he love having many gods

Kind regards
John From Ebla



JFE, just quoting an entire post does not mean you have responded to it, or even read it.


Here's the part that addressed this baseless argument of yours.


"If God was not the Father before He begat the Son, then He was not the Creator before He created the world. In both cases the change is not in God Himself, but in His relation to things."


Respond to that, and then to the rest of the post.

[John from Ebla]

alam, it is simple.

The scripture's show God as eternal Father and he say’s “l am God l do not change” If there was a time he was not a father because you say the word is begotten, then that means God lied- since God cannot lie, we are left with alam twisting the scripture, because he love having many gods

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[alam]

alam, it is simple.

The scripture's show God as eternal Father and he say’s “l am God l do not change” If there was a time he was not a father because you say the word is begotten, then that means God lied- since God cannot lie, we are left with alam twisting the scripture, because he love having many gods

Kind regards
John From Ebla



It is simpler than that. Isaiah 9:6 is describing the Son, not God the Father, and you are back to square one. :ahem:


"If God was not the Father before He begat the Son, then He was not the Creator before He created the world. In both cases the change is not in God Himself, but in His relation to things."


Respond to that, and then to the rest of the post.

[alam]

Hi Alam,




The verses say both "through" him and "BY" him and "FOR" him.



Trinitarians have no problem with creation being THROUGH Christ, but it is also clear that not only was it THROUGH him, but BY him and FOR him.



Hi Sparko,


The verse says in him (en), through him (dia) and for him (eis). En and dia are both instrumental, but the "en" in Colossians 1:16 can mean (and in my view likely does) that all things were created in principle in the Logos. He is the ratiocination of the universe. This reading is mentioned as a possibility in the commentary on Colossians by Eduard Lohse (Fortress Press, 1971) and there are some other sources I could follow up on if you have an interest.





Again, Isaiah says God did it alone. I do not know hebrew like you say you do, but I can look up an interlinear and check out the words. Logically, saying he did it alone and by himself make no sense unless the meaning meant to be conveyed was, in actuality, that he did it alone and by himself. It was making a point there. The point being that he did NOT creat through another, or with another person.


In posts 154 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251870&postcount=152) and 164 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252806&postcount=164) you were given a reasonable alternate perspective on Isaiah 44:24. Asserting the same thing over and over and not interacting with the responses is the way to destroy dialogue.


Some folks would refuse to give you a hearing on the assumption that a Trinitarian God cannot be alone. You say "the point being that he did NOT creat through another, or with another person." How is that possible if He is always with two other persons? Doesn't a singular pronoun mean one person?


No matter what when we read Isaiah 44:24 we are not going to see the same thing there that a Jew does -- given the New Testament we cannot. You know that as well as I do.




Another problem I have is that you want to relegate Christ to a mere instrument here a non-essential tool in order to get away with allowing God to say he did it "Alone". You are saying Jesus was insignificant and so God can say "alone" and Christ doesn't count.


Christ is present in the passages if you know where to look.


I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.


The two hands of God are Christ and the Holy Spirit. This teaching is found in Irenaeus, who shared our belief in the Logos as instrumental cause of creation, as you have seen.



You still can't brush aside my point, Alam. The only way that it all functions as a comprehensive whole is if the Trinity is true. The Father created with and through the Son and Holy Spirit, and yet all are ONE entity, therefore YHWH did it alone and by himself.


The problem with your point is how dependent it is on scripture becoming unworkable without the Trinity. It is one thing if you are right and scripture cannot function as a comprehensive whole without it. It is quite another to try and set scripture up to fight with itself in order to force your conclusion. This describes a lot of what I see you guys doing.



Sorry it says all things were created by him. in heaven and earth. The bible goes to great lengths to state that everything was made by Christ, and that nothing was left out. Christ is before all things. He is the heir of Creation. He is the LOGOS, the Word, and the Word is GOD. You can try to come up with as many esoteric definitions as you want but the bible says it over and over that Christ is the creator, that nothing that exists without him creating it and holding it together. That he is GOD.


If you want esoteric definitions, Trinitarianism is the mother lode though. Most of the distinctions and terms you will see in my posts are ones that are common in Nicene theology. Others, such as the distinction between theos and ho theos, were made by ante-Nicene writers.



you are still stuck with a being who has all the attributes of God and yet you claim he is not God.


Another esoteric (but important) distinction is that between the positive and negative attributes of God. The positive attributes are relational and concerned with God's activity. These attributes are communicable. The incommunicable ones are the negative attributes, the ones concerned with what God is not. God is unoriginated; independent, unconditioned, to name a few. None of these things are true of the Son, nor in the nature of sonship could they be.




Your only defense against the Trinity is to embrace polytheism, the very heresy you accuse us of.


I have not accused Trinitarians here of polytheism. When I accuse you of anything, it is of mishandling scripture to force a form of doctrine which more resembles Sabellianism than the orthodoxy of the early fathers. It is a less sensational accusation than polytheism, but not less important.




Again, we have no problem with saying God did it through Moses. but I don't see God claiming anywhere that he did it without Moses, and Moses gets in trouble for letting people think that he did it without God.

But God does say he created without anyone else, and Christ does get the full credit for the creation and doesn't get in trouble for taking that title. Instead, the Father tells all his angels to worship him and says we should honor the Son, like we do the Father. This is the God who says he will not share his glory with another, remember.


Well, then what of this?


And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.




Blowing smoke up my butt isn't going to get you off the hook.


You need to get your head out of it before anyone could try that!




In order for everything to hold together in Christ, every attribute of God must be his. He has to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so on. There is no way to do the job and not have the power.


He shares in the positive attributes, which concern the divine activity. These attributes are logically communicable.



Basically you are claiming that Christ can do everything that God can do, but he is not the true God. Well he either IS the True God or he is Another God, and that would be polytheism. Or perhaps he is a FALSE God?


This is another false dilemma, the same as the one about saviors. There is another category in the Bible than the three you have mentioned (two actually, since in biblical usage "other gods" or "strange gods" is synonymous with "false gods") and that is the category of the subordinate god. The judges of Israel were exemplars of this category, and so are the angels. So will be the elect. In this respect, all of them are images of the Son, the only-begotten God (John 1:18).

[John from Ebla]

It is simpler than that. Isaiah 9:6 is describing the Son, not God the Father, and you are back to square one. :ahem:


"If God was not the Father before He begat the Son, then He was not the Creator before He created the world. In both cases the change is not in God Himself, but in His relation to things."


Respond to that, and then to the rest of the post.

Alam, it is simple- and Isaiah 9:6 has nothing to do with this.

The scripture's show God as eternal Father (Malachi and N/T Paul) and he say’s “l am God l do not change” If there was a time he was not a father because you say the word is begotten, then that means God lied- since God cannot lie, we are left with alam twisting the scripture, because he love having many gods

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,


The verse says in him (en), through him (dia) and for him (eis). En and dia are both instrumental, but the "en" in Colossians 1:16 can mean (and in my view likely does) that all things were created in principle in the Logos. He is the ratiocination of the universe. This reading is mentioned as a possibility in the commentary on Colossians by Eduard Lohse (Fortress Press, 1971) and there are some other sources I could follow up on if you have an interest.

I like how you resort to trying to "out define" the evil trinitarians and show that words can mean other things in other places so that means they don't mean what the context says they mean in this specific instance.

It is a very transparent tactic Alam and you and Pythagoras do it over and over. In fact, it seems to be your ONLY tactic, but you do a much better job of it than pythagoras does at making it sound 'scholarly' - he just sounds foolish.

For example, When I post a verse that says God did it ALONE, you try to redefine alone to not really mean alone despite the fact that the purpose of the passage WAS to say God did it alone.

Then below you try to define where God says he used his HANDS to mean that HANDS mean Jesus and the Holy Spirit as seperate beings, when again the clear context of the passage is YHWH saying he did it by HIMSELF.

And when I point out passages that say directly that Jesus is God (Titus 2:13) What do I hear back? Oh "god" is used to talk about many things in other places so that means it doesn't really mean God here! :rofl:

The context says it does mean he is God.

It's like I said "The sky is blue" and you came back and said well "blue" can refer to being sad, so you are wrong! you should have said "The sky is sad"



In posts 154 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251870&postcount=152) and 164 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252806&postcount=164) you were given a reasonable alternate perspective on Isaiah 44:24. Asserting the same thing over and over and not interacting with the responses is the way to destroy dialogue.

I am not going to change my view because you try to redefine words at every chance you get, Alam. Sorry. But if that's an impasse for you then stop responding to my posts.



Some folks would refuse to give you a hearing on the assumption that a Trinitarian God cannot be alone. You say "the point being that he did NOT creat through another, or with another person." How is that possible if He is always with two other persons? Doesn't a singular pronoun mean one person?

Another person who is not HIMSELF, Alam. A seperate ENTITY. Are you purposefully trying to misread my words? That won't get you anywhere.

God is never ALONE relationally, but as an ENTITY he is SINGULAR. There is only ONE God, revealed in three persons. In the Old Testament, when YHWH is speaking in the singular he is speaking as the Single Entity God ( all three persons speaking as one being) - So when YHWH says he created ALONE, that means as a single divine entity. So he can say ALONE and it can inlude all three persons of the Trinity. He CANNOT say Alone and it include seperate entities.

Again, if you don't want to see me repeat myself, then either understand what I am saying or stop replying to me.





No matter what when we read Isaiah 44:24 we are not going to see the same thing there that a Jew does -- given the New Testament we cannot. You know that as well as I do.

Actually Trinitarians do see the same thing. We just interpet the singularity of YHWH here to include the trinity as a single unit. Only non-trinitarians have the problem. You have to somehow say YHWH really doesn't mean "alone"


Christ is present in the passages if you know where to look.


I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.


The two hands of God are Christ and the Holy Spirit. This teaching is found in Irenaeus, who shared our belief in the Logos as instrumental cause of creation, as you have seen.

While I agree that Christ is included in the passages, I don't agree that he is a seperate entity, nor CAN he be a separate entity. The very words "MY hands" mean part of his BODY (anthropomorphically speaking) not seperate beings. And Alone means Alone. But Christ and the Holy Spirit are not his Hands, they are HIM. They are YHWH. And don't even try to bring Irenaeus back into the thread. Pythagoras poisoned that well by pointing out his heretical views on Christ as Christ lived 50 years or more. If that IS true (I didn't study on it much) then using him as an authority that Christ is not God is pretty weak and can be dismissed. Besides, I don't care what Irenaeus thought one way or another, who made him holder of the truth? I stick with scripture.


The problem with your point is how dependent it is on scripture becoming unworkable without the Trinity. It is one thing if you are right and scripture cannot function as a comprehensive whole without it. It is quite another to try and set scripture up to fight with itself in order to force your conclusion. This describes a lot of what I see you guys doing.

But it is not what we are doing. We are taking clear readings of scripture and letting that determine what is being said.

Your recourse is to redefine the words to mean other things than what they say, so that you can fit the scripture into your preconceptions. And what you end up with is a hodgepodge of polytheism.



Another esoteric (but important) distinction is that between the positive and negative attributes of God. The positive attributes are relational and concerned with God's activity. These attributes are communicable. The incommunicable ones are the negative attributes, the ones concerned with what God is not. God is unoriginated; independent, unconditioned, to name a few. None of these things are true of the Son, nor in the nature of sonship could they be.

First you are confusing a person of the trinity with the whole of the trinity. There ARE dependencies within the trinity, such as the Father can't be a Father without the Son, nor can the Son be the Son without the Father.
All of the attributes you say Jesus can't be because he is the son, the Father can't be becuase the relationship is two-way. But Christ is said to be UNORIGINATED (I guess you mean uncreated?). That is what John 1:1 says, what John 1:3 says, and so on.

And you are dodging again.

Christ has all the attributes of God, he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. Those are not "communicable" those are intrinsic in the one true God. You can't have two beings that are omnimax. They would be the same being by definition.



Well, then what of this?


And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.


What about it?

He is not talking about his DIVINE Glory there, he is talking about adoption of the saints as sons of God so that the Holy Spirit will dwell in us as it does in Christ so that we can be unified. Context again.


Joh 17:22 - And the glory which thou gavest me,.... Not the glory of his deity; this is the same with his Father, what he has in right of nature, and not by gift; nor can it be communicated to creatures; this would be to make them one in the Godhead, as the three are one, which is not the design of the expression in the close of the verse: nor his mediatorial glory, which he had with the Father before the world began; this indeed was given him by the Father, but is not given to the saints: nor the glory, of working miracles; which glory Christ had, and which, as man, he had from the Father, and in which his own glory was manifested; this he gave to his disciples; but all that are his have not had it, and some have had it who are none of his: rather the Gospel is meant, which is glorious in its author, matter and subject, in its doctrines, in the blessing: grace it reveals, and promises it contains, and in the efficacy and usefulness of it to the souls of men. This was given to Christ, and he gave it to his disciples

Joh 17:22 - And the glory which thou gavest--hast given.
me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one--The last clause shows the meaning of the first. It is not the future glory of the heavenly state, but the secret of that present unity just before spoken of; the glory, therefore, of the indwelling Spirit of Christ; the glory of an accepted state, of a holy character, of every grace.








You need to get your head out of it before anyone could try that!

Bwahahahaha. *slaps knees.

:glare:







He shares in the positive attributes, which concern the divine activity. These attributes are logically communicable.

How can you communicate Omnipotence? or Omniscience? If he has the Omni's the he is effectively GOD. You can't have two infinite (omnimax) beings. Infinity precludes that. They would be the same being. Which is what the Trinity says.



This is another false dilemma, the same as the one about saviors. There is another category in the Bible than the three you have mentioned (two actually, since in biblical usage "other gods" or "strange gods" is synonymous with "false gods") and that is the category of the subordinate god. The judges of Israel were exemplars of this category, and so are the angels. So will be the elect. In this respect, all of them are images of the Son, the only-begotten God (John 1:18).

Sorry, but Angels and Judges are NOT DIETIES. The word "god" was used to describe them, but like you said, or maybe Pythagoras said it, the word god can have other meanings in hebrew, like mighty one, or judge. Again, the CONTEXT determines the meaning. Blue can be a color or mean sad.

The Angels are not subordinate DIETIES. Niether are the judges. You can't have subordinate dieties to YHWH. That would be polytheism. If a being has all the attributes of the true diety then he IS the true diety. Christ can't have all the Omnimax attributes of God and NOT be the True God.

You ARE proposing polytheism, but playing semantic games to avoid saying Christ is a a diety.

Basically your point seems to be, yes Christ is as powerful as God and may have created all of us and holds us together and the universe together, but since angels and judges are called "gods" too, then Christ is not really God.

Based on that logic neither is YHWH.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,




They are YHWH. And don't even try to bring Irenaeus back into the thread. Pythagoras poisoned that well by pointing out his heretical views on Christ as Christ lived 50 years or more. If that IS true (I didn't study on it much) then using him as an authority that Christ is not God is pretty weak and can be dismissed. Besides, I don't care what Irenaeus thought one way or another, who made him holder of the truth? I stick with scripture.


.

After one lesson at my feet you're dropping Ireaneus like a hot potato. What happened? Just yesterday he was the champion of the trinitarian position, today he's a heretic. This is what you wrote October 29th 2005 , 09:05 PM:





Also, You know that Irenaeus believed that Jesus was divine don't you? He was not trying to say that Jesus a mere instrument through which God created. He was arguing that if the Angels had done some creation at the behest of God that it was still God that was credited as Creator.





Oregin, Tertullian , now Irenaeus are all heretics. The way I see it, you don't have proof for the trinity in the bible, and by now it's obvious to everyone that the Church fathers certainly didn't teach it

Conclusion: My inclination is that the trinity is a fourth century innovation by the black dwarf from Alexandria, aka Athanasius.


best wishes nonetheless,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,





After one lesson at my feet you're dropping Ireaneus like a hot potato. What happened? Just yesterday he was the champion of the trinitarian position, today he's a heretic. This is what you wrote October 29th 2005 , 09:05 PM:

What hubris.

You were the one trying to use Iraneus to denounce that Jesus is God. I could care less about Iraneus. I just pointed out that you mis quoted him and are a dishonest sneak. And I posted a counter quote that Iraneus did call Jesus God. I was NOT using Iranaues as my support vehicle. YOU WERE. and then you basically admitted that he was heretical because he said Jesus lived to be over 50 years old (I never did study it any further, so I have no personal opinion on whether Irenaeus is heretical or not)

So basically you were using someone you admitted was heretical YOURSELF and trying to use him to shore up your weak-kneed claim that Christ is not God.

Hello? How stupid is that? You are an idiot and now you are complaining because I am not using Iranaeus? You were the one who was trying to use him, not me. It would be like me quoting Joseph Smith to prove the Trinity to you.

What a loon.

And you STILL never addressed the fact that you posted a FALSE quote from him to begin with. So you not only used a self-admitted heretic to support your views, but you LIED about what he said.

The true mark of a scholar. :thumb:

For someone who tries to change every thread into a discussion about the trinity, you sure fold quickly and start with the fancy footwork and dodging.

Now since it looks like Alam is actually discussing the topic with me and all you are doing is dancing around hand-waving, why don't you go sit in the corner and keep quiet? While I disagree with Alam, at least he is intelligent enough to discuss the matter without falling headfirst over his own feet like you.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,


You were the one trying to use Iraneus to denounce that Jesus is God.

You don't still believe Irenaeus thought Jesus was YHWH do you?


I could care less about Iraneus.

You should have said this yesterday, before you learned about his heretical views!



I just pointed out that you mis quoted him and are a dishonest sneak.


Argument by name calling.

How is printing his actual words mis-quoating him? Read AH2 XXII 4-6 again.



And I posted a counter quote that Iraneus did call Jesus God.


Like Santa Clause huh?


I was NOT using Iranaues as my support vehicle.

But you ended up using him anyway!



YOU WERE. and then you basically admitted that he was heretical because he said Jesus lived to be over 50 years old (I never did study it any further, so I have no personal opinion on whether Irenaeus is heretical or not)


The only time someone is heretical in my books is if they believe a human being , a monkey,a donkey, a bull, , a Mary or any creature is YHWH. Irenaeus didn't think Jesus( a human being) was YHWH, so he doesn't qualify. But you certainly fit my bill..



So basically you were using someone you admitted was heretical YOURSELF and trying to use him to shore up your weak-kneed claim that Christ is not God.


Huh?



Hello? How stupid is that? You are an idiot and now you are complaining because I am not using Iranaeus?

Done venting? Why are you so mal-contented?



You were the one who was trying to use him, not me. It would be like me quoting Joseph Smith to prove the Trinity to you.


But you used him to show that he believed in the trinity anyway. What are you whining about Sparkie?



What a loon.

And you STILL never addressed the fact that you posted a FALSE quote from him to begin with. So you not only used a self-admitted heretic to support your views, but you LIED about what he said.

The true mark of a scholar


Argument by name calling.

Can you show me where I "posted a false quote" of Irenaeus? Are you saying AH2 XXII 4-6 is false?


For someone who tries to change every thread into a discussion about the trinity, you sure fold quickly and start with the fancy footwork and dodging.

Frankly I have no interest in changing any thread into a discussion about the trinity, you're paranoid . My only interest in these threads is to have a discussion with intelligent people like alam, and a few others. You're incident in my scheme.



Now since it looks like Alam is actually discussing the topic with me and all you are doing is dancing around hand-waving, why don't you go sit in the corner and keep quiet?



Good idea! I'll just sit back and watch the freak show. -- Hulk Hogan vs. Huntchback from Notre Dame.



While I disagree with Alam, at least he is intelligent enough to discuss the matter without falling headfirst over his own feet like you


Let the games begin..... Ring the bells Quasimodo.

good luck, you'll need it .

[roddmann]

Hi Barryrob,

Rather than answering your post point by point, I think this is a good place to just post an article on what we Trinitarians really do believe and why we believe it. It is an article I wrote for my web site a few years ago.

------

Discovering the Trinity for Yourself



By John Sparks


(some of the research for this paper was gathered from the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY Web Site. Please visit them for many many articles on the Christian faith and defense of Christian Doctrines)

Introduction

The word Trinity was coined to describe the way that the Bible describes God. The Bible teaches in various places that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet, it also teaches that there is only ONE God, and that Jesus is not the Father, or Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus, and so on. So since the Bible is infallible and is the true word of God, we must conclude that there are three persons who are all fully God, and yet there is only ONE God. So the there are three "who"s and one "what." This means that God is one in substance and essence, but three in persons. This concept is called the Trinity. The word doesn't appear in the Bible (neither does the word "Bible" for that matter), but the concept is clearly taught by scripture. We will discuss how this can be below.


Part 1 The history of the concept of the Trinity:

The trinity wasn't "invented" in the fourth century as many believe. It goes back to the very beginning of the church. It is also taught, though not explicitly, in the Bible (I will go into that later). We have many records from early church fathers, going back to the time of John (near 100 ad). I will be quoting some of these sources below, showing that they believed in the Trinity and that Jesus was actually God (note: When a Trinitarian talks about Jesus being God, he doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.)


Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Agn. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

========
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire.


Part 2 - Why do we believe there IS a Trinity?


Trinitarians believe that there are three persons in ONE God. Not three Gods. To believe that Jesus is divine and Son of God, but completely separate, would mean that there are TWO Gods. There is only ONE God, the old and new testament says this over and over.

If Jesus was just the Son of the Father (who is God), then he would have to either have been created by the Father (which we know he wasn't, since ALL things were created by and through him) or he would have to be a second God (since like begets like. A human begets a human, a God would beget a God). So Jesus would have to be another God, or he would have to be a creature, an angel, or cherubim. We know he is not, because he accepts worship, and only God is to be worshiped. And we know that there cannot be two Gods, because the LORD in the Old Testament categorically denies any God before, beside, or after Him. That leaves only ONE logical conclusion, Jesus is the same God that the Father is. But they are two persons. So we have two persons in ONE God. The Holy Spirit is also shown to be a person and God in the New Testament (especially in John chapter 14). This makes three persons in one God. It is hard to understand, but it is the only logical explanation of the various scriptures without going to three different Gods, or saying that the Bible contradicts itself.

Below are some verses that demonstrate this reasoning:

First we must establish that there is only ONE God and no other:

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

The LORD's servant is Jesus (read the passage in context). The LORD says that "I am he", stating that He and the Servant are the same! Also, note no God was formed before the LORD nor after.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Next, we show that Jesus is God

In the list below, you will see that there are many passages in the Bible that equate Jesus with the God of the old testament, known as Yahweh (YHWH), or LORD, or Jehovah. There are verses in the Bible that give YHWH certain titles and attributes, and other verses that give Jesus those same attributes and titles.

YHWH is Creator

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is "I AM" (ego eimi)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

See also Deut. 32.39

Jesus is "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

YHWH is Judge

Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)

Rom. 14:10 "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..."

2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

YHWH is King

Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath."

Isaiah 44:6-8 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

See also Psalm 47

Jesus is King

Matthew 2:2 "...Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Luke 23:3 So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

See also John 19:21

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

YHWH is Shepherd

Psalm 23:1 Psalm 23 A psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.

Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Jesus is Shepherd

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Hebrews 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

See also John 10:14,16; 1 Pet. 2:25

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

YHWH is the Rock

Deut. 32:4 "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."

See also 2 Sam. 22:32 and Isaiah 17:10.

Jesus is the Rock

1 Cor. 10:4 "...for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

See also 1 Peter 2:6-8.

YHWH is the Light

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation -- whom shall I fear?"

Isaiah 60:20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.

1 John 1:5 "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Jesus is the Light

John 8:12 "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Luke 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

See also John 1:7-9

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the NIV Bible.

Some additional comparisons between the LORD and Jesus:

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

Immanuel means "God is with us." Jesus means "the LORD saves." Who does it say will do the saving in verse 21? Jesus.

Continued at: http://www.saveme.org/articles/trinity.htm
(edited to go to web link to avoid back-to-back posts.)


Excellent. While I didn't read the balance of this thorough apologetic in the link you provided, Sparko, I wondered if it would also be helpful to go back to the beginning:

"In Beginning Elohim"

Within the pages of Scripture we find it clearly stated that there is indeed, only one God. This is a fundamental belief of Judaism and Christianity. However, there are indications in the very first verse of Genesis that God is a plural Being.

"In the beginning God, created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1

The word used for God in Genesis 1:1 is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending imputes plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."

It is interesting to note that each usage of this word throughout the Bible is grammatically incorrect. It is a plural noun used with singular verbs. According to Genesis 1:1, the Creator of the Universe, Elohim, exists as a plural being.

If this were not so then the word "El" or perhaps Yahweh would have been used. However, the Holy Spirit chose to use the word "Elohim," the plural form of the name of God in the very first place where the name of God is proclaimed.

[Sparko]

Can you show me where I "posted a false quote" of Irenaeus? Are you saying AH2 XXII 4-6 is false?\

I will show you yet again where you posted a false quote.

Let's go back and see what you posted...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251783&postcount=149

" Just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king because the king, even though not personally in the battle, commanded the battle to take place, so the Father is credited with being the creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"(AH2, II.3). "Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).


Take special note of the blue highlighted text.

Now let's go to the actual words of Irenaeus who said:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P6719_1628705
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.

I bolded the relevant section. Can you point out the blue highlighted words in your quote in the actual text? Can you show me all of the eliminated text in the actual words in YOUR quote. I don't see any elipses (...) which are supposed to be used when words are removed from a text. Also I notice your quote is out of order, you have the axe text AFTER the text about the father creating (where you added you extra text) and it appears AFTER the axe text.

So with that evidence, I show you to have posted a FALSE quote, doctored to support your presuppositions, making you a dishonest sneak and a liar.

----

If you read the entire chapter Irenaeus is speaking against a gnostic heresy where they are trying to say that Angels created some things and not just God. It has nothing to do with Christ creating. In fact his point is that even if the Angels DID create some things, they would not be called the Former of the World.

But as doubtless Iranaeus knew, Christ WAS called the creator of everything. He knew that and he apparently had no problem with it because he did not speak about it here.

and again. I have no problem with calling the Father the creator. I have no problem with calling Christ creator. I have no problem with the Father creating THROUGH Christ. That is all acceptable to a trinitarian.

The problem comes with Isaiah 44 where YHWH says he did it alone. ALONE. If he simply said is the creator and left it at that, then that would be compatible with Jesus being a separate entity. Just like the king who gets his victory declared his although he had help. But when the King starts bragging he did it with no help and did it all by himself and Alone, then no he can't make that claim. And neither can YHWH. The only way he can claim to have done it alone and still have Christ be the one through which creation came to be is if christ IS YHWH. Same Entity.


So yeah, you are a dishonest sneak. And I gave evidence of it.

[Pythagoras]

I will show you yet again where you posted a false quote.



Take special note of the blue highlighted text.









I bolded the relevant section. Can you point out the blue highlighted words in your quote in the actual text? Can you show me all of the eliminated text in the actual words in YOUR quote. I don't see any elipses (...) which are supposed to be used when words are removed from a text.
So yeah, you are a dishonest sneak. And I gave evidence of it.




Stop getting excited and learn to read English Quasimodo. Two different translations;

The first :" though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

The second :"
the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about."

But the gist of the Irenaeus's argument is the same.

[Sparko]

Stop getting excited and learn to read English Quasimodo. Two different translations;

The first :" though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

The second :"
the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about."

But the gist of the Irenaeus's argument is the same.



What a load of :horsepucky:!!!!

The two sentences are not even remotely the same. The SON is not even mentioned and neither is Father nor anything like what you said.

Show me your source for this "translation"

And it better not be someone ELSE quoting him wrong like on a some anti-trinitarian website or another forum. I want an official scholarly source like I gave.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,




The same Spirit which inspired the OT prophet Hab. to say in 1:12 "God shall not die" also inspired Paul in Col. 1:18 to say Jesus is "the first born from the dead". Therefore Jesus cannot be God. Your lack of understanding of the definition of death is irrelevant.

Get it?

There is no way around this . Hab. 1:12 is perhaps the strongest argument against the trinity doctrine.

lol. You still haven't defined death.

PY. You're playing a game and you haven't read the rules. It's truly sad.

And your replies are getting shorter and shorter. Isn't that fascinating? You still haven't told me what aeons were.

Nor have you told me if Jesus ceased to exist on the cross or not which would depend on how you define death. Of course, if he did, you have a problem.

Well, you already have a problem. You're clueless on the Trinity.

[alam]

Hi Sparko,


The verse says in him (en), through him (dia) and for him (eis). En and dia are both instrumental, but the "en" in Colossians 1:16 can mean (and in my view likely does) that all things were created in principle in the Logos. He is the ratiocination of the universe. This reading is mentioned as a possibility in the commentary on Colossians by Eduard Lohse (Fortress Press, 1971) and there are some other sources I could follow up on if you have an interest.


I like how you resort to trying to "out define" the evil trinitarians and show that words can mean other things in other places so that means they don't mean what the context says they mean in this specific instance.


Hello Sparko,


What you call "out-defining" is my showing you that the verses do not prove what you have alleged. The prepositions are instrumental and are accurately translated as "through" or "in". There is a better unifying explanation for these verses, and earlier attested in the church called the Logos Christology. The Logos is the instrumental cause of creation and distinct from God Himself. Pointing this out is a natural way of countering your assertions. You make it sound as if this was ad hockery and we are going in ten different directions at once to escape your evil trinitarianism, but that is not at all true.


And remember, you assumed the burden of proving that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 are a lie if the Logos is a separate entity. I am expecting you to deliver, rather than grouch when we do not fall over backwards at your arguments.



It is a very transparent tactic Alam and you and Pythagoras do it over and over. In fact, it seems to be your ONLY tactic, but you do a much better job of it than pythagoras does at making it sound 'scholarly' - he just sounds foolish.


It is common knowledge that the Logos christology of the early church fathers differed in fundamental respects from the Nicene religion. Your own people admit this.


There is both continuity and discontinuity between the views of these earlier writers and those of the post-Nicene period. The continuity is in the fact that the three Persons were each understood to be of the same "substance" and hence fully God, yet personally distinguished from one another. But there is discontinuity in that the Apologists held to an essentially Monarchian view of the Deity. The Father is God in the proper sense; the Son and the Spirit derive their divinity by sharing in the essence which belongs to the Father as the source of the Godhead. It is also unclear in these earlier writers how the conclusion could be avoided that there once was a time when the Son and the Spirit did not exist as distinct persons. The Son and the Spirit always existed within God as Word and Wisdom (Irenaeus), but not necessarily as personal subsistences alongside the Father (source (http://www.irr.org/mit/trinity2.html)).


You call us polytheists, and yet you would have to call Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and others the same, and they are not bad company to say the least.



For example, When I post a verse that says God did it ALONE, you try to redefine alone to not really mean alone despite the fact that the purpose of the passage WAS to say God did it alone.


I have not redefined anything. The question is not the definition of the word "alone" but the intended sphere of its applicability. Let me sum the argument up in two sentences: the verse ascribes to God alone the titles noteh shamayim and roqa ha'arets but does not say He was alone while creating or that He did not work through an instrumental cause (cf. Psa. 136:4; 72:18). In its original context the passage was denying the participation of strange gods, ones acting as independent principles (cf. Deut. 32:12; Isaiah 44:9-20,25), not the Logos doctrine, God's creation of all things through the created hypostasis of His wisdom -- a teaching that is already hinted at in the OT (Psa. 136:5; Prov. 8:22,30; Sirach 1:4,9; 24:9). Do you have something to say to this, or not?




And when I point out passages that say directly that Jesus is God (Titus 2:13) What do I hear back? Oh "god" is used to talk about many things in other places so that means it doesn't really mean God here!


The context says it does mean he is God.


God is a proper noun in English. It was not so in the Hebrew and Greek. To say that x is God can be a statement of what x is, or a statement of who x is. There are helpful signs in the Greek, such as the use of the article. Sharp's rule would make Titus 2:13 an exception, where the article is required by the grammar and actually precludes theos being used as a proper noun. The passage does not support you at the level where you need it.






It's like I said "The sky is blue" and you came back and said well "blue" can refer to being sad, so you are wrong! you should have said "The sky is sad"


It is not like that at all Sparko. The problem is that you do not even acknowledge the possibility of such a being as Christ is. When you are going on the view that any being must be either God Himself or not divine at all, of course you won't be able to integrate what the New Testament says -- that there is an intermediate being, derived Deity, greater than the world and all that is in it, but lesser than Deity absolute.


Nor can I give you instances of such a being, other than the Logos himself -- he is the only such instance, the Monogenes. What I can do is show you that the line between the common and the Divine is not as rigid as you might have thought.


There are gradations of divinity, extending from the angels down through the judges. And no, at least in the instances we are dealing with, the term 'elohim is not like a homonym where it has a completely different meaning depending on the context -- there is a unifying sense throughout. The angels are gods and are sons of God. So also with the elect. The words are used of both God and the angels in such close proximity that you cannot argue that there is some radical shift in meaning without already pleading your view. The Psalm that Christ used provides good examples of this (Psa. 82:1,6). If you will not see it then we are at an impasse.



I am not going to change my view because you try to redefine words at every chance you get, Alam. Sorry. But if that's an impasse for you then stop responding to my posts.



Once again, I haven't redefined anything. To me "alone" means "alone," one being, one person. What I have called into question is the level at which God was alone in the creation. It is quite intelligible to say that all things were created by God alone, through Christ. The level at which He was alone was at the level of principal agency.




Some folks would refuse to give you a hearing on the assumption that a Trinitarian God cannot be alone. You say "the point being that he did NOT creat through another, or with another person." How is that possible if He is always with two other persons? Doesn't a singular pronoun mean one person?


Another person who is not HIMSELF, Alam. A seperate ENTITY. Are you purposefully trying to misread my words? That won't get you anywhere.


God is never ALONE relationally, but as an ENTITY he is SINGULAR. There is only ONE God, revealed in three persons. In the Old Testament, when YHWH is speaking in the singular he is speaking as the Single Entity God ( all three persons speaking as one being) - So when YHWH says he created ALONE, that means as a single divine entity. So he can say ALONE and it can inlude all three persons of the Trinity. He CANNOT say Alone and it include seperate entities.


That is a highly counterintuitive scheme, and I see no reason to assign it a privileged status in this discussion. The "plain" read, the authority you appeal to, is that a singular pronoun means one being, one person, one individual. What you get if you press Isaiah 44:24 to the limit is modalism (or Judaism) You haven't shown that you are reading the passage more plainly than any other party to the discussion.




Actually Trinitarians do see the same thing. We just interpet the singularity of YHWH here to include the trinity as a single unit. Only non-trinitarians have the problem. You have to somehow say YHWH really doesn't mean "alone"


Again, that is misrepresentation. I have not even touched on the definition of "alone". You seem to be the one saying that "alone" does not really mean alone, and if you won't take it from me, there are those in the Judaism forum who would tell you the same.





While I agree that Christ is included in the passages, I don't agree that he is a seperate entity, nor CAN he be a separate entity. The very words "MY hands" mean part of his BODY (anthropomorphically speaking) not seperate beings. And Alone means Alone. But Christ and the Holy Spirit are not his Hands, they are HIM. They are YHWH. And don't even try to bring Irenaeus back into the thread. Pythagoras poisoned that well by pointing out his heretical views on Christ as Christ lived 50 years or more. If that IS true (I didn't study on it much) then using him as an authority that Christ is not God is pretty weak and can be dismissed. Besides, I don't care what Irenaeus thought one way or another, who made him holder of the truth? I stick with scripture.


Irenaeus is for good reason considered to be orthodox. See here (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm) for a response to the issue that concerns you now. I understand you are a Protestant and do not necessarily weight the interpretations of the fathers above others. Perhaps you will see more likelihood in Irenaeus' reading of Isa. 45:12 if I can show you that Isaiah calls the Messiah the "arm of the LORD." Here are two of the important passages:


Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.


Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.


The anthropomorphism tells us that we are dealing in symbolism here, which may not have been fully explicable under the Old Testament. Paul helps illumine the metaphor when he says "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3).






The problem with your point is how dependent it is on scripture becoming unworkable without the Trinity. It is one thing if you are right and scripture cannot function as a comprehensive whole without it. It is quite another to try and set scripture up to fight with itself in order to force your conclusion. This describes a lot of what I see you guys doing.


But it is not what we are doing. We are taking clear readings of scripture and letting that determine what is being said.

Your recourse is to redefine the words to mean other things than what they say, so that you can fit the scripture into your preconceptions. And what you end up with is a hodgepodge of polytheism.


Let's look again at an example that is fairly typical of your arguments, and typical of our response.


You use Isaiah 43:11 in conjunction with NT verses such as Acts 5:31 to prove that Jesus is God. As it is, this is a valid syllogism, the logic is good, but the exegesis behind it is not. We can see this from the fact that the argument proves too much; it works as well for Othniel ben Kenaz, and others in the Old Testament (Judges 3:9,15; 18:28; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21), who are even spoken of in terms that resemble the language in Acts.


You are probably going to say here that we are "redefining" the words and that Othniel is not the kind of savior that Isaiah 43:11 is talking about. Well then what kind of savior is Isaiah 43:11 talking about? The kind of savior that is God? If the Bible clearly stated that Jesus is that kind of savior, you would not need this argument to begin with in order to prove that he is God. You need to fill in a meaningful definition of "Savior" for Isaiah 43:11 that excludes the other cases, includes Jesus, and does not turn into some tautology where you are arguing in a circle--and show that this is the definition that Isaiah was using. Otherwise it is a non-argument and there is no reason for us to accept it. But this structure and its problems are so typical of so many Trinitarian arguments.




Another esoteric (but important) distinction is that between the positive and negative attributes of God. The positive attributes are relational and concerned with God's activity. These attributes are communicable. The incommunicable ones are the negative attributes, the ones concerned with what God is not. God is unoriginated; independent, unconditioned, to name a few. None of these things are true of the Son, nor in the nature of sonship could they be.


First you are confusing a person of the trinity with the whole of the trinity.


I was not talking about the trinity as you understand it, but about God the Father and the Son.



There ARE dependencies within the trinity, such as the Father can't be a Father without the Son, nor can the Son be the Son without the Father.
All of the attributes you say Jesus can't be because he is the son, the Father can't be becuase the relationship is two-way.


That is another problem with your Trinitarianism; rather than admit that the Father is uniquely independent, unconditioned, and unoriginated, you would rather define his entire being with reference to fatherhood so that He cannot even exist unless He is Father. This is without any basis in the scriptures. This is why I think you guys do not so much exalt the Son as you lower the Father. If the Son cannot be independent, unconditioned and such, rather than simply accepting that the Father is unique and supreme in that regard, you will deny these attributes even to the Father.



But Christ is said to be UNORIGINATED (I guess you mean uncreated?). That is what John 1:1 says, what John 1:3 says, and so on.


None of them say that though. It is possible to be created before all things, as Wisdom is said to be.

Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.



And you are dodging again.

Christ has all the attributes of God, he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. Those are not "communicable" those are intrinsic in the one true God. You can't have two beings that are omnimax. They would be the same being by definition.


I have not said that the Son is omniscient with respect to the future (Gen. 22:12; Mark 13:32). He has received his attributes from the Father (Matt. 11:27; 28:18) and his possession and exercise of them is contingent upon the Father's will (cf. also Matt. 20:23). The negative attributes distinguish the Father from the Son; the Father is unoriginated, infinite, unconditioned and the others. This is not a dodge; you just haven't understood my point.






Well, then what of this?



And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.





What about it?

He is not talking about his DIVINE Glory there, he is talking about adoption of the saints as sons of God so that the Holy Spirit will dwell in us as it does in Christ so that we can be unified. Context again.



Joh 17:22 - And the glory which thou gavest me,.... Not the glory of his deity; this is the same with his Father, what he has in right of nature, and not by gift; nor can it be communicated to creatures; this would be to make them one in the Godhead, as the three are one, which is not the design of the expression in the close of the verse: nor his mediatorial glory, which he had with the Father before the world began; this indeed was given him by the Father, but is not given to the saints: nor the glory, of working miracles; which glory Christ had, and which, as man, he had from the Father, and in which his own glory was manifested; this he gave to his disciples; but all that are his have not had it, and some have had it who are none of his: rather the Gospel is meant, which is glorious in its author, matter and subject, in its doctrines, in the blessing: grace it reveals, and promises it contains, and in the efficacy and usefulness of it to the souls of men. This was given to Christ, and he gave it to his disciples



And now you are importing presumptions from your theology in the same way you think Pythagoras and I do. What you have quoted here are flat assertions from Nicene commentators. They make no attempt to justify this restricted reading of verse 22 from the context, or from scripture at all.


You appeal to Isaiah 42:8 and yet you cannot deny that if Christ is God, then God has given His glory to another. Go ahead and categorically deny it and if nothing else, you are going to run up against the hypostatic union. So what are you trying to do pressing Isaiah 44:24 to the limit? None of the Isaiah passages are talking about gods, 'elohim in general, including the judges, angels and the Logos. They are talking about gods that are false, outside of YHWH's purpose and subtracting from His majesty, as I have been telling you from the beginning.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


lol. You still haven't defined death.PY. You're playing a game and you haven't read the rules. It's truly sad

This is a strawman. We don't need to define death to know God doesn't die. Habakuk in 1:12 tells us God doesn't die, and the same Spirit which inspired Habakuk to write God does not die tells Paul in Romans 4:25 that Jesus died.


Take for example Melchizedek Prince of Salem (Gen. 14 and Psalm 110). No one has been able to define him; some say he was a theophany or an Christophany, others think he was an Angel , yet others believe he was a human ruler without father or mother. Yet even without definition we know the Melchizedek of the Old Testament is the same as the one mentioned in the NT( in Heb. 7:3). The same holds true for death. God knows the definition of death and in Hab. 1:12 God tells us He does not die. In Romans 4:25 God tells us Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. Your definition or my definition of death is irrelevant.

Why are you so slow of understanding?



Nor have you told me if Jesus ceased to exist on the cross or not which would depend on how you define death. Of course, if he did, you have a problem.


In my opinion death does not mean annihilation. Jesus did not ceased to exist when he died. Death in my opinion is the separation of man's soul from God. However there are different definitions of death, just as there are different definitions of who Melchizedek is.



Well, you already have a problem. You're clueless on the Trinity


I can almost certainly guarantee that I know more about the trinity than you do.


best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

What a load of :horsepucky:!!!!

The two sentences are not even remotely the same. The SON is not even mentioned and neither is Father nor anything like what you said.

Show me your source for this "translation"

And it better not be someone ELSE quoting him wrong like on a some anti-trinitarian website or another forum. I want an official scholarly source like I gave.

Even if we completely take away the contentious sentence from v. 4 through 6 AH it doesn't change the gist of his argument one iota.

That being said the two different interpretations from two different sources are saying about the same thing:



(A):" though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

meaning: God is the principle("Father willed and empowered him") , Christ is the agent(though the son performed the creation acr.)



(B):
the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about."



meaning: God is the principle ("creation... is referred to him,i.e. God") , Christ is the agent("accomplishments.. brought about", i.e. God creating through Christ).



So you see they both say the same thing.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hello Sparko,


What you call "out-defining" is my showing you that the verses do not prove what you have alleged. The prepositions are instrumental and are accurately translated as "through" or "in". There is a better unifying explanation for these verses, and earlier attested in the church called the Logos Christology. The Logos is the instrumental cause of creation and distinct from God Himself. Pointing this out is a natural way of countering your assertions. You make it sound as if this was ad hockery and we are going in ten different directions at once to escape your evil trinitarianism, but that is not at all true.


Sure it is. We show you a verse that says that Jesus is the GREAT GOD, and what do you guys do? oh well, God is used to talk about um, Satan too so they really didn't mean "GOD" when they said it there. And the word "GREAT" was used to describe Satan as the GREAT dragon, so it doesn't really mean "great" as in the real God. Oh, and "Alone" doesn't really mean "alone" it means something entirely different. and "through?" of course that proves that Jesus didn't create anything, he was just a tool. And the bit about "and nothing that was made was made without him" well that of course was added later. Yeah, that's the ticket!

If that isn't playing word games and "hockery" I don't know what is. When Paul said "13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

The words "great God and Savior" do refer to the TRUE God, YHWH, who Paul is calling Jesus! Anyone can tell that just by reading the context...
Titus 2:

9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. 11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior,14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Jesus Christ,


He isn't talking about Satan, or a Judge, or a mere Mortal in those verses, he is talking about YHWH. To try to isolate the words and show alternate definitions and then force those alternate definitions BACK into that isolated verse is to destroy the context of the passage. That is what you and Pythagoras have done over and over. It is dishonest semantic trickery, you are tossing out red herrings.






And remember, you assumed the burden of proving that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 are a lie if the Logos is a separate entity. I am expecting you to deliver, rather than grouch when we do not fall over backwards at your arguments.

I did deliver Alam. Your response was to play your semantic games as I mentioned above with the words "alone"

Anyone Reading Isaiah 44 can see the whole chapter is about God saying he is ALONE the creator and ALONE the God. There is none besides him, none like him, no one who helps him. He does it all ALONE. He even contrasts how men use INSTRUMENTS to build their Idols but he created ALONE.
Isaiah 44

6 "This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

9 All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.

10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
which can profit him nothing?

11 He and his kind will be put to shame;
craftsmen are nothing but men.
Let them all come together and take their stand;
they will be brought down to terror and infamy.

12 The blacksmith takes a tool
and works with it in the coals;
he shapes an idol with hammers,
he forges it with the might of his arm.
He gets hungry and loses his strength;
he drinks no water and grows faint.

13 The carpenter measures with a line
and makes an outline with a marker;
he roughs it out with chisels
and marks it with compasses.
He shapes it in the form of man,
of man in all his glory,
that it may dwell in a shrine.

14 He cut down cedars,
or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.

15 It is man's fuel for burning;
some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.

16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
"Ah! I am warm; I see the fire."

17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
"Save me; you are my god."

18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.

19 No one stops to think,
no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
"Half of it I used for fuel;
I even baked bread over its coals,
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left?
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?"

20 He feeds on ashes, a deluded heart misleads him;
he cannot save himself, or say,
"Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?"

21 "Remember these things, O Jacob,
for you are my servant, O Israel.
I have made you, you are my servant;
O Israel, I will not forget you.

22 I have swept away your offenses like a cloud,
your sins like the morning mist.
Return to me,
for I have redeemed you."

23 Sing for joy, O heavens, for the LORD has done this;
shout aloud, O earth beneath.
Burst into song, you mountains,
you forests and all your trees,
for the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
he displays his glory in Israel.

24 "This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself, 25 who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense,







It is common knowledge that the Logos christology of the early church fathers differed in fundamental respects from the Nicene religion. Your own people admit this.


There is both continuity and discontinuity between the views of these earlier writers and those of the post-Nicene period. The continuity is in the fact that the three Persons were each understood to be of the same "substance" and hence fully God, yet personally distinguished from one another. But there is discontinuity in that the Apologists held to an essentially Monarchian view of the Deity. The Father is God in the proper sense; the Son and the Spirit derive their divinity by sharing in the essence which belongs to the Father as the source of the Godhead. It is also unclear in these earlier writers how the conclusion could be avoided that there once was a time when the Son and the Spirit did not exist as distinct persons. The Son and the Spirit always existed within God as Word and Wisdom (Irenaeus), but not necessarily as personal subsistences alongside the Father (source (http://www.irr.org/mit/trinity2.html)).


You quote a MORMON source as "our own people?" :lmbo: They are as polytheistic as they come.




You call us polytheists, and yet you would have to call Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and others the same, and they are not bad company to say the least.

So your argument is appeal to authority? Yeah they had some heretical or off beat beliefs but Tertullian and Origen both believed that Jesus was God.

I don't know anything about Martyr.



I have not redefined anything. The question is not the definition of the word "alone" but the intended sphere of its applicability.

Which I have shown the chapter context is that God did it by himself without any help.




Let me sum the argument up in two sentences: the verse ascribes to God alone the titles noteh shamayim and roqa ha'arets but does not say He was alone while creating or that He did not work through an instrumental cause (cf. Psa. 136:4; 72:18). In its original context the passage was denying the participation of strange gods, ones acting as independent principles (cf. Deut. 32:12; Isaiah 44:9-20,25), not the Logos doctrine, God's creation of all things through the created hypostasis of His wisdom -- a teaching that is already hinted at in the OT (Psa. 136:5; Prov. 8:22,30; Sirach 1:4,9; 24:9). Do you have something to say to this, or not?

God created ALONE. GOD consists of three persons, fully God, in a Trinity. So if the three persons of the trinity participated together with one directing, one creating, and one supplying the power, for example, then there is NO PROBLEM with Isaiah 44:24 having God saying he did it ALONE.

But if Jesus is NOT GOD, then God Can't say he did it alone, because he used Jesus, an outside agent to create through. That is pretty clear logic and all your dancing can't change it.

If God did it alone, and you are right and Jesus is not God, then John 1:3 is a lie. Colossian 1:16 is a lie. Or Isaiah 44:24 is a lie. Or all of it is a lie.

I will keep repeating this simple logic to you till you either understand it or go away.




God is a proper noun in English. It was not so in the Hebrew and Greek. To say that x is God can be a statement of what x is, or a statement of who x is. There are helpful signs in the Greek, such as the use of the article. Sharp's rule would make Titus 2:13 an exception, where the article is required by the grammar and actually precludes theos being used as a proper noun. The passage does not support you at the level where you need it.

Again with the smoke screen. Read the chapter in context. Paul is talking about THE TRUE GOD of the universe in the whole chapter. CONTEXT Alam, CONTEXT.






It is not like that at all Sparko. The problem is that you do not even acknowledge the possibility of such a being as Christ is. When you are going on the view that any being must be either God Himself or not divine at all, of course you won't be able to integrate what the New Testament says -- that there is an intermediate being, derived Deity, greater than the world and all that is in it, but lesser than Deity absolute.

You are right. I will not allow the possibility that Christ is a derived DIETY. because there IS NO OTHER GOD besides YHWH. NONE, NADA, ZIPOLA.

You are a polytheist, admit it. You believe Jesus is a seperate God from YHWH and thus you believe in polytheism. Which makes you a heretic.



There are gradations of divinity, extending from the angels down through the judges. And no, at least in the instances we are dealing with, the term 'elohim is not like a homonym where it has a completely different meaning depending on the context -- there is a unifying sense throughout. The angels are gods and are sons of God. So also with the elect. The words are used of both God and the angels in such close proximity that you cannot argue that there is some radical shift in meaning without already pleading your view. The Psalm that Christ used provides good examples of this (Psa. 82:1,6). If you will not see it then we are at an impasse.

Yep we are at an impasse, because I will not recognize any other entity as a diety but YHWH. That you do shows that you are a polytheist. That is the DEFINITION of a polytheist. The bible is clear that there are no other Gods but YHWH. That the hebrews used the word Elohim to refer to Angels and Judges does not mean they were calling them DIETIES. It is just a synonym. The context is clear that they were not making them DIETIES. But to take that and to force it back into the context of the true God and say they were derivitive dieties is dishonest, because the bible is clear that there is no other God.



That is a highly counterintuitive scheme, and I see no reason to assign it a privileged status in this discussion. The "plain" read, the authority you appeal to, is that a singular pronoun means one being, one person, one individual. What you get if you press Isaiah 44:24 to the limit is modalism (or Judaism) You haven't shown that you are reading the passage more plainly than any other party to the discussion.

If the new testament did not exist, then yes we would probably interpret it to mean "one person"

But the New Testament DOES Exist and it DOES say Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and Christ created everything.

Plain Logic demands that:

If YHWH is the true God and Created alone by himself
and..

And Jesus is called God and the Creator in several places and hold everything together

And we know that Jeus is NOT the Father (since he prayed to him)

And the Holy Spirit is a person and God,

That we have THREE persons who are all the True God, and yet there is only ONE True God.

The conlusion IS the Trinity. The 'singular' OT God, YHWH consists of three persons who are fully God.

Your only other choices are:

1. The NT is false and there is only the singular person OT God, YHWH.

2. The OT is false and there are multiple Gods, and thus polytheism.



Irenaeus is for good reason considered to be orthodox. See here (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm) for a response to the issue that concerns you now. I understand you are a Protestant and do not necessarily weight the interpretations of the fathers above others. Perhaps you will see more likelihood in Irenaeus' reading of Isa. 45:12 if I can show you that Isaiah calls the Messiah the "arm of the LORD." Here are two of the important passages:

Thanks, so basically pythagoras was just full of it when he tried to say that Irenaeus thought Jesus was over 50 years old?

I have not studied Iranaeus, or the ECF that much. But what they believed or didn't believe has nothing to do with what I believe or the logic I am presenting. I can show you verses that each of them DID believe that Jesus was GOD, and I will do so below, but that will probably just derail this discussion onto another side track and I don't really want to go there in this thread.

see: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinityquotes.htm

which shows quotes from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp all supporting the trinity. So can we dispense with the dueling ECF's?



Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.


Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.


The anthropomorphism tells us that we are dealing in symbolism here, which may not have been fully explicable under the Old Testament. Paul helps illumine the metaphor when he says "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3).


I am going to have to start chopping stuff to fit this post in the size limit. But I don't see how God's 'ARM' would be a separate entity from him. My arm is part of ME. Part of MY BODY. If my ARM did something I would still be able to say I did it alone. If my ARM was YOU, then I could not say that. Christ being the ARM of God supports the Trinity, not denies it.



You are probably going to say here that we are "redefining" the words and that Othniel is not the kind of savior that Isaiah 43:11 is talking about. Well then what kind of savior is Isaiah 43:11 talking about? The kind of savior that is God? If the Bible clearly stated that Jesus is that kind of savior, you would not need this argument to begin with in order to prove that he is God. You need to fill in a meaningful definition of "Savior" for Isaiah 43:11 that excludes the other cases, includes Jesus, and does not turn into some tautology where you are arguing in a circle--and show that this is the definition that Isaiah was using. Otherwise it is a non-argument and there is no reason for us to accept it. But this structure and its problems are so typical of so many Trinitarian arguments.

Again, read the chapter in context. Stop taking verses in isolation. He is saying that he is the only God, the only Redeemer, the only Savior. He created them, he saves them, no one else. The context alone determines the scope of the word "savior" he redeems them (buys them back from slavery and sin), he made them, he SAVES them. What is typical if your arguments and pythagoras' is that you take a verse in isolation, take a key word, like "savior" and say well that word is used of other people so it doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying.

If he is not the only Savior, then he is LYING here, eh? You can't have it both ways.



That is another problem with your Trinitarianism; rather than admit that the Father is uniquely independent, unconditioned, and unoriginated, you would rather define his entire being with reference to fatherhood so that He cannot even exist unless He is Father. This is without any basis in the scriptures. This is why I think you guys do not so much exalt the Son as you lower the Father. If the Son cannot be independent, unconditioned and such, rather than simply accepting that the Father is unique and supreme in that regard, you will deny these attributes even to the Father.

You were the one who said that God was unconditioned. But then you broke the trinity up and said the Son was conditioned. It is you who decided to define the Son's entire being in relation to the Father, so excuse me if that causes the mirror of that to be true too. You can't have it both ways. If the Son is dependent on there being a Father to be a Son to, then the Father is dependent on there being a Son to be a Father to. That is plain LOGIC, Alam. I am not a father because I don't have a child. If and when I do have a child, I will become a father and my fatherhood would depend on me having a child. In no other way is the Son dependent on the Father other than the ways the Father is dependend on the son.


None of them say that though. It is possible to be created before all things, as Wisdom is said to be.

Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.


So what? God was a fool before he "created" his wisdom? How foolish is that? You are talking figurative language here. "from everlasting" means eternally.

And John 1:1 does say he is uncreated. It says the Word was in the beginning with God and that the word WAS God. If the Word was created then so was God.
verse 3 says NOTHING was made that he did not make. He can't be created then, because he is SOMETHING. Christ has to be "NOT MADE" (Eternal)



I have not said that the Son is omniscient with respect to the future (Gen. 22:12; Mark 13:32).


Omniscient does not mean "with respect to the future" necesarilly. What if the future does not exist? how could God know what doesn't exist? Omniscience means knowing all that IS. All that is happening in the universe, all knowledge. In order to hold everything together Christ has to know the position and state of every quark in the universe. If we have our life in him, then he has to know everything about us and our environment. That is omniscience. If he is to be able to hold every star together, every planet in orbit, every chemical reaction in place, it requires omnipotence, or unlimited power. And he has to BE everywhere to do all this: Omnipresence. Jesus has to have the attributes of God in order to create and run the universe. He is the de facto God of the universe.


He has received his attributes from the Father (Matt. 11:27; 28:18)

That does not say God gave him his attributes, it says the Father gave him all Authority. He had to possess the attributes in order to excercise the authority. God can't make another God to do his work for him. If he did, then there would be two infinite being in the universe. Since an infinite being would have all of the infinite attributes of God, he would have to be the SAME God. You would still have the Trinity.




You appeal to Isaiah 42:8 and yet you cannot deny that if Christ is God, then God has given His glory to another. Go ahead and categorically deny it and if nothing else, you are going to run up against the hypostatic union. So what are you trying to do pressing Isaiah 44:24 to the limit? None of the Isaiah passages are talking about gods, 'elohim in general, including the judges, angels and the Logos. They are talking about gods that are false, outside of YHWH's purpose and subtracting from His majesty, as I have been telling you from the beginning.

Not sure of your point here. The hypostatic union states that Jesus is fully man and fully God. That supports the Trinity, not denying it. It has nothing to do with Isaiah 44:24, since the three persons of the trinity are one entity, God. Only if you divide them into separate entities do you have a problem Alam.

Look, it seems we are at an impasse here. I am not going to change what I know to be true. I can see you dodging and playing games and you are repeating yourself as much as I.

[Sparko]

Even if we completely take away the contentious sentence from v. 4 through 6 AH it doesn't change the gist of his argument one iota.

That being said the two different interpretations from two different sources are saying about the same thing:



(A):" though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

meaning: God is the principle("Father willed and empowered him") , Christ is the agent(though the son performed the creation acr.)



(B):
the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about."



meaning: God is the principle ("creation... is referred to him,i.e. God") , Christ is the agent("accomplishments.. brought about", i.e. God creating through Christ).



So you see they both say the same thing.

best wishes,


Actually NO they dont say even remotely the same thing. Your version says that the Father empowered the son to create but implies that the Father gets ALL the credit. The real translation is not even talking about the son, but about a heresy that said God had some angels create some of the universe and it is saying that the creation was credited to the one who prepared the materials, IE: the angels would have just rearranged matter not actually create it. Similar to us when we create. Nothing about the son who created from NOTHING.


and I still accuse you of forgery. there IS no "alternate" translation that uses those words. If you can't supply me with an official source for your quote, it means you are a dishonest sneak, or a fool for copying from some anti-trinitarian website who forged the quote and you didn't check the real translation.

Admit it, pythagoras, or show me the official translation. Hint: I already checked and your butt is in a sling.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,



This is a strawman. We don't need to define death to know God doesn't die. Habakuk in 1:12 tells us God doesn't die, and the same Spirit which inspired Habakuk to write God does not die tells Paul in Romans 4:25 that Jesus died.

Funny. Quite funny. First off, one wording is in Greek and another is in Hebrew, so yes, the definitions could be different.

Even if they're not, I see no indication that this is speaking about God in his essence. Instead, it's speaking about Israel. When the Chaldeans come, God will not let them all die. He will keep his remnant.



Take for example Melchizedek Prince of Salem (Gen. 14 and Psalm 110). No one has been able to define him; some say he was a theophany or an Christophany, others think he was an Angel , yet others believe he was a human ruler without father or mother. Yet even without definition we know the Melchizedek of the Old Testament is the same as the one mentioned in the NT( in Heb. 7:3). The same holds true for death. God knows the definition of death and in Hab. 1:12 God tells us He does not die. In Romans 4:25 God tells us Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. Your definition or my definition of death is irrelevant.

Oh my. Is this the same one who is compared to Christ in that he is without beginning of days or end of life? So you're saying Jesus is eternal?


Why are you so slow of understanding?

The question is to be asked to a mirror




In my opinion death does not mean annihilation. Jesus did not ceased to exist when he died. Death in my opinion is the separation of man's soul from God. However there are different definitions of death, just as there are different definitions of who Melchizedek is.

So, if that's the definition of death, then you're saying that God's soul cannot be separated from God? By the way, you just said there are different definitions, yet above assume the same definition.




I can almost certainly guarantee that I know more about the trinity than you do.

Not if you compare it to 3 gods, the Hindu pantheon, and say that it originated in the 4th century.

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Alam,

May God richly bless you , and may He prepare a table for you in the presence of your enemies. I noticed a couple of posts back you brought up John 1:1 and correctly noted the trinitarian ability to confuse the who with the what in that verse.

The trinitarian trickery here is very crafty and subtle. Trinitarians try to make the dishonest claim that John is here telling us who Jesus is. Neither a definite or indefinite article should be used in John 1:1. The correct translation should be "and the Word was god" where the word "god" is used in a qualitative sense to refer to "what" the Word was. When we translate the passage as "and the Word was god" it means "the Word was godness" or "the Word was deity." Put another way, John is saying "what the person God was, the Word also was" because the Word was "of" God the Father. Indeed, the NEB version of the Bible (1968), a major and widely accepted translation by Trinitarian translators, translates it as, "and what God was, the Word was." In other words, the second instance of "GOD" in John 1:1 does not tell us "who" the Word was but "what" the Word was. Apostoli also sems to adhere to this form and structure.


What are your thoughts.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


Funny. Quite funny. First off, one wording is in Greek and another is in Hebrew, so yes, the definitions could be different.

Now you're talking like a two year old. It doesn't matter if one word is "Greek" and another is "Hebrew", both are refering to death. For example we do not say the definition of fish changes when we go from Dagah (Fish in Hebrew) to Ichthus (Fish in Greek). Definitions of words do not change with a change in language. Otherwise our English translation of the Hebrew bible is nonsensical. The mere fact that you're arguing this line shows how utterly desperate you have become.



Even if they're not, I see no indication that this is speaking about God in his essence.


And this is the strawman you keep on repeating. It doesn't matter in what way you think God dies , "in his essence" or otherwise, the bible says God does not die. The bible also assures us Jesus died. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.



Instead, it's speaking about Israel. When the Chaldeans come, God will not let them all die. He will keep his remnant.


Now you're attacking Hab. 1:12 directly because your other argument has been shown to be empty.



Oh my. Is this the same one who is compared to Christ in that he is without beginning of days or end of life? So you're saying Jesus is eternal?


Read my last post again to see the analogy I was making. It's got nothing to do with whether Jesus is eternal.



So, if that's the definition of death, then you're saying that God's soul cannot be separated from God?


Exactly.


By the way, you just said there are different definitions, yet above assume the same definition

Different people have different definitions of death. If you think death is a separation of a man's soul from God then your definition of death agrees with mine.




Not if you compare it to 3 gods, the Hindu pantheon, and say that it originated in the 4th century


Gregory of Nyssa says three men as in Peter, kostas and John working in complete unity as one are actually one man in essence! There is no such thing as numerical oneness in the trinity doctrine. Do you realize this about your belief system?


best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



Actually NO they dont say even remotely the same thing.


In my opinion they do.



Your version says that the Father empowered the son to create but implies that the Father gets ALL the credit. The real translation is not even talking about the son, but about a heresy that said God had some angels create some of the universe and it is saying that the creation was credited to the one who prepared the materials, IE: the angels would have just rearranged matter not actually create it. Similar to us when we create. Nothing about the son who created from NOTHING.


I do not see that.




and I still accuse you of forgery. there IS no "alternate" translation that uses those words. If you can't supply me with an official source for your quote, it means you are a dishonest sneak, or a fool for copying from some anti-trinitarian website who forged the quote and you didn't check the real translation.

Admit it, pythagoras, or show me the official translation. Hint: I already checked and your butt is in a sling.

I will respond to you when you have something intelligent to say.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



In my opinion they do.



I do not see that.

Then you can't read. no wonder you are antitrinitarian. It sure explains a lot.




I will respond to you when you have something intelligent to say.

best wishes,

:lmbo:

Translation: "ooops. Sparko caught me in a lie and I can't explain it away by making up even more flimsy tales, so I better ignore him and run away."

All you have to do is give me the source for your "translation" so I can check it out myself. If you are right I will apologize.

I mean, you didn't just find it quoted in some wacko non-trinitarian web site from someone who thinks that it is evil to call yourself a Christian because the word "Christian" should have been translated "Jackass" and took his quote as accurate, did you? I know you are better than that.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,



Now you're talking like a two year old. It doesn't matter if one word is "Greek" and another is "Hebrew", both are refering to death. For example we do not say the definition of fish changes when we go from Dagah (Fish in Hebrew) to Ichthus (Fish in Greek). Definitions of words do not change with a change in language. Otherwise our English translation of the Hebrew bible is nonsensical. The mere fact that you're arguing this line shows how utterly desperate you have become.

Sorry Py. Words can be different in other languages. Greeks had some nuances the Hebrews didn't always have. Py. You're not even making me blink. Give me a real argument.




And this is the strawman you keep on repeating. It doesn't matter in what way you think God dies , "in his essence" or otherwise, the bible says God does not die. The bible also assures us Jesus died. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

Not a straw man. You just have a false meaning that you're overblowing. A brilliant work of eisegesis.




Now you're attacking Hab. 1:12 directly because your other argument has been shown to be empty.

No. Just reading what the text says. It's based on the covenant that God would keep his remnant.




Read my last post again to see the analogy I was making. It's got nothing to do with whether Jesus is eternal.

Unfortuantely, Hebrews 7:3 says he is.








Different people have different definitions of death. If you think death is a separation of a man's soul from God then your definition of death agrees with mine.

Not from God. Just from the body. Since God by nature is essentially bodliess, then the point is moot. Deity can inhabit a body but it is not essential for the deity to exist.





Gregory of Nyssa says three men as in Peter, kostas and John working in complete unity as one are actually one man in essence! There is no such thing as numerical oneness in the trinity doctrine. Do you realize this about your belief system?


best wishes,

I could care less what he says. Three in person. One in essence. Done.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


Sorry Py. Words can be different in other languages. Greeks had some nuances the Hebrews didn't always have. Py. You're not even making me blink. Give me a real argument.





.

I have nothing further to discuss with you. You're incapable of following a logical train of thought.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Alam,

Greetings.

After reading Apologianick's post(196), I decided not to engage him further because he was babbling and not even attempting to refute any of my points. Not one single comment in that post made any sense to me.
However his following statement stood out in my mind, which confirmed my eariler suspicion :


Deity can inhabit a body but it is not essential for the deity to exist.


Did you read that? Deity can inhabit a body.

Remember on the "Jehovah does not die" thread, I suggested as much to you regarding their belief system? And now we have confirmation from the horse's mouth. They believe God can, and did inhabit a body!

The consummate idol worshipper in India believes at the height of the pujari's devotion to his idol, the Deity comes in to inhabit the idol.

What's the difference between believing God dwells in an idol of flesh and blood and believing God dwells in an idol of clay/iron? Nothing. Both concepts are effectively identical.

I think this is what John the apostle was talking about when he admonished us , "stay away from idols".


What are your thoughts?

[JesusMySaviour]

Nick...I can't believe your response here....

(This is my first time trying quoting...hope it works....)


Quote: Originally posted by Pythagoras
Hi Apologianick,



Now you're talking like a two year old. It doesn't matter if one word is "Greek" and another is "Hebrew", both are refering to death. For example we do not say the definition of fish changes when we go from Dagah (Fish in Hebrew) to Ichthus (Fish in Greek). Definitions of words do not change with a change in language. Otherwise our English translation of the Hebrew bible is nonsensical. The mere fact that you're arguing this line shows how utterly desperate you have become.

and you replied:


Sorry Py. Words can be different in other languages. Greeks had some nuances the Hebrews didn't always have. Py. You're not even making me blink. Give me a real argument.

I'm gonna have to side with Py on this one....

Expanding on his thought from the Hebrew Bible to English, it seems to me that translation would be impossible from ANY language to another if words were not defining exactly the same thing; I mean, like Py said, "for example we do not say the definition of fish changes when we go from Dagah (Fish in Hebrew) to Ichthus (Fish in Greek). Definitions of words do not change with a change in language." (emphasis mine)

This means this concept has to apply to all other words as well: water...star...earth...fish...sky...God....Lord....

Wait a minute...."God" and "Lord"?

THAT would mean, for example, that "theos" has exactly the same meaning as "elohim" wherever it's used (e.g., Matt 4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16) and also that "kurios" means exactly the same as "YHWH", (as in Matt 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23, all quoting Is. 40:3) since...

"Definitions of words do not change with a change in language."

Sounds to me like Py is trying to argue (at least) that wherever "kurios" appears in the NT, it means "YHWH"...even when Jesus applies it to Himself (e.g., Matt 7:21-22), or Thomas says it (John 20:28) or Paul uses it any number of places in his epistles calling Him, for example, "the 'kurios' (JHWH) Jesus Christ"...

Looking at some of his prior posts, I didn't think Py believed that...but it looks like he might have changed his mind...?

Nick....maybe you shouldn't jump on him so hard next time... :whistle:

[Sparko]

Hi Apologianick,



I have nothing further to discuss with you. You're incapable of following a logical train of thought.

best wishes,

:hi: Hey Pythagoras, you forgot to answer me!!! :hi: yoo hoo!!

Did you forget about showing me the source of your translation? You don't want everyone who reads this thread to think you are a forger do you?

Hello??

I am willing to apologize in public you can show me the official translation of Iranaeus that says what you quoted.

Please don't bravely run away, brave, bold Sir Robin! (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/brave.wav)

[Pythagoras]

Hi JesusmySaviour,



THAT would mean, for example, that "theos" has exactly the same meaning as "elohim" wherever it's used (e.g., Matt 4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16) and also that "kurios" means exactly the same as "YHWH", (as in Matt 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23, all quoting Is. 40:3) since...

"Definitions of words do not change with a change in language."

Sounds to me like Py is trying to argue (at least) that wherever "kurios" appears in the NT, it means "YHWH"...even when Jesus applies it to Himself (e.g., Matt 7:21-22), or Thomas says it (John 20:28) or Paul uses it any number of places in his epistles calling Him, for example, "the 'kurios' (JHWH) Jesus Christ"...


Red herring.

The word God(Elohim) /Theos in such cases is used as a common noun in both the OT and the NT. Thus when the bible says Moses is Elohim/Theos in Ex.7:1 we do not say it's referring to YHWH. The definition of the word has not changed; on the contrary it has remained consistent. But when the bible says of God in Hab. 1:12 "you shall not die" we know it is telling us God does not die.
Therefore we can tell Jesus is not God, because the same Spirit which informed Hab. in 1:12 that God doesn't die also told the NT prophets Jesus died .

Face it folks: God does not die. Everyone else , including Jesus , died.



best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi JesusmySaviour,



Red herring.

The word God(Elohim) /Theos in such cases is used as a common noun in both the OT and the NT. Thus when the bible says Moses is Elohim/Theos in Ex.7:1 we do not say it's referring to YHWH. The definition of the word has not changed; on the contrary it has remained consistent. But when the bible says of God in Hab. 1:12 "you shall not die" we know it is telling us God does not die.
Therefore we can tell Jesus is not God, because the same Spirit which informed Hab. in 1:12 that God doesn't die also told the NT prophets Jesus died .

Face it folks: God does not die. Everyone else , including Jesus , died.


Is that the common noun God that doesn't die? :rofl:

Get back to us when you learn how to use context, pythagoras.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning, ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth.

==
Still waiting for you to give me the source of your official translation of Irenaeus or admit you forged it.

[Pythagoras]

Is that the common noun God that doesn't die? :rofl:

Get back to us when you learn how to use context, pythagoras.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning, ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth.

Read my last post again, this time with understanding.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Alam,

This is kind of funny:



Is that the common noun God that doesn't die? :rofl:

Get back to us when you learn how to use context, pythagoras.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning, ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth.

.

Obviously in Gen. 1:1 and Hab. 1:12 we know the God(Elohim) spoken of is YHWH. But in Ex. 7:1 when Moses is called Elohim the word is used as a common noun, and does not mean God. Context!

Trinitarians must distort context and negate common sense, otherwise their doctrine cannot work.

God bless,

[Sparko]

Alam,

This is kind of funny:




Obviously in Gen. 1:1 and Hab. 1:12 we know the God(Elohim) spoken of is YHWH. But in Ex. 7:1 when Moses is called Elohim the word is used as a common noun, and does not mean God. Context!

Trinitarians must distort context and negate common sense, otherwise their doctrine cannot work.

God bless,

So you DO understand context? Then you can understand that elohim can be both a proper noun and a common noun depending on context? Just like the English word god?

Then I guess you understand that Titus 2, when Paul is talking about God, he is using it as a PROPER Noun and not a common one? That "GREAT GOD" is a PROPER NOUN/TITLE and applies to Jesus and is not used as a common noun like when judges are called "god?"

I am so glad to see that you have finally come to your senses and understand what context means. You had me worried for a while there with all that talk about "great" not meaning GREAT in reference to "GREAT GOD" because "great" was used to talk about Satan (even though it said "GREAT DRAGON" which is a proper title too) and all that stuff about God not meaning God because the judges were called "god" too.

Now that you admit that context does make the difference, I guess you are now a trinitarian?

What a blessing!

==
oh and your silly game of "talking" to Alam instead of posting directly to me and Nick is hilarious. Reminds me of a little kid who says they are not talking to their brother, so they tell their best friend what they want the brother to hear. Knee-slapping funny, you are. :lmbo:

--

PS: I guess I have toyed with you long enough on the forged Irenaeus quote you made. You will never admit that you took it from an anti-trinitarian web site and the site of a complete wacko to boot, who probably forged it and you didn't check it out first, so now you are in duck-and-cover mode.

I did a google search of the phrase

"though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it"

and only two hits show up with that phrase, your post, and this site:

http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM

Which quotes Irenaeus wrong in regards to some off the wall explanation he was making, and reading further on that page, near the bottom I see this:

Concerning this Scripture, let me first point out the extremely important, but oft-overlooked fact that Peter is not calling believers Christians. In order to understand what Peter was saying, as his original readers understood it, we need to substitute the word Christian with a modern equivalent. We could use "cult member", or "jackass" or "fool", or any such term...

If we substitute the modern derisive term jackass for Christian in those three Scriptures in the New Testament where Christian is found, we will discover what was really being communicated at that time.



Acts 11:26 "And the disciples were first called `jackasses' at Antioch."
Acts 26:28 "Then Agrippa said to Paul, `Almost thou persuadest me to be a jackass.'"
1Pet. 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a `jackass', let him glorify God on this behalf."
There is nothing sacred about the name Christian. It is not of God. Christianity is not the church of Jesus Christ; it is a pretender to the title of the bride of Christ

Yep thats a really reliable source you got there Pythagoras.

Is that your personal web site?


If not, then I admit I was wrong in thinking YOU forged the quote. You just copied it from an unreliable source and didn't bother to check it out. You were merely careless and foolish, much like in everything else you do.

[VFarris01]

While I indeed do believe Po-thag made a quotational error with Iranaeus, the "gist" of what was quoted seems preserved. It is clear from what I have read of Against Heresy, Iranaeus did not believe Jesus was God (or part of a God "trinity"). That Jesus is "God" boils down to a "belief system" issue.

However, Sparky, much as you will deny it, you have a pretty (dare I say) pathetic ability to understand any written language "in context."


Then I guess you understand that Titus 2, when Paul is talking about God, he is using it as a PROPER Noun and not a common one? That "GREAT GOD" is a PROPER NOUN/TITLE and applies to Jesus and is not used as a common noun like when judges are called "god?"

I am so glad to see that you have finally come to your senses and understand what context means. You had me worried for a while there with all that talk about "great" not meaning GREAT in reference to "GREAT GOD" because "great" was used to talk about Satan (even though it said "GREAT DRAGON" which is a proper title too) and all that stuff about God not meaning God because the judges were called "god" too.

... (13) looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,...

"Great" in this instance is used simply as an adjective describing a "quality" of God; it is not a "title" of any kind. Notice the pronoun "our" preceeding "great;" this so often negates a title as to be unquestioned (there are a few exceptions, though I cannot think of one). Usually, titles are preceeded by an article (usually, the). In English usage, the use of "great" in a title appears behind the object of the adjective, as in "Catherine the Great," "Peter the Great," and "Alexander the Great." Similar usages are found with "verbs" as in "Vlad the Impaler," and compound adjectives like, "Richard the Lion Hearted" (Notice the position of "great" relative to the article "the"). When used in reverse order, ie, "the Great Peter" or "the Great Catherine" it is awkward. I am sure you are probably thinking of "the great Houdini" or something similar, however, Houdini's title was simply "Houdini."

On the other hand we see verses like:

(3) And another sign was seen in the heavens. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads!

Obviously, "great" is not used here as part of a title; "great" along with "red" describes the qualities of the "dragon" (it was big and red; yes?).

and...

(9) And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

This one, however, could go either way; yes? Myself, I see "great dragon" used here as descriptive of the Devil (Satan), not as a title.

... my 2¢.

[Sparko]

While I indeed do believe Po-thag made a quotational error with Iranaeus, the "gist" of what was quoted seems preserved. It is clear from what I have read of Against Heresy, Iranaeus did not believe Jesus was God (or part of a God "trinity"). That Jesus is "God" boils down to a "belief system" issue.

It clearly does NOT meant the same thing VFARRIS. Go read it again. I quoted the entire section earlier and Irenaeus was NOT saying anything about the son. He was speaking about angels creating things. he was saying that if the angels created anything they did so using existing materials prepared by God. They did not create out of nothing. They rearranged matter. This was against a specific heresy. It says nothing about Christ who DID create out of nothing. Who DID create everything. Pythag's quote changed the whole tone of the passage and made it about Jesus.

And as I quoted earlier, even though it wasn't a part of my argument, Irenaeus did call Jesus "God"

Whether he beleived in a trinity or not I don't know.




However, Sparky, much as you will deny it, you have a pretty (dare I say) pathetic ability to understand any written language "in context."

VFARRIS I thought we settled this feud?


At least Pythagoras has the guts to actually SAY what he believes and defend it tooth and nail. I can respect him for that. You I can't respect anymore because you will never say what you mean and when called on it you say I have a reading comprehension problem. In that other thread apparently EVERYONE who talks to you has that problem too, because they have said the same thing to you.




... (13) looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,...

"Great" in this instance is used simply as an adjective describing a "quality" of God;

Agreed. The title IS GOD. But not any ordinary GOD, our GREAT GOD. And it is speaking of the one and only God, not some man who is called a 'god' like a human judge. That is what I was arguing against Pythagoras about.

If you don't bother to actually READ the thread, don't come in here complaining about reading problems and context.

Pythagoras said 'god' was a common noun that titus 2:13 is not saying Jesus is YHWH. I said, sorry, the context and the word 'great' shows that it is speaking about YHWH along with the hole chapter context. Calling Jesus the great God is a proper title not a common noun. It says that Paul was calling Jesus YHWH.

[Krusader]

It clearly does NOT meant the same thing VFARRIS. Go read it again. I quoted the entire section earlier and Irenaeus was NOT saying anything about the son. He was speaking about angels creating things. he was saying that if the angels created anything they did so using existing materials prepared by God. They did not create out of nothing. They rearranged matter. This was against a specific heresy. It says nothing about Christ who DID create out of nothing. Who DID create everything. Pythag's quote changed the whole tone of the passage and made it about Jesus.

And as I quoted earlier, even though it wasn't a part of my argument, Irenaeus did call Jesus "God"

Whether he beleived in a trinity or not I don't know.


VFARRIS I thought we settled this feud?


At least Pythagoras has the guts to actually SAY what he believes and defend it tooth and nail. I can respect him for that. You I can't respect anymore because you will never say what you mean and when called on it you say I have a reading comprehension problem. In that other thread apparently EVERYONE who talks to you has that problem too, because they have said the same thing to you.




Agreed. The title IS GOD. But not any ordinary GOD, our GREAT GOD. And it is speaking of the one and only God, not some man who is called a 'god' like a human judge. That is what I was arguing against Pythagoras about.

If you don't bother to actually READ the thread, don't come in here complaining about reading problems and context.

Pythagoras said 'god' was a common noun that titus 2:13 is not saying Jesus is YHWH. I said, sorry, the context and the word 'great' shows that it is speaking about YHWH along with the hole chapter context. Calling Jesus the great God is a proper title not a common noun. It says that Paul was calling Jesus YHWH.


I agree with you, Sparko. The VFerris entity is unwilling to stand up and be counted for whatever his/her belief system is. From what I've read of his/her postings here and elsewhere, it would appear that the VFerris entity is heterodox.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



Then I guess you understand that Titus 2, when Paul is talking about God, he is using it as a PROPER Noun and not a common one? That "GREAT GOD" is a PROPER NOUN/TITLE and applies to Jesus and is not used as a common noun like when judges are called "god?"


There are two ways to construe Titus 2:13, both don't help your cause unfortunately:

(1)KJV :" glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ ."(KJV).

In other words, the glorious appearing[figuratively] of God , and the coming of our Saviour , Jesus Christ.

(2) NIV:

"glorious appearing of our great god and Saviour, Jesus christ."

This doesn't do anything for you. Contextually there is nothing here that tells us the great god is a proper noun as opposed to a common noun . Why are you so sure great god can't be Jesus but must be YHWH in this construction? What leads you to this conclusion? Because it's great god instead of just god?




I am so glad to see that you have finally come to your senses and understand what context means. You had me worried for a while there with all that talk about "great" not meaning GREAT in reference to "GREAT GOD" because "great" was used to talk about Satan (even though it said "GREAT DRAGON" which is a proper title too) and all that stuff about God not meaning God because the judges were called "god" too.


According to you Titus 1:13 is talking about YHWH because the verse says great god instead of god. That's not very smart Sparko. How about context, structure , rest of the bible regarding Christ's nature, and so forth?



oh and your silly game of "talking" to Alam instead of posting directly to me and Nick is hilarious. Reminds me of a little kid who says they are not talking to their brother, so they tell their best friend what they want the brother to hear. Knee-slapping funny, you are.


I wish you would give up the false doctrine of the trinity, brother.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

While I indeed do believe Po-thag made a quotational error with Iranaeus, the "gist" of what was quoted seems preserved. It is clear from what I have read of Against Heresy, Iranaeus did not believe Jesus was God (or part of a God "trinity"). That Jesus is "God" boils down to a "belief system" issue.

However, Sparky, much as you will deny it, you have a pretty (dare I say) pathetic ability to understand any written language "in context."



.

Exactly. In my post (183) I wrote:

"But the gist of the Irenaeus's argument is the same."

This is a case of Sparkey making a mountain out of a mole hill because he has no real argument.
Perhaps he sees this discussion as an "honour challenge" ? Great!, a paranoid case out to defend his dignity ?!?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Nick...I can't believe your response here....

(This is my first time trying quoting...hope it works....)



and you replied:



I'm gonna have to side with Py on this one....

Expanding on his thought from the Hebrew Bible to English, it seems to me that translation would be impossible from ANY language to another if words were not defining exactly the same thing; I mean, like Py said, "for example we do not say the definition of fish changes when we go from Dagah (Fish in Hebrew) to Ichthus (Fish in Greek). Definitions of words do not change with a change in language." (emphasis mine)

This means this concept has to apply to all other words as well: water...star...earth...fish...sky...God....Lord....

Wait a minute...."God" and "Lord"?

THAT would mean, for example, that "theos" has exactly the same meaning as "elohim" wherever it's used (e.g., Matt 4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16) and also that "kurios" means exactly the same as "YHWH", (as in Matt 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23, all quoting Is. 40:3) since...

"Definitions of words do not change with a change in language."

Sounds to me like Py is trying to argue (at least) that wherever "kurios" appears in the NT, it means "YHWH"...even when Jesus applies it to Himself (e.g., Matt 7:21-22), or Thomas says it (John 20:28) or Paul uses it any number of places in his epistles calling Him, for example, "the 'kurios' (JHWH) Jesus Christ"...

Looking at some of his prior posts, I didn't think Py believed that...but it looks like he might have changed his mind...?

Nick....maybe you shouldn't jump on him so hard next time... :whistle:

JMS. My position though is that there is a difference between such works as the LXX and the regular Hebrew text. There is much discussion in NT translation on whether a passage came from the LXX or from the Hebrew for instance. I think that in Greek language, many words would have a more philosophically-oriented view. The Hebrews might not share that view. There could be similar concepts, but there could be different nuances to the words.

Anyhow, my main point still stands. Habakkuk 1:12 does not say God cannot die. It says "We will not die." Furthermore, if death is the separation of the soul from the body always, then does that mean that God in his essence has a body?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Py. The differences are subtle in the languages. They don't completely change meaning.

My contention though is still this main one. I don't see a single Bible that says "You shall not die." They all say, "We."

Now you show me where they say, "We.", and give some qualified references.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



There are two ways to construe Titus 2:13, both don't help your cause unfortunately:

(1)KJV :" glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ ."(KJV).

In other words, the glorious appearing[figuratively] of God , and the coming of our Saviour , Jesus Christ.

(2) NIV:

"glorious appearing of our great god and Saviour, Jesus christ."

This doesn't do anything for you. Contextually there is nothing here that tells us the great god is a proper noun as opposed to a common noun . Why are you so sure great god can't be Jesus but must be YHWH in this construction? What leads you to this conclusion? Because it's great god instead of just god?

OK I will go over it once again to show you that both of your conclusions above are wrong.. I tried explaining it in my own words so now I will use the words of professional bible scholars in the hopes you will listen to them.

From the JFB commentary (but you can check any real commentary and it will tell you the same.)

the glorious appearing--There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see on Tit_2:11) of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in 2Th_2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, "parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context.

See the Granville Sharpe Rule:


Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.

In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone. It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!
Continued at: http://aomin.org/GRANVILL.html


Now about "Great God"

JFB Continued:

Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.




According to you Titus 1:13 is talking about YHWH because the verse says great god instead of god. That's not very smart Sparko. How about context, structure , rest of the bible regarding Christ's nature, and so forth?

Yeah me and every other reputable bible scholar and commentary and greek grammar book. Compared to you and Alam and some goofy guy on a website where he says that the word "christian" should be translated "jackass" that you use for source material.

I think I am in good company.

[Sparko]

Exactly. In my post (183) I wrote:

"But the gist of the Irenaeus's argument is the same."

This is a case of Sparkey making a mountain out of a mole hill because he has no real argument.
Perhaps he sees this discussion as an "honour challenge" ? Great!, a paranoid case out to defend his dignity ?!?

sorry but as I have said over and over, your quote completely changed the entire meaning of the section of Irenaeus.

He was speaking against a heresy that said angels had created the universe or parts thereof. His whole point with the axe and the wood cutter and the verse you changed was that the angels were created and they only had created matter to work with. They created nothing. They rearranged already existing matter. You took that entire sentence out and stuck in a sentence that said the Father enabled the son to create and took all the credit. :clueless:

You changed the entire meaning of the section to be about Christ when it was about Angels. Irenaeus was not talking about creation from nothing, which is what is said of christ (john 1:3) and he said nothing about the Father being able to claim to have created ALONE which is what Isaiah said.

So stop trying to wiggle out of it. You used a forged quote that completely changed the meaning of the text. If you can't see that then it explains why you are so dense and are still a nontrinitarian. You have blinders on.

Now admit you messed up and we can go on. Or go away. Cuz every time you turn around I am gonna keep bringing this up till you do.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,



Py. The differences are subtle in the languages. They don't completely change meaning.


Regarding bible translations, most words don't change their meanings at all when transcribed from one language to another , and even those few that do do not morph their definitions in any significant fashion. That's why we have professional translators who use best fits. All of us, whether Greek or Jew, have a general idea of what death/die is though we may differ on the specifics. That doesn't mean the definition (or concept) of die/death changes when translated from the Hebrew into the Greek. You're arguing like a two year old, because you're desperate. Thus Hab 1:12 says, "God does not die" . And the NT says in more than a dozen places Jesus died. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. There is no honest way around this . Your only hope is to attack the integrity of Hab. 1:12 which you .

Here:




My contention though is still this main one. I don't see a single Bible that says "You shall not die." They all say, "We."

Perhaps someone more patient than me could explain to you why Hab. 1:12 says God does not die. Try alam if he is willing to put up with you. Even Eliyosef might be a good bet ( and he's no Christian.!)

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



the great God and our Saviour Jesus--There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context.

.

Let's say the Granville Sharpe rule is valid and 2:13 is refering to the same individual . How does "great god and saviour" prove Jesus is YHWH being that even Satan is called great and god and many men in the OT were referred to as saviours?

You're letting your 4th century trinitarian brainwashing do the talking , and not the plain words of scripture .

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



Let's say the Granville Sharpe rule is valid and 2:13 is refering to the same individual . How does "great god and saviour" prove Jesus is YHWH being that even Satan is called great and god and many men in the OT were referred to as saviours?

You're letting your 4th century trinitarian brainwashing do the talking , and not the plain words of scripture .

best wishes,

uh I answered that above:

Now about "Great God"

JFB Continued:

Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.


Just because words can mean different things in other places does not mean that they mean that in every case, Pythagoras. You even said that yourself in regards with Gen 1:1's use of Elohim. The same word can mean the TRUE God (YHWH) or it can mean judges or angels depending on the context.

The context of Titus 2:13 as the commentary says above, is definitely meaning the TRUE God and Jesus being Him. The context of the whole chapter is speaking about God in reference to YHWH. It would not change in mid stream to mean a man, and Satan was never called "great God", you are splicing the two words from two different places and saying they go together. So I guess I can take "true" and "God" as spoken of Jesus in different places and that must prove that he is the "true God?"

Didn't we go through all that before? You keep dancing around and changing things around. sometimes you say words have to mean the same thing whenever they are used (like you do with Apologia Nick and the word "death") then you turn around and say no, words mean different things depending on where they are used. Then you take words that are used in one context in one place and try to substitute that meaning in another place and think that is legit. It is not. It is dishonest.

Pythagoras, you have no game. Admit it or go away.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,










Perhaps someone more patient than me could explain to you why Hab. 1:12 says God does not die. Try alam if he is willing to put up with you. Even Eliyosef might be a good bet ( and he's no Christian.!)

best wishes,

Translation: I am clueless on why it should be translated that way. Please don't push me on it. I like to have it that way because it fits my own misconstrued eisegesis.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


Translation: I am clueless on why it should be translated that way. Please don't push me on it. I like to have it that way because it fits my own misconstrued eisegesis.

Lol.

Read this link :

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/habakuk1.htm

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,



Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20.


How does this prove Jesus is YHWH? Infact quite the contrary!



The context of Titus 2:13 as the commentary says above, is definitely meaning the TRUE God and Jesus being Him. The context of the whole chapter is speaking about God in reference to YHWH.


"God(Jesus) in refrence to YHWH". You have not said anything. Look it: there is not the slightest suggestion Jesus is YHWH anywhere in Titus or in the entire NT. Otherwise we woudn't be having this discussion.It would be a shut and closed case. There is no trinity doctrine in Titus, let alone the idea that YHWH is Jesus or the idea that Jesus is the Second Person of the Godhead. Paul's greeting in 1:4 "Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour" lacks even the concept of a trinty.There are only two, and they are clearly distinguished, God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour.





The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it.

This is rubbish. There is no Second Person of the Holy Trinity anywhere. You're trying to force your 4th century trinitarian doctrine into the words of Deut. 7:21 and Deu. 10:17 just as you're trying to force the Trinity into the words of Titus 2:13.



Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing:


If the Great God of Titus 2:13 is the Father then the Modalists, not the trrinitarians are correct.


It would not change in mid stream to mean a man, and Satan was never called "great God", you are splicing the two words from two different places and saying they go together. So I guess I can take "true" and "God" as spoken of Jesus in different places and that must prove that he is the "true God?"

So far your argument is that Jesus is YHWH because he's called great.


Pythagoras, you have no game. Admit it or go away.

The real question is what you, a trinitarian, are doing here. It is a fact that flies are drawn to the light. Why don't you go away to the trinitarian forums, wher you belong?



best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Sparko has made a big deal about Titus 2:13 so a quick comment is in order here.




Titus 2:13


While we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NIV)

The exact translation of this verse is debated but none of the translations including the trinitarian NIV show that Jesus is Deity(YHWH). Many other versions, such as the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NAS, Moffatt, RSV, NRSV, Douay, New American Bible, NEB, etc., translate the verse very differently. The NASB, for example reads, “…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” The difference between the translations is immediately apparent.





In the NAS and other versions,as stated above, we await the “appearing of the glory” of God our Savior (this is a use of “Savior” where the word is applied in the context to God, not Christ) i.e., we are looking for the “glory” of God, which is stated clearly as being “Jesus Christ.” Of course, the glory will come at the appearing, but Scripture says clearly that both the glory of the Son and the glory of the Father will appear (Luke 9:26). The Bible teaches that when Christ comes, he will come with his Father’s glory: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory” (Matt. 16:27).

And the other interpretation I've already answered.

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



How does this prove Jesus is YHWH? Infact quite the contrary!

Oh yeah, so you want to just chop up the commentary and pull one sentence out and say "that doesnt prove anything!" :rofl:

Pythagoras, your blatant dishonesty is getting to be quite bothersome. If you can't debate using honest points, please go away. You are only hurting your own case. Everyone reading this thread can see your desperation.

The complete quote, in context:

Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.





"God(Jesus) in refrence to YHWH". You have not said anything. Look it: there is not the slightest suggestion Jesus is YHWH anywhere in Titus or in the entire NT. Otherwise we woudn't be having this discussion.It would be a shut and closed case. There is no trinity doctrine in Titus, let alone the idea that YHWH is Jesus or the idea that Jesus is the Second Person of the Godhead. Paul's greeting in 1:4 "Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour" lacks even the concept of a trinty.There are only two, and they are clearly distinguished, God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour.

Again, Granville Sharpe rule says you are wrong. There is only ONE person spoken of here, Jesus, and great God and Savior both apply to him. And the commentary is saying that not only is "great God" applied to Christ, and that it refers to the glory of his appearing, the phrase only occurs in the bible in reference to Jehovah (YHWH) (see Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, Ezra 5:8, Neh 8:6, Ps 95:3, Dan 2:45)


And did you catch the last bit? EVEN IF you were right and the Father and Son are each referred to, you would be making Paul be a blasphemer and so that CAN'T be correct. They have to be the same person:


Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.



The real question is what you, a trinitarian, are doing here. It is a fact that flies are drawn to the light. Why don't you go away to the trinitarian forums, wher you belong?

:duh:

I am the Admin Assistant of this area, Pythag. The Watchtower area is not an exclusive club for Nontrinitarians to hang out in. It is a place where everyone, especially regular Christians, can discuss the Jehovah's Witnesses as a CULT and hopefully convince them of the truth of orthodox Christianty. It is for debating with JW's and debunking people like you, not a place for you to hang out to get away from us. The same for the ISLAM area, the Unorthodox Christianity area, and so on. Sheesh. :ahem:

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,


Oh yeah, so you want to just chop up the commentary and pull one sentence out and say "that doesnt prove anything!"

Nice try.




Pythagoras, your blatant dishonesty is getting to be quite bothersome. If you can't debate using honest points, please go away. You are only hurting your own case. Everyone reading this thread can see your desperation.


Is this an argument?



The complete quote, in context:

Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.


This is rubish. Basically all that paragraph is saying is that Christ is YHWH because he's called the Great God in Titus 2:13.This is problametic from so many angles that I don't even know where to begin. For example, Deut. 10:17 also says YHWH is Mighty, but we know even human judges and angels are referred to as Mighty in the OT, so you have to make them YHWH as well to remain consistent. Infact if YHWH in Deut 10:17 the Great God is Christ Great God of Titus 2:13 then Sabellius not Athanasius is correct. Or are you suggesting the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is in view in Deut. 7:21 and 10:17? If so, it's nothing but 4th century trinitarian eisegesis. Pure nonsense.



Again, Granville Sharpe rule says you are wrong. There is only ONE person spoken of here, Jesus, and great God and Savior both apply to him. And the commentary is saying that not only is "great God" applied to Christ, and that it refers to the glory of his appearing, the phrase only occurs in the bible in reference to Jehovah (YHWH) (see Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, Ezra 5:8, Neh 8:6, Ps 95:3, Dan 2:45)



Again, you're saying Jesus is YHWH because he's called great and god. I've told you plenty of times that even Satan is called great and god in the NT and humans are referred to as saviours in the OT. Are they all YHWH?



And did you catch the last bit? EVEN IF you were right and the Father and Son are each referred to, you would be making Paul be a blasphemer and so that CAN'T be correct. They have to be the same person:


Not in the least , as shown by the last couple of posts. This is typic of the empty rhetoric you two-bit links spew.



I am the Admin Assistant of this area, Pythag. The Watchtower area is not an exclusive club for Nontrinitarians to hang out in. It is a place where everyone, especially regular Christians, can discuss the Jehovah's Witnesses as a CULT and hopefully convince them of the truth of orthodox Christianty. It is for debating with JW's and debunking people like you, not a place for you to hang out to get away from us.


You're giving excuses to be close to the light. There is light at the Judaism section also, for your information. Visit it!

best wishes,

[VFarris01]

While I indeed do believe Po-thag made a quotational error with Iranaeus, the "gist" of what was quoted seems preserved. It is clear from what I have read of Against Heresy, Iranaeus did not believe Jesus was God (or part of a God "trinity"). That Jesus is "God" boils down to a "belief system" issue.
It clearly does NOT meant the same thing VFARRIS. Go read it again. I quoted the entire section earlier and Irenaeus was NOT saying anything about the son. He was speaking about angels creating things. he was saying that if the angels created anything they did so using existing materials prepared by God. They did not create out of nothing. They rearranged matter. This was against a specific heresy. It says nothing about Christ who DID create out of nothing. Who DID create everything. Pythag's quote changed the whole tone of the passage and made it about Jesus.I disagree. Irenaeus makes no distinction about Jesus not being an angel that I can tell (find).


And as I quoted earlier, even though it wasn't a part of my argument, Irenaeus did call Jesus "God"No, he did not (that I have seen); perhaps you can show us.


Whether he beleived in a trinity or not I don't know.How could he not believe in a "trinity?" If Irenaeus believed Jesus was (a) god, then he (Irenaeus) must have been polytheistic. He (Irenaeus) did call God (the Father) the "supreme" God... If there was a "supreme" God he (Irenaeus) must have believed there were "lesser" gods (by implication).


However, Sparky, much as you will deny it, you have a pretty (dare I say) pathetic ability to understand any written language "in context."
VFARRIS I thought we settled this feud?Settled? All we are sure of is you cannot (or refuse to) understand any written language (along with the rest of the clueless, sorry Crusader).


At least Pythagoras has the guts to actually SAY what he believes and defend it tooth and nail. I can respect him for that. You I can't respect anymore because you will never say what you mean and when called on it you say I have a reading comprehension problem.This much, at least, is true... you do have a reading comprehension problem.


In that other thread apparently EVERYONE who talks to you has that problem too, because they have said the same thing to you.That is because most people who post on Tweb are just as clueless as you are.


... (13) looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,...

"Great" in this instance is used simply as an adjective describing a "quality" of God;
Agreed. The title IS GOD.Huh? I thought your contention was Jesus' title was "Great God."


But not any ordinary GOD, our GREAT GOD. And it is speaking of the one and only God, not some man who is called a 'god' like a human judge. That is what I was arguing against Pythagoras about.Jesus is a little better than most... So?


If you don't bother to actually READ the thread, don't come in here complaining about reading problems and context.Actually, I read the entire thread... you seem just as clueless as ever...


Pythagoras said 'god' was a common noun that titus 2:13 is not saying Jesus is YHWH. I said, sorry, the context and the word 'great' shows that it is speaking about YHWH along with the hole chapter context. Calling Jesus the great God is a proper title not a common noun. It says that Paul was calling Jesus YHWH.Because "god" is preceeded by an adjective (great, in Titus) does not make Jesus the "supreme" God... there can be only one!


I agree with you, Sparko. The VFerris entity is unwilling to stand up and be counted for whatever his/her belief system is. From what I've read of his/her postings here and elsewhere, it would appear that the VFerris entity is heterodox.My "belief system," as I have said numerous times, is irrelevant... Please tell me why you think it matters.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,



Lol.

Read this link :

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/habakuk1.htm

best wishes,

Thanks for tickling my gag reflex. You know that we've had developments since 1897 on Habakkuk.

And also, using the Watchtower as an authoritative source. There's a real kicker.

I'll be laughing for a few weeks now....

[Sparko]

Sparko has made a big deal about Titus 2:13 so a quick comment is in order here.




Titus 2:13


While we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NIV)

The exact translation of this verse is debated but none of the translations including the trinitarian NIV show that Jesus is Deity(YHWH). Many other versions, such as the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NAS, Moffatt, RSV, NRSV, Douay, New American Bible, NEB, etc., translate the verse very differently. The NASB, for example reads, “…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” The difference between the translations is immediately apparent.





In the NAS and other versions,as stated above, we await the “appearing of the glory” of God our Savior (this is a use of “Savior” where the word is applied in the context to God, not Christ) i.e., we are looking for the “glory” of God, which is stated clearly as being “Jesus Christ.” Of course, the glory will come at the appearing, but Scripture says clearly that both the glory of the Son and the glory of the Father will appear (Luke 9:26). The Bible teaches that when Christ comes, he will come with his Father’s glory: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory” (Matt. 16:27).

And the other interpretation I've already answered.

best wishes,

:duh: my post addressed all of your points in this post previously. Several times, as a matter of fact. Your various translations do not say anything different in the GREEK, pythagoras and the granville sharpe rule and the JFB commentary I quoted several times now for you address the fact that it is indeed equating Jesus with YHWH. I am sorry if you can't comprehend a simple straightforward commentary. See my last post.


I tell you what. Since you are so sure it really says something different than Jesus is God, why don't you give me your translation of how you think it should be worded to avoid the silly trinitarians from misreading this verse?

Don't forget the Granville Sharpe rule says that "Glorious Appearing" and "great God and Savor" are both referring to the same individual: Jesus.

If great doesnt mean great and God doesnt mean God, how exactly WOULD you word this verse, Pythagoras? Please illumine us.

[Sparko]

I disagree. Irenaeus makes no distinction about Jesus not being an angel that I can tell (find).

No, he did not (that I have seen); perhaps you can show us.

I did, vfarris. did you not read this thread? maybe you have a reading problem?

"... in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)




How could he not believe in a "trinity?" If Irenaeus believed Jesus was (a) god, then he (Irenaeus) must have been polytheistic. He (Irenaeus) did call God (the Father) the "supreme" God... If there was a "supreme" God he (Irenaeus) must have believed there were "lesser" gods (by implication).

Ever hear of modelism? :duh:



Huh? I thought your contention was Jesus' title was "Great God."


He IS, dimwit. In the title Great God, Great is an adjective.


Jesus is a little better than most... So?

Be careful, your bias is showing..



Actually, I read the entire thread... you seem just as clueless as ever...

Really? Then why are you going over stuff that was already addressed, like Irenaeus calling Jesus "GOD?" why are you acting like jerk who can't read a simple post?



Because "god" is preceeded by an adjective (great, in Titus) does not make Jesus the "supreme" God... there can be only one!

And Jesus IS him! Jesus is YHWH. Or do you believe there are TWO Gods? That Jesus is a lesser God than the Father?

You are getting very close to showing us your true beliefs here, VFARRIS. Be careful, your vagueness is in danger. Better back-pedal and tell me I am attacking straw and you really didn't mean to imply that Jesus is not the true God.




My "belief system," as I have said numerous times, is irrelevant... Please tell me why you think it matters.

Because how can anyone debate a bowl of jello that keeps wiggling away from post to post? Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to nail smoke to a wall.

Are you even a Christian at all? Who knows?

[Sparko]

Thanks for tickling my gag reflex. You know that we've had developments since 1897 on Habakkuk.

And also, using the Watchtower as an authoritative source. There's a real kicker.

I'll be laughing for a few weeks now....


:lmbo:

Pythagoras is really getting desperate. First he quotes a forged version of Irenaeus and now he is digging up watchtower trash and quoting obscure nonreliable translations like the New World Translation which has been shown to be so riddled with mistranslations that no serious scholar would even look at it as a source.

:ahem::ahem::ahem::ahem::ahem:

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


Thanks for tickling my gag reflex. You know that we've had developments since 1897 on Habakkuk.

And also, using the Watchtower as an authoritative source. There's a real kicker.

I'll be laughing for a few weeks now....

Keep fooling yourself and keep on laughing.

The Jews themselves say Hab. 1:12 means :"You shall not die." Go to the Judaism section and ask them.... If you dare!

God does not die. The NT says Jesus died. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. End of stroy.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi,


:duh:

I tell you what. Since you are so sure it really says something different than Jesus is God, why don't you give me your translation of how you think it should be worded to avoid the silly trinitarians from misreading this verse?

Don't forget the Granville Sharpe rule says that "Glorious Appearing" and "great God and Savor" are both referring to the same individual: Jesus.

If great doesnt mean great and God doesnt mean God, how exactly WOULD you word this verse, Pythagoras? Please illumine us.

All your concerns regarding these issues have been addressed in post 221 and the posts immediately preceding it.

Yuo keep on repeating the same tired nonsense, it is not going to change anything.


best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi,



All your concerns regarding these issues have been addressed in post 221 and the posts immediately preceding it.

Yuo keep on repeating the same tired nonsense, it is not going to change anything.


best wishes,

ME? you keep repeating yourself and not reading a thing anyone says and no matter what they say, you refuse to address it and just go back to saying "well they used "god" somewhere else and it meant something else so it doesn't mean "God" here!" How lame is that? How ignorant is THAT? Pretty ignorant. You can't understand context.

Pythagoras, you have stopped making points about 3 pages ago and now you are just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending it will all go away.

This is you:

:fingersinears:

[Pythagoras]

:lmbo:

Pythagoras is really getting desperate. First he quotes a forged version of Irenaeus and now he is digging up watchtower trash and quoting obscure nonreliable translations like the New World Translation which has been shown to be so riddled with mistranslations that no serious scholar would even look at it as a source.

:ahem::ahem::ahem::ahem::ahem:

Hey trinitarians,

Keep on believing Hab. 1:12 doesn't say God does not die.
Keep on fooling yourselves, keep living in darkness.

Lol!

best wishes nonetheless,

[VFarris01]

I disagree. Irenaeus makes no distinction about Jesus not being an angel that I can tell (find).

No, he did not (that I have seen); perhaps you can show us.
I did, vfarris. did you not read this thread? maybe you have a reading problem?

"... in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)15 pages and 220+ post and I am going to remember every cited quote... right. Could you? It would help to include the correct location of this cite, AH1.X.1.

However, does this not make Jesus a second God? I thought there could be only one? Irenaeus is clearly using "god" here in a pedestrian sense since he is adamant there is only one "supreme" God. If Irenaeus is making Jesus "a god" then Irenaeus is saying Jesus is a "lesser" god than the Father, not equal to Him.


How could he not believe in a "trinity?" If Irenaeus believed Jesus was (a) god, then he (Irenaeus) must have been polytheistic. He (Irenaeus) did call God (the Father) the "supreme" God... If there was a "supreme" God he (Irenaeus) must have believed there were "lesser" gods (by implication).
Ever hear of modelism? :duh:So why would you ally yourself with a "modelist" like Irenaeus if you do not agree with everything he spouts an opinion on?

If the Great God of Titus 2:13 is Jesus then you are a Modalists, not a trinitarian; correct? Would you mind making up your mind.


Huh? I thought your contention was Jesus' title was "Great God."
He IS, dimwit. In the title Great God, Great is an adjective."Great" is simply an adjective... not part of a title... you must have skipped post 206 in your eagerness to sling ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you.


Jesus is a little better than most... So?
Be careful, your bias is showing..Be careful, your stupidity is showing more clearly...


Actually, I read the entire thread... you seem just as clueless as ever...
Really? Then why are you going over stuff that was already addressed, like Irenaeus calling Jesus "GOD?" why are you acting like jerk who can't read a simple post?Why? Because you are wrong about what Irenaeus writes and know it but are too stubborn to to admit it. The "jerk" is not me.


Because "god" is preceeded by an adjective (great, in Titus) does not make Jesus the "supreme" God... there can be only one!
And Jesus IS him! Jesus is YHWH. Or do you believe there are TWO Gods? That Jesus is a lesser God than the Father?It is obvious you do.

Your hero Irenaeus clearly distinguishes between the two.

"Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying, ] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense? (AH2.II.5).


You are getting very close to showing us your true beliefs here, VFARRIS. Be careful, your vagueness is in danger. Better back-pedal and tell me I am attacking straw and you really didn't mean to imply that Jesus is not the true God.I am discussing how very wrong you are about Irenaeus and Titus... nothing more should be implied unless you are willing to look like a greater fool than you are already.


My "belief system," as I have said numerous times, is irrelevant... Please tell me why you think it matters.
Because how can anyone debate a bowl of jello that keeps wiggling away from post to post?Debate... can we not have a discussion instead?


Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to nail smoke to a wall.But it is a discussion when you have no point on which you can win... I see...


Are you even a Christian at all? Who knows?You are a little hard to pin down yourself, you being a modalist and all... :lol:.

[Pythagoras]

Pythagoras, you have stopped making points about 3 pages ago and now you are just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending it will all go away.

This is you:

:fingersinears:

You're projecting!


Ask yourself why you're here? Why aren't you happy fooling yourself at the trinity forums?

best wishes,

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,



Keep fooling yourself and keep on laughing.

The Jews themselves say Hab. 1:12 means :"You shall not die." Go to the Judaism section and ask them.... If you dare!

God does not die. The NT says Jesus died. Therefore Jesus cannot be God. End of stroy.

best wishes,

LOL. The Jews wrote the LXX. You know that. Right? (That's the Greek translation of the OT, the part that comes before the NT.) Now why did they translate that as a 1st person plural?

I suppose they didn't know Hebrew that well. Those poor OT Jews didn't even know their own language.

Py. You've got your head in the sand way too much. Jesus is God. Your attempts to deny it are childish and tiring. End of story.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

ME? you keep repeating yourself and not reading a thing anyone says and no matter what they say, you refuse to address it and just go back to saying "well they used "god" somewhere else and it meant something else so it doesn't mean "God" here!" How lame is that? How ignorant is THAT? Pretty ignorant. You can't understand context.

Pythagoras, you have stopped making points about 3 pages ago and now you are just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending it will all go away.

This is you:

:fingersinears:

I call it the ostrich approach. I personally think he could do great drilling for oil since he keeps his head in the ground enough.

[Pythagoras]

So why would you ally yourself with a "modelist" like Irenaeus if you do not agree with everything he spouts an opinion on?

If the Great God of Titus 2:13 is Jesus then you are a Modalists, not a trinitarian; correct? Would you mind making up your mind.


I've asked him the same question about three times, but he isn't about to answer. Don't hold your breath, he's got fingers in his ears!



However, does this not make Jesus a second God? I thought there could be only one? Irenaeus is clearly using "god" here in a pedestrian sense since he is adamant there is only one "supreme" God. If Irenaeus is making Jesus "a god" then Irenaeus is saying Jesus is a "lesser" god than the Father, not equal to Him.


Well done.




"Great" is simply an adjective... not part of a title... you must have skipped post 206 in your eagerness to sling ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you.


Excellent.



You are a little hard to pin down yourself, you being a modalist and all... :lol:


Lol.

[VFarris01]

LOL. The Jews wrote the LXX. You know that. Right? (That's the Greek translation of the OT, the part that comes before the NT.)The GREEKS wrote the LXX... in Alexanderia, Egypt... not the Jews.

End of story... :lol:

[Sparko]

15 pages and 220+ post and I am going to remember every cited quote... right. Could you? It would help to include the correct location of this cite, AH1.X.1.

:duh:


However, does this not make Jesus a second God? I thought there could be only one? Irenaeus is clearly using "god" here in a pedestrian sense since he is adamant there is only one "supreme" God. If Irenaeus is making Jesus "a god" then Irenaeus is saying Jesus is a "lesser" god than the Father, not equal to Him.

:duh:

Vfarris, do you even understand the concept of the trinity? Yes there is one God. Only ONE God. So if the Father is God, and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you have three persons all who are ONE GOD.

That is the Trinity. If Irenaeus is saying the Father is God and that the Son is God, he is either espousing the trinity or some form of modelism (where the Father becomes the Son). I haven't read enough of Irenaeus to know for sure.


So why would you ally yourself with a "modelist" like Irenaeus if you do not agree with everything he spouts an opinion on?

I never allied myself with him, dimwit. Read the thread. PYTHAGORAS tried to align HIMSELF with Irenaeus. And he used a false quote. I merely pointed that fact out to him, that his quote was forged and that the section in question was not about the Son but about Angels and that Irenaeus did call Jesus "God."




If the Great God of Titus 2:13 is Jesus then you are a Modalists, not a trinitarian; correct? Would you mind making up your mind.

Again, you show you don't understand the Trinity. If Jesus is GOD (YHWH) and the Father is God (YHWH) then they are both YHWH but not the same person. One God revealed in three persons. If you don't understand the trinity or are denying it, then you should stop posting in Christian 201 immediately.


"Great" is simply an adjective... not part of a title... you must have skipped post 206 in your eagerness to sling ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you.


Says the pot to the kettle.




Why? Because you are wrong about what Irenaeus writes and know it but are too stubborn to to admit it. The "jerk" is not me.

Sorry I am not wrong about it.


Sorry, your hero Irenaeus clearly distinguishes between the two.

"Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying, ] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense? (AH2.II.5)."

1. Again, we can call the Father God and he can call Jesus God and there is NO conflict because they are the SAME God.

You only run into problems if you try to say Jesus is a "lesser" God, like Pythagoras and Alam say. Because then you have polytheism.

2. Whether Irenaeus beleived in the trinity or modalism I don't know, but I don't care either. My whole point with speaking about Irenaeus was to show that he did call Jesus "God" and that he did NOT say what Pythagoras quoted. Pythagoras posted a forged quote. A LIE. Again Pythagoras was relying on him to support his view and he failed. He used a forged quote.

If you want to defend him posting a LIE then you are just doing so because you don't like me. If you think he posted a true quote, then YOU show me the source of that translation so I can check it out myself. Until then Pythagoras is a dishonest sneak and you are no better for trying to defend his use of forged quote.



I am discussing how very wrong you are about Irenaeus and Titus... nothing more should be implied unless you are willing to look like a greater fool than you are already.


For someone who is defending a person who used a forged quote, you should not be going around calling somone else a fool.

So answer this for me VFarris if you want to have a discussion:

Is Jesus YHWH?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Apologianick,


LOL. The Jews wrote the LXX. You know that. Right?
Lol!



That's the Greek translation of the OT, the part that comes before the NT.) Now why did they translate that as a 1st person plural?


What's this got to do with the price of rice in China? Go to the Judaism section and ask them the meaning of Hab. 1:12.




I suppose they didn't know Hebrew that well. Those poor OT Jews didn't even know their own language.


Lol.


Py. You've got your head in the sand way too much. Jesus is God. Your attempts to deny it are childish and tiring. End of story

Get your head out of the sand , go to the Judaism section and ask them about Hab. 1:12 .

best wishes,

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The GREEKS wrote the LXX... in Alexanderia, Egypt... not the Jews.

End of story... :lol:

Hmmmm. No Jews in Alexandria? Now that would be something unique. If you're translating a text, it's best to have people that know the language.

Nice try though. Well, weak actually.

[Sparko]

The septuagent was written by hellinistic Jews in Alexandria.

"hellenistic" means greek.

They were Greek JEWS, VFarris01.

[Pythagoras]

:duh:


:duh:


That is the Trinity. If Irenaeus is saying the Father is God and that the Son is God, he is either espousing the trinity or some form of modelism (where the Father becomes the Son). I haven't read enough of Irenaeus to know for sure.





In post (227) he called Irenaeus a modalist, " Ever hear of modelism? :duh: " Now he doesn't know anymore. He also called Irenaeus a heretic and then back tracked.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Apologianick,


Lol!



What's this got to do with the price of rice in China? Go to the Judaism section and ask them the meaning of Hab. 1:12.




Lol.



Get your head out of the sand , go to the Judaism section and ask them about Hab. 1:12 .

best wishes,

lol. This is cute. You really are clueless on the LXX aren't you?

Py. I have several Bible translations and none of them say what you want it to say. I suppose no one knows Hebrew except the Jews on TheologyWeb. lol.

[Sparko]

In post (227) he called Irenaeus a modalist, " Ever hear of modelism? :duh: " Now he doesn't know anymore. He also called Irenaeus a heretic and then back tracked.

you are completely drain-bamaged, pythagoras.

1. You tried to use Irenaeus as a source to support your idiot doctrine that God gets credit for creating ALONE even though Christ did it all and Christ is NOT God.

see post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251783&postcount=149


2. I pointed out that NO, Irendaeus did not say that, you were using a forged quote. I also said that Irenaeus called Jesus God.

See Post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251861&postcount=151


3. Then you said Irenaeus said Christ was over 50 when he died.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252523&postcount=160

4. I said that I didnt care what Irenaeus believed but that you were misquoting him and he did not support your position.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252573&postcount=161

5. All of a sudden you try to say I was using Irenaeus to support my argument when all I did was REFUTE yours.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253296&postcount=178


6. I toldy you that NO. I was just refuting your use of Irenaeus cuz you used a forged quote and he did say Jesus was God. If Irenaeus is a heretic then that makes you look even more foolish since you were trying to use him as support for your idiotic idea.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1253314&postcount=179


Now if you will notice. It was YOU who tired to use Irenaeus as his support, not me. I just refuted you. But for some reason, now you are trying to say that I was using Irenaeus and that I am being wrong because I am using a heretic.

You are a dishonest person. You have shown yourself to be so at every turn in this thread. May God forgive you when you stand before him at judgement day and try your little semantic word shuffling games, dishonest tactics and forged quotes on him.

[Sparko]

You're projecting!


Ask yourself why you're here? Why aren't you happy fooling yourself at the trinity forums?

best wishes,

I have much more fun in here watching low-brow heretics like you self-destruct in front of everyone.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,


I have much more fun in here watching low-brow heretics like you self-destruct in front of everyone.

More lame excuses!

Remember, over here you will learn the truth :

(a) God is not a man.
(b) God does not die.
(c)God is not a trinity or a compound unity.

Jesus Christ in the NT said the Shema is the most important directive of all, more so than loving God and loving one's neighbour. Do you know where in the NT Jesus christ says this? This is your homeowrk for today.

Shema of the Jews, for which all Arians are grateful :

Behold Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One God.

End of story.

best wishes,

[VFarris01]

However, does this not make Jesus a second God? I thought there could be only one? Irenaeus is clearly using "god" here in a pedestrian sense since he is adamant there is only one "supreme" God. If Irenaeus is making Jesus "a god" then Irenaeus is saying Jesus is a "lesser" god than the Father, not equal to Him.
Vfarris, do you even understand the concept of the trinity? Yes there is one God. Only ONE God. So if the Father is God, and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you have three persons all who are ONE GOD.

That is the Trinity. If Irenaeus is saying the Father is God and that the Son is God, he is either espousing the trinity or some form of modelism (where the Father becomes the Son). I haven't read enough of Irenaeus to know for sure.It would sure have helped if Irenaeus made this clear... he does not that I have found.


So why would you ally yourself with a "modelist" like Irenaeus if you do not agree with everything he spouts an opinion on?
I never allied myself with him, dimwit. Read the thread.I did and you did... dimwit.


PYTHAGORAS tried to align HIMSELF with Irenaeus. And he used a false quote. I merely pointed that fact out to him, that his quote was forged and that the section in question was not about the Son but about Angels and that Irenaeus did call Jesus "God."Fine. But Irenaeus NEVER equates Jesus with "God the Father;" they are always separate.


If the Great God of Titus 2:13 is Jesus then you are a Modalists, not a trinitarian; correct? Would you mind making up your mind.
Again, you show you don't understand the Trinity. If Jesus is GOD (YHWH) and the Father is God (YHWH) then they are both YHWH but not the same person. One God revealed in three persons.Not according to Irenaeus.


If you don't understand the trinity or are denying it, then you should stop posting in Christian 201 immediately.I understand the "trinity" many millions of times better than you. Btaim, you are still having that reading comprehension problem I see. Perhaps you should reread post 233 where I said: "I am discussing how very wrong you are about Irenaeus and Titus... nothing more should be implied unless you are willing to look like a greater fool than you are already."

I hate it when I am right.


"Great" is simply an adjective... not part of a title... you must have skipped post 206 in your eagerness to sling ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with you.
Says the pot to the kettle.I hate it when I am right.


Why? Because you are wrong about what Irenaeus writes and know it but are too stubborn to to admit it. The "jerk" is not me.
Sorry I am not wrong about it.Yes, you are... and a "jerk" to boot.


Sorry, your hero Irenaeus clearly distinguishes between the two.

"Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying, ] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense? (AH2.II.5)."
1. Again, we can call the Father God and he can call Jesus God and there is NO conflict because they are the SAME God.We do, but Irenaeus does (did) not.

Read this again: "There is one God, the Father (not, "There is one God, the Father/Son/HS, VF), who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord (why would Irenaeus list Jesus separate?, VF)."


You only run into problems if you try to say Jesus is a "lesser" God, like Pythagoras and Alam say. Because then you have polytheism.Just like you.


2. Whether Irenaeus beleived in the trinity or modalism I don't know, but I don't care either.You must, else you would not defend Irenaeus as a "source" for "trinitarianism" (see post 151, among others).


My whole point with speaking about Irenaeus was to show that he did call Jesus "God" and that he did NOT say what Pythagoras quoted. Pythagoras posted a forged quote. A LIE. Again Pythagoras was relying on him to support his view and he failed. He used a forged quote.The "quote" was incorrect but Irenaeus indeed does appear to support his (Py's) view imo. Other than this your rant is very red.


If you want to defend him posting a LIE then you are just doing so because you don't like me. If you think he posted a true quote, then YOU show me the source of that translation so I can check it out myself. Until then Pythagoras is a dishonest sneak and you are no better for trying to defend his use of forged quote.I am not defending Py; he made a mistake... I still stand by his quote being the gist of Irenaeus.


I am discussing how very wrong you are about Irenaeus and Titus... nothing more should be implied unless you are willing to look like a greater fool than you are already.
For someone who is defending a person who used a forged quote, you should not be going around calling somone else a fool.Just how did (am) I defend(ing) Py (I noted his quote was incorrect; yes?)?


So answer this for me VFarris if you want to have a discussion:

Is Jesus YHWH?Not according to Irenaeus.


Hmmmm. No Jews in Alexandria? Now that would be something unique.Hmmm. No Jews in Miami? Now that would be something unique.


If you're translating a text, it's best to have people that know the language.Why only Jews? Greeks cannot learn Hebrew?


The septuagent was written by hellinistic Jews in Alexandria.

"hellenistic" means greek.

They were Greek JEWS, VFarris01.Was Greek their "first" or "second" language... I will wager, "first" being they were Greek (Jewish was their religious affiliation).

Do not respond until you are more interested in discussing the "problem" than "winning."

[Krusader]

Face it folks: God does not die. Everyone else , including Jesus , died.



best wishes,

This has to be one of the most ignorant things anybody has ever posted here - it sounds like it came directly from the Watchtower or Awake.

In His Humanity Christ Died - In His Deity He was eternal. God does not die!

Your reasoning sounds like something a JW once asked me: well if Jesus was God, and He was dead for 3 days, then who was in charge of the world.

Dummies: Get some theology!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hmmm. No Jews in Miami? Now that would be something unique. /QUOTE]

Do you even know what the Diaspora is? Do you know who Philo was? Are you aware there were several Jews in Alexandria?

[QUOTE=Vf] Why only Jews? Greeks cannot learn Hebrew?

Of course they can. It was the Jewish text though and the Jews would be the main ones to translate it. Since it was used in synagogues and in the NT, we can be assured that it was considered a valid translation.


Was Greek their "first" or "second" language... I will wager, "first" being they were Greek (Jewish was their religious affiliation).



Evidence? Jews held tightly to their culture wherever they went.