So who is Jesus Really? [Archive]

Shadow Phoenix

June 10th 2005, 01:02 PM

The Finished Mystery on page 159 reads

But in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon---That is, Destroyer. But in plain English his name is Satan, the Devil.

So this is the WT doctrine. Remember. New light cannot contradict old light. It reduces on to truth being relative. So let's keep this in mind. Apollyon, also known as Abaddon is Satan.

Then is Finished the Mystery of God--page 232. 1959

"In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, meaning "Destruction"; and in Greek it is Apollyon, meaning "Destroyer." All this plainly identifies the "angel" as picturing Jesus Christ, the Son of Jehovah God."

WT Dec. 1 1961

The symbolic locusts must follow their King, Jesus Christ. John says of them: "They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abad´don, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon." The resurrected heavenly Jesus Christ is the "angel of the abyss,"

Insight in the Scriptures Volume 1 1988

Apollyon

(A·pol´lyon) [Destroyer].

The Greek name used by the apostle John to translate the Hebrew "Abaddon" at Revelation 9:11. Apollyon means "Destroyer," and is given as the name of "the angel of the abyss." Though most reference works apply this name to some evil personage or force, the whole setting of the apocalyptic vision is to the contrary, as it consistently portrays angels being used by God to bring woes upon His enemies.

The use of the related verb a·pol´ly·mi illustrates this, as at James 4:12, which says of God: "One there is that is lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy." (Compare Mt 10:28.) The unclean spirit cast out of a man by Jesus in a synagogue at Capernaum acknowledged Jesus as God’s agent and said: "What have we to do with you, Jesus you Nazarene? Did you come to destroy us?" (Mr 1:24; Lu 4:34) Jesus warned unrepentant opposers among his listeners of the danger of being destroyed. (Lu 13:3-5; 20:16) These and other texts point to the glorified Christ Jesus as the one referred to by this title.—Compare Re 19:11-16; Lu 8:31; see ABADDON

Revelation, It's Grand Climax at Hand. p. 148, 1988

Rather than announce the incoming Kingdom of God, Christendom’s clergy have chosen to remain with Satan’s world. They want no part with the locust band and their King, concerning whom John now observes: "They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon [meaning "Destruction"], but in Greek he has the name Apollyon [meaning "Destroyer"]." (Revelation 9:11) As "angel of the abyss" and "Destroyer," Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom. But more is to follow!

WT magazine May 1st 1992

This is a campaign extraordinaire, one that will be memorialized for all time. Wave upon wave of insects, most prominently locusts, devastate the land. What does this mean? Revelation 9:1-12 also speaks of a plague of locusts, sent forth by Jehovah under "a king, the angel of the abyss," who is none other than Christ Jesus. His names Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek) mean "Destruction" and "Destroyer." These locusts picture the anointed remnant of Christians who, now in the Lord’s day, go forth to devastate Christendom’s pastures by completely exposing false religion and proclaiming Jehovah’s vengeance upon it.

Now I've heard about change in doctrine but going straight from calling this figure Satan to calling him Jesus doesn't seem like a minor change. Does this mean when Jesus chose the WT in 1914, that he approved of their mistaking him for Satan in Rev. 9?

If the identity of Jesus was so wrong at one point that he could be mistaken for Satan, how can we trust the view given of the identity of Jesus today?

nytxn

June 10th 2005, 03:29 PM

Who is Jesus?

John 1:1 IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.

Luke 2:11 For to you is born this day in the town of David a Savior, Who is Christ (the Messiah) the Lord!

Col 1:15 [Now] He is the exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.

Col 2:9 For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].

Krusader

June 10th 2005, 03:53 PM

Shadow Phoenix

June 10th 2005, 04:25 PM

ApologiaNick: I love your question. I wonder if any will respond.

The fact is that "New Light" is really Change in Doctrine. If the Anointed were hearing from the heavenly courts via angels (as Franz indicated), how could they possibly have made such a grave error? Could it be that these "angels" were really from Abaddon?

First off, let me do say I do believe in the orthodox view. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity possessing all the attributes of deity fully.

Crusader. I find that JWs are quite eager to get into discussions on doctrine if it's a matter simply of right vs. wrong for them, but when it comes to something more personal like this idea that the WT could be wrong on who Jesus is, or my own false prophecies thread, it's never even approached. Yet this group that gets things like false prophecies wrong, things that I can test, I'm supposed to trust with my eternal salvation on things I can't trust? No thanks.

Krusader

June 10th 2005, 04:39 PM

First off, let me do say I do believe in the orthodox view. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity possessing all the attributes of deity fully.

Crusader. I find that JWs are quite eager to get into discussions on doctrine if it's a matter simply of right vs. wrong for them, but when it comes to something more personal like this idea that the WT could be wrong on who Jesus is, or my own false prophecies thread, it's never even approached. Yet this group that gets things like false prophecies wrong, things that I can test, I'm supposed to trust with my eternal salvation on things I can't trust? No thanks.

First, we have to remember that the Society has warned its members against internet contact with those who oppose Watchtower views. For a JW to even come here and post is somewhat of an act of rebellion.

One of my best friends, a Christian, has been married to a JW elder for 45 years. It's been a rocky road. Only a few times in those 45 years has he ever even read anything that might question the Watchtower.

Most cults operate in the same way - filtering information to their members.

nytxn

June 10th 2005, 05:19 PM

First off, let me do say I do believe in the orthodox view. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity possessing all the attributes of deity fully.
:shy:

Not sure if this is really the thread for this, but I don't see Christ as the second person in a trinity of persons inside the 'Godhead'.

I simply see Him as God lowering Himself to be born of a woman, and live a life as a man... to suffer in all points as men do, and to offer Himself up as a willing sacrifice for us.

I don't feel God the Father sent a second person of the trinity to come in His stead (as the third person watched)... He came Himself... in the form of a man. He came to show us how much He loves us, and how we should love one another.

Sorry... I'll shaddap now.

Point me in the direction of the godhead discussion :shy:

barryrob

August 23rd 2005, 07:20 PM

Who is Jesus?

Answer from Jesus own mouth:-

Matthew 16:13-17
. . .Jesus went asking his disciples: "Who are men saying the Son of man is?" 14 They said: "Some say John the Baptist, others E·li´jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them: "YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?" 16 In answer Simon Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 In response Jesus said to him: "Happy you are, Simon son of Jo´nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.

Mark 8:29
And he put the question to them: "YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?" In answer Peter said to him: "You are the Christ."

Luke 9:20
. . Then he said to them: "YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?" Peter said in reply: "The Christ of God."

Pythagoras

August 23rd 2005, 09:00 PM

Barrybob,

Good point.

It is worth noting that nowhere in the pericope you cite is it even remotely hinted by anyone that Jesus is God.

In Matt. 16:13 the apostle simply says ,"You’re the Christ, the Son of the living God." That the term "Son of the Living God" is used in conjunction to and is synonymous with the word "Christ" or "Messiah" is beyond dispute and is proved as such in Matt. 26:63 by the high priest of Israel himself ;

"The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say", Jesus replied."

The high priest knew full well the OT prophecies which identified Messiah as "God's Son" . Here's one, 1 Chronicles 17:13-14

" I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: 14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore."

The high priest , and the blessed apostle certainly did not understand the term “Son of God” to mean an incarnation of Yahweh or the like, but to simply mean Messiah.

Here are the rest of the OT verses which render Messiah "Son of God". -- Proverbs 30:4, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 2:12, 2 Samuel 7:13, 1 Chronicles 7:13, Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 89:26.

best wishes,

barryrob

August 24th 2005, 04:21 AM

Krusader

August 24th 2005, 10:29 AM

HI Pi

We also have:-

1 John 4:12 At no time has anyone beheld God.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time ....

John 5:37 Also, the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. YOU have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his figure;

Jesus has been seen by many, thus cannot be Almighty God or and incarnation of him etc..

All the Best
Barryrob

God is Spirit, and men cannot see spirit. However, the trouble here is that cultists are unable to understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union. I suggest a crash course, folks!

Pythagoras

August 24th 2005, 11:24 AM

Hi barrybob,

How true. The Scriptute also tells us in Exodus 33:20 -- God to Moses: “You cannot see My face; for no man can see Me and live.”

But many people saw Jesus and yet lived.

Pythagoras

August 24th 2005, 11:41 AM

Hi Crusader,

God is Spirit, and men cannot see spirit. However, the trouble here is that cultists are unable to understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union. I suggest a crash course, folks!

The trinitarians believe Jesus was "fully God", "Spirit" and all , and "fully man". If Jesus was truly God, it follows that those who saw him would have died the instant they laid eyes on him. So either you don't mean what you say or you say what you don't mean.

Besides, your claim that "men cannot see Spirit" is false because God("a Spirit") tell us in Scripture that those who see him will die. The obvious implication being that man is indeed able to see God, but death will befall those who see His face .

Pythagoras

August 24th 2005, 07:20 PM

Btw Crusader,

You say, "God is Spirit, and man cannot see Spirit."

This is a contradiction because your own doctrine says Jesus was Spirit("fully God") AND Flesh("fully Man") at the same time. So either you're wrong when you say God is Spirit, and man cannot see Him or Jesus is not God since Jesus was "Fully man" and people certainly saw him. Or are you suggesting we only saw the "man" aspect of Jesus although he was "Fully God" at that time, which will no doubt create for you other logical contradictions?

On an unrelated note, the whole notion of the Hypostatic Union is logically inconsistent since it demands that Jesus was "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time. This idea ends up meaning the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Consider: If Jesus is "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time, then he's neither truly God(since he is God + something(i.e. man) nor is he truly man since he is man + something(i.e. God).

Have you thought through your position carefully, Dear Crusader? The logical contradictions inherent in the Hypostatic Union and the trinity are insurmountable and even Kierkeggard conceded as much. So who are you to challenge me?..

best wishes,

barryrob

August 25th 2005, 05:25 PM

Pythagoras

August 25th 2005, 06:56 PM

Greetings Barry,

May God bless you.

The Catholic Church has still not come up with a logical explanation for the hypostatic union. The deafening silence on the part of our trinitarian friends here, who all seem to have mysteriously vanished, is the proof in the pudding.
It is noteworthy that any discussion of the hypostatic union and of the trinity invariably renders trinitarians dumb, blind and naked.

At this point it looks like there is clearly little wiggle room for the great Madame. The Church must embrace a version of the incarnation that appears to contain multiple contradictions, for the incarnate must be a single identity that is uncreated and created, omniscient and having limited knowledge, atemporal and temporal, omnipotent and having finite powers. Yet the attributes necessary for divinity are irreconcilable with those attributes required for humanity when restricted to a single individual.

With so many logical contradictions it seems to me that the doctrine of the Incarnation and of the hypostatic union cannot be true, but the great Madam seems to think otherwise. The Great Whore has not yet found a suitable lover with whome to fornicate with in this regard,she is keeping her options open , even after more than a thousand years of pondering. She has rejected them all, but settle she must on an illicit union sooner or later. In the long history of belief in the incarnation certain boundaries have emerged for the Christian/Catholic such that the Christian must hold guard against sliding into various "heretical beliefs". The Christian will want to avoid Monophysitism which is the belief that the two natures are thoroughly combined into one nature. There are various versions of monophysitism some suggesting that one nature is absorbed by the other, or that a unique third nature is created. In a similar vein the Orthodox Christian/Catholic must skirt Apollinarianism which is the belief that though Jesus Christ was a man he did not have a human mind but a divine mind. Further the Orthodox Christian must also shun Nestorianism which holds that the two natures of Jesus Christ are two distinct persons closely united. There are other "heresies" such as Docetism, but I think these are sufficient for the present.

I sincerely counsel the great Madame to settle on a "legitimate" lover and leave the whole world in suspense no more , for her slience is utterly deafening and truly humiliating .

sowerowrd

August 30th 2005, 07:20 PM

Btw Crusader,

You say,

This is a contradiction because your own doctrine says Jesus was Spirit("fully God") AND Flesh("fully Man") at the same time. So either you're wrong when you say God is Spirit, and man cannot see Him or Jesus is not God since Jesus was "Fully man" and people certainly saw him. Or are you suggesting we only saw the "man" aspect of Jesus although he was "Fully God" at that time, which will no doubt create for you other logical contradictions?

On an unrelated note, the whole notion of the Hypostatic Union is logically inconsistent since it demands that Jesus was "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time. This idea ends up meaning the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Consider: If Jesus is "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time, then he's neither truly God(since he is God + something(i.e. man) nor is he truly man since he is man + something(i.e. God).

Have you thought through your position carefully, Dear Crusader? The logical contradictions inherent in the Hypostatic Union and the trinity are insurmountable and even Kierkeggard conceded as much. So who are you to challenge me?..

best wishes,

The trouble we have here, friends, is an attempt to subject the mystery of God (specifically the Incarnation of the Christ) to human reason. Note that God is a mystery, not a contradiction. Just because the true nature of the Incarnation is hiden from you and me does not make it false. You and I are limited men with limited thought and reasoning, but God is much more than you or I can even imagine.

Isaiah 55:8,9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." :huh:

Pythagoras

August 30th 2005, 07:52 PM

The trouble we have here, friends, is an attempt to subject the mystery of God (specifically the Incarnation of the Christ) to human reason.
:huh:

Thanks for admitting the trinity cannot be subjected to reason. Since the trinity is unreasonable, it does not fit the bible definition of "mystery". In the bible, a "mystery" is something which is revealed to the elect, and is understood by them. The trinity, on the other hand, is illogical and nonsensical.

Besides, the trinity is not a "great mystery". It's just a simple trick.

Trinity is made possible for men to create because human beings classify, or define, or categorize, plural objects into one singular category or group defined by its label or name. 1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 1 category/group of 3 persons, and that category/group is defined as the one "God." God gave Adam the power to name things, define them, categorize them, and Adam found no suitable helper. We humans have this power of definition but we can abuse it if we misapply already defined terms. This categorization game is all Trinitarians are really doing. It's not rocket science. Their deity is one group of three persons and they name or label that one group as "God."

Mystery? No, it's just a trick.

sowerowrd

August 31st 2005, 05:03 PM

Thanks for admitting the trinity cannot be subjected to reason. Since the trinity is unreasonable, it does not fit the bible definition of "mystery". In the bible, a "mystery" is something which is revealed to the elect, and is understood by them. The trinity, on the other hand, is illogical and nonsensical.

Besides, the trinity is not a "great mystery". It's just a simple trick.

Trinity is made possible for men to create because human beings classify, or define, or categorize, plural objects into one singular category or group defined by its label or name. 1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 1 category/group of 3 persons, and that category/group is defined as the one "God." God gave Adam the power to name things, define them, categorize them, and Adam found no suitable helper. We humans have this power of definition but we can abuse it if we misapply already defined terms. This categorization game is all Trinitarians are really doing. It's not rocket science. Their deity is one group of three persons and they name or label that one group as "God."

Mystery? No, it's just a trick.

Firstly, my original post was about that nature of the Incarnation and the diffuculty that even born agains have with fully grasping it. But If you would like to go to the Trininty, then let's.

Maybe an example from the created world will help you to understand. Water exists in three different states. Gas is not liquid, liquid is not solid, and solid is not gas; but all three are still water no matter what state they are in. Same principle goes with the Trinity, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Fatrher; but all three are equally the Almighty God possesing the attributes of God. Existing eternally, power of ex-nilhio creation, and omniscient.

As far as subjection to human reason, it is nothing without revelation from the Almighty in fact you would not have the ability to reason if God had not given it to you.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God,...

Pythagoras

September 2nd 2005, 01:57 AM

Hi,

Maybe an example from the created world will help you to understand. Water exists in three different states. Gas is not liquid, liquid is not solid, and solid is not gas; but all three are still water no matter what state they are in.

Gas water , Liquid water and Solid water are three states though the same water. This is a defense of Modalism not trinitarianism. Similarily, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the same God Almighty though in three different modes of being.

best wishes,

Apologia4JC18

September 2nd 2005, 06:24 AM

Hello Pythagoras.

First, I am very interested in any logical conundrums you might wish to pose against the hypostatic union and/or the Trinity. If you could provide specific examples of what you believe to be insoluble conceptual difficulties, I would very much appreciate it.

Secondly, I have a question: Do you believe that when God must choose between two options, he will always choose the more loving of the two?

If you would disagree with this, would you not be admitting that God could be more loving than he is? And given the fact that love is an intrinsic good, wouldn't this admission be equivalent to the claim that God could be better than he is? Once you reach this conclusion, I think it's fair to say that you have given up the God of Christian Theism for the god of Process Theology.

Assuming then that you would not disagree with the idea that God will always choose the most loving of actions in cases where such terms are applicable, I have another question:

In the atonement, God had two options. He could either (A) assume human form and endure the punishment for sin; or (B) create someone else to do it.

Now, it seems self-evident to me that (A) is the more loving scenario. If this is the case and if it is also the case that God always chooses the more loving scenario, then it seems to follow that God must have chosen (A). If it is the case that God chose (A) and if it is also the case Jesus is the only human to atone for sin, then it seems to follow that Jesus must be God.

As far as I can tell, there are two ways in which one might try to rebut the argument:

(1) It is impossible for God to assume human form, and therefore it was not within his realm of options with respect to the atonement.

(2) Scenario (B) is actually more loving than scenario (A), despite appearances to the contrary.

In the case of (1), the burden lies with you to demonstrate the incoherence involved in God becoming man. This is why I ask that you provide some examples for us that would serve to illustrate the fact. But in the absence of such a demonstration, we are justified in concluding that it is possible (thereby removing (1) from consideration).

If instead you opt for (2), then this would constitute a prime example of the very error you accuse Trinitarians of committing. In spite of our having no inkling of why (B) would be more loving than (A), you are asking us to accept that it is in fact so. "But the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus is not God, so (B) must be true, even if we don't know how" you may reply. But in such a case you would simply be reiterating the fact that human reason ought to be subject to Scripture, which is precisely what Trinitarians have been claiming. So it seems you are left with two choices: either drop your criticism of the Trinity based upon its alleged contradiction with reason, or find a way to successfully rebut the argument I have presented.

I look forward to your reply.

Pythagoras

September 2nd 2005, 11:23 PM

Greetings Apologia,

First, I am very interested in any logical conundrums you might wish to pose against the hypostatic union and/or the Trinity. If you could provide specific examples of what you believe to be insoluble conceptual difficulties, I would very much appreciate it.

Here's one, regarding the hypostatic union.

If Jesus is "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time, then he's neither truly God(since he is God + something(i.e. man) nor is he truly man since he is man + something(i.e. God).

Secondly, I have a question: Do you believe that when God must choose between two options, he will always choose the more loving of the two?

Probably.

In the atonement, God had two options. He could either (A) assume human form and endure the punishment for sin; or (B) create someone else to do it.

Now, it seems self-evident to me that (A) is the more loving scenario.

No, it's not obvious to me at all that (A) is the more loving option of the two. Do you know the effects upon the physical Universe and upon Heaven of the death of God ? Could the Universe endure God dying even for an instance? At the very least, evil would reign supreme and Hell would prevail upon Heaven and Earth if God died. Besides it's impossible for God to die, as the bible clearly says, so this is a nonsensical argument from the get go. Also your argument has other logical fallacies and inconsistencies associated with it. .. For instance the trinity doctrine is false,because it contradicts the Ransom, the central doctrine of the Bible: The Ransom doctrine is this: "The Man,” Jesus, is the corresponding price for Adam, and Adam's race condemned in his loins (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2.6) It makes it impossible that Christ could become a ransom--a corresponding price, a price equal in value to Adam's value as a perfect man--because it makes Him a God-man who must be as much more valuable than a perfect man as God is valuable. Hence a God-man was more than the corresponding price. God's justice must forbid receiving more than the corresponding price, just as much as it must forbid accepting less than the corresponding price. Again, the trinity doctrine makes the Ransom impossible from the standpoint that it makes the death of Christ factually impossible; for the trinity doctrine teaches that Christ, as the God-man, had two natures, Divine and human (a thing that actually makes Him a hybrid), and that the personality of the God-man was that of His Divine nature, not that of His human nature. This it teaches to escape the thought that the God-man is two persons, and to hold to the thought that He is but one person. But this makes it impossible for the person to have died, since God cannot die. Hence the trinitarian doctrine makes the Ransom impossible, i. e., that a perfect human person died for the perfect human person Adam. Thus we see that the trinity doctrine makes it impossible for Christ to become the Ransom and also to give the Ransom. But, thirdly, the trinity doctrine makes it impossible from another standpoint for Christ to give the Ransom; because if God is a trinity the entire trinity's justice must be satisfied, not simply a part of it. Hence the Son, as a part of the trinity, would have to have His justice satisfied. Hence He could not give the Ransom; He must receive it. The Ransomer would have to be someone outside of the trinity. Hence this point proves that the Ransom could not be received, since it could not satisfy the entire God; and it also proves that a member of the trinity could not bring it.

In the case of (1), the burden lies with you to demonstrate the incoherence involved in God becoming man.

The Scripture says God cannot die and God is not a man.

drop your criticism of the Trinity based upon its alleged contradiction with reason,

Why not just ask me to accept the idea that the Earth is flat by ignoring the logical inconsistencies associated with such a belief?

best wishes,

Zipperhead

September 3rd 2005, 01:15 AM

I found this on BlueLetterBible, looks pretty comprehensive:

http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/robert_bowman/trinity.html

Section VI is of course most relevent here.

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 01:00 AM

If Jesus is "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time, then he's neither truly God(since he is God + something(i.e. man) nor is he truly man since he is man + something(i.e. God).Why can't a fully divine nature and a fully human nature harmoniously cooperate with one another, in that the human nature has no divinity in it, but has the special attribute of being without the imputed sinfulness of Adam, and the divine nature has no humanity in it, but doesn't cause the human nature to be without physical pain, bowel movements, natural (but not the sinful) instincts, etc. ?No, it's not obvious to me at all that (A) is the more loving option of the two.So it's more loving to create someone to suffer than to suffer yourself?Do you know the effects upon the physical Universe and upon Heaven of the death of God ?Trinitarians don't believe that God the Father died or that the Holy Ghost died. Besides, Trinitarians don't believe that Christ's spirit died, just his body....and God is not a man.A hypostatic union is not a man, it's a hypostatic union.

Apologia4JC18

September 4th 2005, 04:10 AM

Hello Pythagoras. I appreciate the reply.

If I have correctly understood your post, then you are making the following claims:

(1) God always chooses the more loving scenario between any two options.

(2) The hypostatic union is logically incoherent, thus (A) is not the most loving option (meaning God would not bring about that scenario).

(3) The hypostatic union is inconsistent with Habakkuk 1:12.

(4) Trinitarian Theology fails to satisfy the justice of the ransom sacrifice.

(5) Trinitarian Theology fails to satify the justifice of at least some members of its Godhead.

One can see that if claims (2)-(5) are refuted, then my previous post stands as stated (the force of my opening question returning in full).

Turning then, to claim (2): Is the hypostatic union incoherent? In support of the affirmative, you offered this argument:

If Jesus is "fully God" and "fully Man" at the same time, then he's neither truly God(since he is God + something(i.e. man) nor is he truly man since he is man + something(i.e. God).

Now, I have to confess some confusion as to what this argument is trying to establish. Is it meant to assert that a given thing can only "truly" have a property X if it has no other properties? Surely not; my being "fully human" in no way impugns my being "truly male" (human + something).

Perhaps however, what you mean to say is that God has no accidental properties. In other words, everything that is true of him is true of him necessarily. Thus, on such a construal, he could never become man (since "being a man" would be something he could have chosen not to be).

In response to this formulation of the argument, I would simply deny the premise that God has only necessary properties. Take for example, the property of being "Creator of the world". It is normally assumed that God had the freedom to refrain from creation, thus making his property of being Creator an accidental (or contingent) property.

Given that I know of no other way of formulating the argument, if you meant something other than what I said you'll have to offer clarification in further posts.

Turning then to claim (3), it must first be realized that when Trinitarians speak of the "death" of the second person of the Trinity, they mean merely to assert that the physical body of Jesus underwent expiration, it ceased to function. This is certainly the normal (but not the only) meaning of the term as we use it. Used in this way, it does not imply passing into nonexistence, and God's death in this way needn't have any drastic consequences associated with it.

But is this the meaning of "death" in Habakkuk 1:12? The immediate context surrounding the phrase in question suggests otherwise. The question being answered is, "Are you not eternal?". Because of this, it makes much more sense to view the verse as teaching that God will never cease to exist. And with this Trinitarians fully agree; Jesus did not (cannot) cease to exist. Once understood in this light, it seems the Arian argument at this point committs the fallacy of equivocation.

Turning then, to claim (4): Does Trinitarian Theology fail to satisfy the justice of the ransom sacrifice? In support of the affirmative, you give the following:

The Ransom doctrine is this: "The Man,” Jesus, is the corresponding price for Adam, and Adam's race condemned in his loins (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2.6) It makes it impossible that Christ could become a ransom--a corresponding price, a price equal in value to Adam's value as a perfect man--because it makes Him a God-man who must be as much more valuable than a perfect man as God is valuable. Hence a God-man was more than the corresponding price. God's justice must forbid receiving more than the corresponding price, just as much as it must forbid accepting less than the corresponding price.

In responding to this argument, we may ask a simple question: What is it called when we receive payment that is not owed to us? Grace. Is grace opposed to justice? No. In light of this, can we consider the extra currency given in Christ's atonement to be contrary to justice? Of course not. Thus, the objection fails.

And lastly, we are given this argument in support of claim (5):

the trinity doctrine makes it impossible from another standpoint for Christ to give the Ransom; because if God is a trinity the entire trinity's justice must be satisfied, not simply a part of it. Hence the Son, as a part of the trinity, would have to have His justice satisfied. Hence He could not give the Ransom; He must receive it. The Ransomer would have to be someone outside of the trinity. Hence this point proves that the Ransom could not be received, since it could not satisfy the entire God; and it also proves that a member of the trinity could not bring it.

The above is of course founded on the assumption that somehow each member of the Trinity possesses their own attribute of justice, such that the justice of the Father differs from the justice of the Son, and the Son's differs from the Spirit's, and so on. And yet, this is precisely what Trinitarians deny: Each member is not a separate being from the others, complete with their own attributes and nature. Rather, they are unified in all things, justice included.

Thus, I do not believe that any of the anti-trinitarian arguments so far presented have been successful. We are therefore back to square one, the substance of my previous post having gone unscathed.

This means we must face the reality that God's incarnation was indeed possible, and therefore the most loving course of action to take with respect to the atonement. Since God always chooses the most loving of actions, we may safely conclude that he did so in this case as well. One conclusion inevitably follows: Jesus must be YHVH.

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 01:43 PM

Hi Zipperhead,

Why can't a fully divine nature and a fully human nature harmoniously cooperate with one another, in that the human nature has no divinity in it, but has the special attribute of being without the imputed sinfulness of Adam, and the divine nature has no humanity in it, but doesn't cause the human nature to be without physical pain, bowel movements, natural (but not the sinful) instincts, etc. ?

This sounds like the Nestorian heresy. If Jesus is fully God and fully man in one being, then he can neither truly be God nor can he truly be man.There is no way around this predicament.

Ofcourse you could protest , scream all you want, as I suspect you will next post, but it won't change the facts.

So it's more loving to create someone to suffer than to suffer yourself?

No, it's more loving and just to create a ransom of proportional value to atone for the sin of humanity than it is for God himself to die . Furthermore, if God were to die, it would ferment infinite suffering in the Universe, since evil would reign supreme. This is not more loving than to create someone else to die. Is it even possible for the Universe to exist, even for an instant, with a dead God?

Trinitarians don't believe that God the Father died or that the Holy Ghost died.

No, they believe God the Son died . And since God the Son is the second person of the holy trinity, God died on the cross. Or are you saying only a third of God died on the cross, with two thirds running the sohw in the interim?

Trinitarians don't believe that Christ's spirit died, just his body

Then he didn't really taste death for all men (as the scriptures say he did), but only his outer shell, his body, died.

You're saying a soulless carcass atoned for the sin of the world. How then is Christ's death efficacious? When the bible says Christ knew no sin , it means his soul knew no sin, for the flesh counts for nothing(read John chapter 6). This sinless soul had to atone for the sin of the world by dying.

A hypostatic union is not a man, it's a hypostatic union

You're arguing in circles.

Besides, a hypostatic union is not merely a man, it's a God-Man(Hybrid).

best wishes,

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 02:46 PM

Hi Apologia4j,

(1) God always chooses the more loving scenario between any two options.

I suspect so. Yes, for the sake of discussion.

2) The hypostatic union is logically incoherent, thus (A) is not the most loving option (meaning God would not bring about that scenario).

Yes, the hypostatic union is logically incoherent. (A) is not the most loving option for a variety of reasons, not just one.

(3) The hypostatic union is inconsistent with Habakkuk 1:12.

Yes. Hab. 1:12 is clear. There is no honest way around it.

(4) Trinitarian Theology fails to satisfy the justice of the ransom sacrifice.

Yes. It's self-contradictory and logic defying in a number of respects.

(5) Trinitarian Theology fails to satify the justifice of at least some members of its Godhead.

There are many logical contradictions. For example, only one person of the holy trinity both satisfies and receieves the atonement.

One can see that if claims (2)-(5) are refuted, then my previous post stands as stated (the force of my opening question returning in full).

Doesn't follow..

Is it meant to assert that a given thing can only "truly" have a property X if it has no other properties? Surely not; my being "fully human" in no way impugns my being "truly male" (human + something).

To illustrate, let's example a true hermaphrodite , one who is "fully male" and "fully female" in one being. Let's imagine, for the sake of discussion, that such a being can truly exist . Is this being truly/only male? Yes or no? Is this being truly/only female? Yes or No?

Turning then to claim (3), it must first be realized that when Trinitarians speak of the "death" of the second person of the Trinity, they mean merely to assert that the physical body of Jesus underwent expiration, it ceased to function.

The bible says Christ tasted death for all men. The bible also says the soul that sins must die. If only Christ's physical body died, and not his soul, then he didn't do anything on the cross , he simply shed the outer casing , the perishable, inconsequential partl and escaped unscratched, without tasting death of soul as all men do...

This is certainly the normal (but not the only) meaning of the term as we use it. Used in this way, it does not imply passing into nonexistence, and God's death in this way needn't have any drastic consequences associated with it.

Ofcourse no drastic consequences are associated with the death of the body, since the flesh counts for nothing(Read John chapter 6) . It's a worthless sacrifice, inconsequential..

But is this the meaning of "death" in Habakkuk 1:12? The immediate context surrounding the phrase in question suggests otherwise. The question being answered is, "Are you not eternal?". Because of this, it makes much more sense to view the verse as teaching that God will never cease to exist. And with this Trinitarians fully agree; Jesus did not (cannot) cease to exist.

Your interpretation of Hab. 1:12 could just as easily be applied to Satan and sinful humanity for they also don't cease to exist , as is evident by their eternal torment in Hell. Hab. i:12 is not saying God cannot be annihilated, it's saying God cannot die, period. Jesus Christ on the other hand, is the first born from among the dead, he was dead and is alive for evermore. Thus he's not God.

No. In light of this, can we consider the extra currency given in Christ's atonement to be contrary to justice? Of course not. Thus, the objection fails.

You're missing the point. Neither God nor a God-Man is the legal/appropriate scapegoat to atone for Adam's sin.

One conclusion inevitably follows: Jesus must be YHVH

I beg to differ.

best wishes,

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 03:17 PM

This sounds like the Nestorian heresy.I plead guilty then.Ofcourse you could protest , scream all you want, as I suspect you will next post, but it won't change the facts.May we leave lines like these out?Or are you saying only a third of God died on the cross, with two thirds running the sohw in the interim?That's the idea.Then he didn't really taste death for all men (as the scriptures say he did), but only his outer shell, his body, died.What does it mean to "taste death" in a spiritual sense? When we die, in what way do our souls die? Are you supposing our souls have some sort of material to them that is slain in a way similar to our bodies, and that this happened to Christ?This sinless soul had to atone for the sin of the world by dying.Oh you believe in universal atonement? "The world" in places that speak of Christ "dying for the sins of," or "God so loving" does not mean every individual of mankind without exception. Jesus died for the elect only. You talk about efficacious atonement, but then you imply freewillism. The two don't go together.Besides, a hypostatic union is not merely a man, it's a God-Man(Hybrid).I agree.

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 04:11 PM

Hi Zipperhead,

What does it mean to "taste death" in a spiritual sense? When we die, in what way do our souls die? Are you supposing our souls have some sort of material to them that is slain in a way similar to our bodies, and that this happened to Christ?

These are all fine, legitimate questions and theologians have been struggling with them for a long time now. However for purposes of our discussion it doesn't matter one way or other in what way the soul dies because you don't believe Christ's soul died. Or would you like to now modify your position? Please feel free to do so. But I warn doing so will create more problems than it will solve.

Here are the facts:

(A) You said only Christ's body died, his soul didn't.

But the bible says

(B) "All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

(B) "The soul that sins will surely die." (Ezek 18:4)

(C)"Christ tasted death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9)

Therefore if Christ's soul didn't die on the cross, he didn't taste death for every man, for the soul that sins surely dies, and every man has sinned.

Do you now agree that Christ's soul died? Yes or No?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 04:46 PM

P.S. Apologia4,

Is it meant to assert that a given thing can only "truly" have a property X if it has no other properties? Surely not; my being "fully human" in no way impugns my being "truly male" (human + something).

This is sheer desperation . Being "truly male" is not being human + something, it's simply being human. Human beings are males, females, and hermaphrodites. All truly human . But true males are not hermaphrodites though both groups are truly human, neither are true females hermaphrodites though both groups are also truly human, nor are hermaphrodites truely male or female though all three groups are truly human.

. And a God-Man much less so is either truly God or truly man..

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 08:45 PM

(B) "The soul that sins will surely die." (Ezek 18:4)You believe Christ sinned? And just out of curiosity, what way do you think Christ's soul died? What way do you believe any soul dies when the physical body dies?

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 09:06 PM

Hi Zipperhead,

You believe Christ sinned?

Read 2 Cor. 5:21.

Christ became sin for us and paid the full penalth for our sins, the penalty being the death of the soul.-- "the soul that sins will die."

And just out of curiosity, what way do you think Christ's soul died?

Christ's soul died when it was separated from God. The trinitairan Martin Luther was at a loss to explain this. He simply termed it a mystery and lamented, "God forsaking God, how is that possible"? Good question, how can God forsake Himself?

best wishes,

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 09:13 PM

Christ's soul died when it was separated from God.In what way did Christ's soul "die" when it was seperated from God?The trinitairan Martin Luther was at a loss to explain this. He simply termed it a mystery and lamented, "God forsaking God, how is that possible"? Good question, how can God forsake Himself?Trinitarians believe the Father was forsaking the Son, not the Son being seperated from the Son.

Besides, Christ was conscious and cried out about the Father forsaking him before he "gave up the ghost."

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 09:26 PM

Hi Zipperhead,

In what way did Christ's soul "die" when it was seperated from God?

I don't know. But the following are biblical facts: the soul that sins will die, God turns away from a sinful soul, Christ paid the fullpenalty for our sin.

Trinitarians believe the Father was forsaking the Son, not the Son being seperated from the Son.

How is forsaking different from separation?

Besides, Christ was conscious and cried out about the Father forsaking him before he "gave up the ghost"

So?

Let me ask you this question: How can God forsake Himself?

good luck,

alam

September 4th 2005, 09:34 PM

Hello Apologia4JC18 :

Thank you for your offer to discuss arguments against the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Most Trinitarians it seems will not touch those areas of controversy with a ten foot pole, so, please forgive my availing of your invitation despite not being Pythagoras.

Secondly, I have a question: Do you believe that when God must choose between two options, he will always choose the more loving of the two?

If you would disagree with this, would you not be admitting that God could be more loving than he is? And given the fact that love is an intrinsic good, wouldn't this admission be equivalent to the claim that God could be better than he is? Once you reach this conclusion, I think it's fair to say that you have given up the God of Christian Theism for the god of Process Theology.

If God could create a universe in which all creatures reach their own potential for blessedness (become as blessed as they can possibly be), would this scenario be more loving than that in which only some creatures reached their potential for blessedness, or none ever could? At an intuitive level this would seem to be the case. And it would seem that God, for whom all things are possible, could create such a universe. If God created such a universe, and could choose what each creature's potential for blessedness would be, would it not be more loving to confer on them a greater rather than a lesser potential for such? This would also seem to be the case. But short of God Himself, there is no greatest state of blessedness. So no matter which universe God creates, it would always be possible for Him to have been more loving.

If this is correct, we can tentatively conclude one of three things - (1) that Process Theology is true, and God could always be better than He is, (2) Atheism, on the view that if God is not the greatest possible being, the concept of "God" has no meaning at all, or (3) God's essence is independent of His activity : He is the Good and Ultimate by virtue of who He is, apart from what He does. He is not essentially obligated to show love to one degree versus another. Moreover, although God could always display more love, there would seem to be countless ways in which God could display less love than He has. God is infinitely loving (in the sense of agapē, disinterested love, 1 Cor. 13:5, and kharis, undeserved kindness) in that the distance between what He had to do for us (i.e. in His own interest), and what He has actually done for us is infinite.

Assuming then that you would not disagree with the idea that God will always choose the most loving of actions in cases where such terms are applicable, I have another question:

In the atonement, God had two options. He could either (A) assume human form and endure the punishment for sin; or (B) create someone else to do it.

Now, it seems self-evident to me that (A) is the more loving scenario. If this is the case and if it is also the case that God always chooses the more loving scenario, then it seems to follow that God must have chosen (A). If it is the case that God chose (A) and if it is also the case Jesus is the only human to atone for sin, then it seems to follow that Jesus must be God.

As far as I can tell, there are two ways in which one might try to rebut the argument:

(1) It is impossible for God to assume human form, and therefore it was not within his realm of options with respect to the atonement.

(2) Scenario (B) is actually more loving than scenario (A), despite appearances to the contrary.

In the case of (1), the burden lies with you to demonstrate the incoherence involved in God becoming man. This is why I ask that you provide some examples for us that would serve to illustrate the fact. But in the absence of such a demonstration, we are justified in concluding that it is possible (thereby removing (1) from consideration).

If instead you opt for (2), then this would constitute a prime example of the very error you accuse Trinitarians of committing. In spite of our having no inkling of why (B) would be more loving than (A), you are asking us to accept that it is in fact so. "But the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus is not God, so (B) must be true, even if we don't know how" you may reply. But in such a case you would simply be reiterating the fact that human reason ought to be subject to Scripture, which is precisely what Trinitarians have been claiming. So it seems you are left with two choices: either drop your criticism of the Trinity based upon its alleged contradiction with reason, or find a way to successfully rebut the argument I have presented.

Why should we drop the criticism of Trinitarianism along rational lines when Trinitarians themselves attempt to engage Arians in rational argumentation, along with Mormons and others with whom they may disagree?

No one has denied that human reason must be subjected to Scripture. Conversely, understanding what Scripture says involves the exercise of basic rational skills. Logic cannot be used apart from scripture in creating doctrines, but neither can scripture be used apart from logic.

First, I am very interested in any logical conundrums you might wish to pose against the hypostatic union and/or the Trinity. If you could provide specific examples of what you believe to be insoluble conceptual difficulties, I would very much appreciate it.

The initial argument is pretty simple :

(1) Because of his humanity, Christ was not omniscient (i.e. there was at least one thing he did not know, Mark 13:32).

(2) Because of his divinity, Christ was omniscient (he knew everything).

(3) Then Christ knew something that he did not know (1,2).

It is a tautology that A v ~A (A is true or A is not true, substituting any proposition for A that you like).

Thus, its negation, ~(A v ~A) or A & ~A is a logical contradiction. (3) is a statement of this form and is therefore a logical contradiction.

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

AFAICT there are three ways in which one might set out to refute this argument :

A. Deny (1),

B. Deny (2), or

C. Deny that (3) is actually a contradiction.

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

A. Denying (1) would apparently commit one to denying or eisegeting Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 :

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Additionally, if the divine attributes overrule human limitations wherever they come into conflict, which would seem to be the principle at work in the denial of (1), it is unclear how the Incarnation could have taken place at all, since being human is, by definition, a limitation.

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

B. Should (2) prove to be false, here are three further propositions we might want to consider :

(4) Only an omniscient being is God

(5) God cannot cease to be God

(6) God cannot begin to be God

If these premises are true and (2) is false, then,

(7) Christ was not God during his earthly life (4,1),

(8) Christ never was God (5,7),

(9) Never will be (6,7).

However, if the premises (4-6) are false, then God is not necessarily omniscient (denial of 4), and God is not even necessarily God (denial of 5-6).

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

C. If (1-2) are both correct and hence (3) is true, the contradiction might still be avoided by denying that the contradictories are true in the same respect. IOW Christ knew something in respect X (omniscience) that he did not know in respect Y.

Now, either Christ knew something in respect Y, or did not. If he did not even know something in respect Y, then he knew things only in respect X, as omniscient. Prima facie this is the same as being omniscient only, which takes us back to the denial of (1).

OTOH if he did know something in respect Y, then either his knowledge of this thing in respect Y was (a) included in his knowledge in respect X, or (b) was superadded to it.

(a) If included in his omniscience, then either all knowledge in respect Y is included in omniscience, and Christ, being omniscient, would have been omniscient even in that respect in which he was not omniscient, making the contradiction absolute, or, his omniscience grew/changed as Christ's knowledge in respect Y grew.

(b) If his knowledge in respect Y was superadded to his knowledge in respect X, then his knowledge overall is greater with this addition than without it.

Then, assuming that the Father does not have such superadded knowledge because He was not incarnated, the Son's knowledge must be even greater than the Father's, which ironically reverses the intent of Mark 13:32.

And assuming that the Son himself did not have such superadded knowledge prior to the Incarnation, the Son's own knowledge has increased with the Incarnation, and will increase throughout eternity as another kind of knowledge is added to his "omniscience" without end.

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

In summary I think you must accept the conclusion of the argument, deny the reality of Christ's humanity, or corrupt the doctrine of God, but I would be glad to be shown mistaken.

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 09:36 PM

I don't know. But the following are biblical facts: the soul that sins will die, God turns away from a sinful soul, Christ paid the fullpenalty for our sin.So if you don't know how the death is, then how can you argue as if Christ's soul "died" in an unconscious-like way like the body dies? And if you can't argue in favor of such a thing, what's the problem with Father being seperated from Son?How is forsaking different from separation?Christ said the Father had forsaken him before his physical body died and he gave up the ghost, so what does the seperation mean if it's in such a way as to take place when the body is still alive housing the soul?Let me ask you this question: How can God forsake Himself?What's wrong with one person of the Trinity forsaking another?

Zipperhead

September 4th 2005, 09:47 PM

good luck,Quick sidebar, I think the word "luck" comes from the word "Lucifer" because the concept of luck is one of trusting in "fate" of some sort as a type of impersonal ultimate standard of exciting and dangerous randomness, and not God's holy will.

Pythagoras

September 4th 2005, 09:49 PM

Hi Zipperhead,

So if you don't know how the death is, then how can you argue as if Christ's soul "died" in an unconscious-like way like the body dies?

Because the bile clearly says the soul that sins must die. Even though I don't know how the soul dies, the bible says it does.

And if you can't argue in favor of such a thing, what's the problem with Father being seperated from Son?

Because it is logically impossible for God to be separated from Himself , just as it is logically impossible for you to separate yourself from yourself, or be outside of yourself. Unless ofcourse the trinity is actually three Gods .

What's wrong with one person of the Trinity forsaking another?

The trinity forsaken of the Son, for example, is no longer a triunity , for one of the "three persons" is out of commission, no longer three in one essence. As mentioned above, it is illogical for God to forsake Himself. He ceases to exist as the triune God. In a previous post you said two-thirds of the trinitarian God could exist without the other third, which is conceptually absurd even by trinitarian standards . For example two-sides of a triangle do not a triangle make.

good luck,

Pythagoras

September 5th 2005, 01:57 AM

Good Avtar Alam,

Matt. 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come,you who are blessed of my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world..."

Is this inheritance not worth more than anything the world can offer?

Mat. 4: 8-10 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan. For it is written:'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.' "

The Saints must do the same.

alam

September 5th 2005, 02:31 AM

Good Avtar Alam,

Thanks, Pythagoras. The original (as well as the last one) came from these images of Ostrogothic mosaics from Ravenna :

http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ulj/uljc.html

Matt. 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come,you who are blessed of my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world..."

Is this inheritance not worth more than anything the world can offer?

Mat. 4: 8-10 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan. For it is written:'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.' "

The Saints must do the same.

Amen, and God bless

sowerowrd

September 5th 2005, 07:05 PM

I am noticing an interesting pattern in the posts of the anti-Trinitarians, they love to quote scripture where and when it profits their side of the argument. But let's take it all the way.

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was comming, and now is already in the world.

We see here what John the beloved taught of people who deny the very real humanity of Jesus, they are influenced by the spirit of Satan. The same apostle that Joseph Smith was "inspired" by to start Mormonism has very harsh teachings against the very ideas that Pythagoras and Alam propose to uphold.

To deny either the full humanity of Christ or the full Diety of Christ are both equal herisies. God never tells us to be able to rationalize these doctines but to simply believe them. Do you think El-Shaddai needs you or me to figure out the logic of the Incarnation, no He is Almighty God and does not need to reveal anything to any of us.

The secret things belong to the Lord...

:read:

dfrye1

September 5th 2005, 08:00 PM

John 1:1 makes it very clear Jesus is God. In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word (Jesus) was with God and the Word (Jesus) is God.

John 1:14 And the Word (Jesus) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus Christ is clearly God!

Pythagoras

September 6th 2005, 12:34 AM

Hi dfrye1,

John 1:1 makes it very clear Jesus is God. In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word (Jesus) was with God and the Word (Jesus) is God.

John 1:14 And the Word (Jesus) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus Christ is clearly God!

John 1:1 doesn't say Jesus is God Almighty, but god with a small 'g'. Even humans are called gods in scripture and by Jesus himself, see John 10:34. In traditional Jewish thought Messiah is a pre-existent being who was created before the foundation of the world (see the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading pre-existent Messiah). So ofcourse Jesus had to "become flesh" at the appropriate time as John 1:14 says.

John 1:1 is a perfect example of the trinitarian penchant for distortion of scripture. Centuries before the JW's ,Origen the Church Father, gives us the proper exegesis to John 1:1.

Expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen wrote,

“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.”

Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

Btw., you didn't even accurately quote John 1:1. It's not "...and the word is god" but "....and the word was god".... Very pathetic.

good luck,

alam

September 6th 2005, 12:41 AM

I am noticing an interesting pattern in the posts of the anti-Trinitarians, they love to quote scripture where and when it profits their side of the argument. But let's take it all the way.

It is hardly productive to quote scripture when it does not profit your side of the argument. Case in point:

1 John 4:2,3 (NKJV)
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was comming, and now is already in the world.

From this you seem to conclude that:

To deny either the full humanity of Christ or the full Diety of Christ are both equal herisies.

Is this just terrible eisegesis of 1 John 4:2-3, blatant question begging, or both? :huh:

The same apostle that Joseph Smith was "inspired" by to start Mormonism has very harsh teachings against the very ideas that Pythagoras and Alam propose to uphold.

It would seem to be a good thing if whatever inspired Joseph Smith teaches harshly against our beliefs.

God never tells us to be able to rationalize these doctines but to simply believe them.

But the scriptures do not show that God ever told us about these doctrines to begin with.

The law of non-contradiction (that something cannot be true and false at the same time, in the same respect) is prerequisite to truth. Truth is either true to the exclusion of being false, or it is nothing at all, wouldn't you agree?

Regards,

Apologia4JC18

September 6th 2005, 08:30 AM

Hello once again. My internet had been down for a couple of days, thus the delay. My apologies. In this post I will respond to Pythagoras. I hope to respond to alam shortly.

Though I had originally assumed that you viewed (A) as less loving because of its impossibility, apparently there are other issues involved as well. If you could mention those in upcoming posts, I'd appreciate it.

You say that my refutation of your objections wouldn't imply the soundness of my original post, and I am simply at a loss to explain how it would not do so. If I refuted your charges of incoherence regarding the hypostatic union, if I refuted your other philosophical objections against the Trinity, and if I refuted your understanding of Habakukk 1:12, would it not follow that we ought to conclude (1) that it was possible for God to become incarnated and offer the atonement and (2) that it was more loving for God to do so? If this is granted, then it follows inescapably that Jesus is God.

In response to my criticism of your argument against the hypostatic union, you said:

To illustrate, let's example a true hermaphrodite , one who is "fully male" and "fully female" in one being. Let's imagine, for the sake of discussion, that such a being can truly exist . Is this being truly/only male? Yes or no? Is this being truly/only female? Yes or No?

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether sexual identity is truly dependent on the possession of certain physical organs, it may be said that no, such a being is not truly AND *only* female? Of course, such an observation has zero consequence for the hypostatic union, which claims that Christ is both truly (but not only) God, and truly (but not only) man. Thus, the comparison is one of apples to oranges.

In response to my remarks about the nature of Christ's death, you said:

The bible says Christ tasted death for all men. The bible also says the soul that sins must die. If only Christ's physical body died, and not his soul, then he didn't do anything on the cross , he simply shed the outer casing , the perishable, inconsequential partl and escaped unscratched, without tasting death of soul as all men do...

I'm not quite certain whether there is a real disagreement here. Yes, Christ suffered the same sort of "death" on the cross that the unrepentant will themselves face: Unbearable conscious agony. In this way he tasted death for all men. If however, you mean to assert that Christ himself ceased to exist during death, then he cannot be the source by which the universe holds together (as Colossians 1:17 declares him to be). Thus, a death in this sense would indeed have drastic consequences for the universe.

In response to your view that the sacrifice of Christ's body (flesh) would be worthless and inconsequential, I point you to our Lord's own words:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51)

Your discussion of Habakkuk 1:12 fails to address the immediate context in which the phrase under discussion appears. Leaving that aside however, the meaning of the verse is obvious: In no way can the prophet be saying that God's body will never cease to function (since God is not essentially embodied, and was not embodied in any sense during this time). Rather, "death" must here refer to the cessation of existence.

You failed to address my responses to your arguments regarding the justice of the ransom sacrifice. Am I to conclude that you no longer wish to press these arguments?

And finally, you refer to my example of being human + male as "sheer desperation." I fail to see what leads you to this conclusion. If being human simply involves the possibilities of being male, female, or hermaphrodite (among other things: e. g. tall or short, big or little, fast or slow), then one might retort in the same manner that being God includes the possibilities of being anything that does not conflict with his essential attributes (among other things: e. g. the sum total of those divine attributes).

At this point then, I have yet to see any reason to think my initial arguments to be mistaken. Thus, it seems clear to me that Jesus must be God.

Pythagoras

September 6th 2005, 12:08 PM

Hi Apologia4,

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether sexual identity is truly dependent on the possession of certain physical organs, it may be said that no, such a being is not truly AND *only* female?

Thank You.

Of course, such an observation has zero consequence for the hypostatic union, which claims that Christ is both truly (but not only) God, and truly (but not only) man. Thus, the comparison is one of apples to oranges.

Such an observation is absolutely applicable and is not comparing apples and oranges.

Christ is Fully God + Fully Man in one being. A true hermaphrodite is Fully Male + Fully Female in one being.

Your quandary remains.

If however, you mean to assert that Christ himself ceased to exist during death, then he cannot be the source by which the universe holds together (as Colossians 1:17 declares him to be). Thus, a death in this sense would indeed have drastic consequences for the universe.

I'm starting to loose patience . Numerous times I've shown ,using bible quotes, that Christ's soul died. When a soul dies it is not annihilated, just as Satan and sinful humanity is spiritually dead, and their souls are not annihilated in hell.

(A)Do you agree Christ's soul died?
(B) How can the soul of God(Jesus) die?
(B) How can God("the Father") forsake himself("the Son")?

In response to your view that the sacrifice of Christ's body (flesh) would be worthless and inconsequential, I point you to our Lord's own words:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51)

Read John Chapter 6:63-64.

Your discussion of Habakkuk 1:12 fails to address the immediate context in which the phrase under discussion appears. Leaving that aside however, the meaning of the verse is obvious: In no way can the prophet be saying that God's body will never cease to function (since God is not essentially embodied, and was not embodied in any sense during this time). Rather, "death" must here refer to the cessation of existence.

Why would the prophet say of God what is applicable even to Satan, his angels and to sinful humanity ? Habakuk when he asserts God doesn't die says a few things:

(A)God doesn't die because He is not a man, nor a God-Man like the pagan deities who come down in human form in hypostatic union only to die in flesh, and or soul. Remember the context here. The Chaledans with their pagan gods were in the process of attacking Israel. Habakuk was assuring his people that the God of Israel wasnot like the pagan gods who die like men.

(B) God's doesn't die at all, either physically or spiritually. We know on the other hand Satan and his angels are eternally tormented in hell and spiritually dead.

"(since God is not essentially embodied, and was not embodied in any sense during this time)"

Precisely. An embodied God is not the true God of the Bible; such a God Habakuk knew not and would have been horrified by , as is evident by his explicit proclamation in Hab. 1:12.

And finally, you refer to my example of being human + male as "sheer desperation." I fail to see what leads you to this conclusion. If being human simply involves the possibilities of being male, female, or hermaphrodite (among other things: e. g. tall or short, big or little, fast or slow), then one might retort in the same manner that being God includes the possibilities of being anything that does not conflict with his essential attributes (among other things: e. g. the sum total of those divine attributes).

A "male" is not "human + male", but simply "human", i.e. "male" is sub-set of "human". But a "God-Man" is "God" + something outside the subset of what is God, i.e. "human"..

. Thus, it seems clear to me that Jesus must be God.

This is as absurd, perhaps more so than suggesting you Apologia4, is a baked potato topped with sour cream and chives.

best wishes,

sowerowrd

September 6th 2005, 09:23 PM

The law of non-contradiction (that something cannot be true and false at the same time, in the same respect) is prerequisite to truth. Truth is either true to the exclusion of being false, or it is nothing at all, wouldn't you agree?

Let us use the law of noncontrdiction which is more properly stated, A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. So with this understanding of the logic principle in debate here, we see that God cannot be God and non-God at the same time and in the same relationship. If we apply this to the Trinity we see that God exists in three different persons (A) but is one in the divine essence (B). So, logically God is three A and one B, no contradiction.

The Incarnation is where one person of the Trinity (Christ) took on the form of a man (C). So if we follow the logic rule of noncontradiction, one A became C while remaining B. A member of the Trinity became a man and still maintained His divinity, how awesome is the power of God to do this.

Is this just terrible eisegesis of 1 John 4:2-3, blatant question begging, or both?

Exegisis is not always necessary to understand the meaning of scripture, some times it is right there in you face. But I am curious, what else could John be saying there, any thoughts?

It is hardly productive to quote scripture when it does not profit your side of the argument. Case in point:

But it is very dangerous to come up with a doctirne and then find scripture that "supports" it, rather we shopuld find our doctrines from the scripture it self.

It would seem to be a good thing if whatever inspired Joseph Smith teaches harshly against our beliefs.

So you are not a Mormon, I apologze for my assumption.

But the scriptures do not show that God ever told us about these doctrines to begin with.

Trinity:
Go therefore and make diciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Incarnation:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
So all this was done that it might be fufilled whichwas spoen by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

:fencing:

alam

September 7th 2005, 05:02 AM

Hello sowerowrd :

Let us use the law of noncontrdiction which is more properly stated, A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.

I am not sure that is more "proper," just more formal with the propositional letter. Let us agree on Aristotle's formulation, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

So with this understanding of the logic principle in debate here, we see that God cannot be God and non-God at the same time and in the same relationship. If we apply this to the Trinity we see that God exists in three different persons (A) but is one in the divine essence (B). So, logically God is three A and one B, no contradiction.

So far so good.........

So if we follow the logic rule of noncontradiction, one A became C while remaining B. A member of the Trinity became a man and still maintained His divinity, how awesome is the power of God to do this.

Yet C (human nature) and B (divine nature) have conflicting properties, such as being finite (F) versus infinite (~F). When you predicate both of these of the single hypostasis A, again we seem to have a violation of non-contradiction (Fa & ~Fa).

Exegisis is not always necessary to understand the meaning of scripture, some times it is right there in you face. But I am curious, what else could John be saying there, any thoughts?

AFAICT the verses are straightforward in condemning the denial of Christ's incarnation. Since I do believe Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, truly suffered and died, and was bodily resurrected and taken up to Heaven, these verses ought not to be an issue for us.

But it is very dangerous to come up with a doctirne and then find scripture that "supports" it, rather we shopuld find our doctrines from the scripture it self.

Very true.

So you are not a Mormon, I apologze for my assumption.

No problem.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make diciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Well, I do believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just not that they are a sort of fraternity of co-eternal beings, and the verse in Matthew does not indicate that. Matthew 28:19 is consistent with the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to God the Father.

Matthew 1:18-23
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
So all this was done that it might be fufilled whichwas spoen by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Now this is a pertinent verse. First allow me to make a somewhat technical point. In the original Hebrew Immanuel means "God is with us." In Isaiah 8:10 the term 'Immanu El (עמנו אל), is used as part of the Hebrew sentence and is translated in English as "God is with us."

The Greek of Matthew uses the Septuagint translation of Immanuel, μεθ 'ημων 'ο θεος. This phrase appears in the same role as the Hebrew in verse 10, again translated as "God is with us" (Brenton). As is common with Hebrew theophoric names, the name is itself a kind of short sentence or statement.

Another Hebrew name, close to it, is Ithiel (Prov. 30:1) composed of 'ittiy (with me) and the theophoric element. This name certainly did not denote its bearer as God. The name is a statement meaning "God is with me."

Now, I anticipate you might ask what significance there was in the Messiah's title simply being "God is with us," as though God had not always been with the faithful of Israel. In what extraordinary way did God come to be with us through the birth of the Messiah, if the Messiah was not God Himself?

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.

Apologia4JC18

September 7th 2005, 08:00 AM

Christ is Fully God + Fully Man in one being. A true hermaphrodite is Fully Male + Fully Female in one being.

By "fully", Trinitarians do not mean "exclusively". Rather, they mean that Christ has the nature of God in its entirety and the nature of man in its entirety. It may be said that being "possibly human" is a sub-set of being God. In other words, God is not human, but he could choose to become human if he wished. It will not do to assert that this is incoherent. You must demonstrate that it in factviolates the principles of logic. I do not believe this has been done.

(A)Do you agree Christ's soul died? How can the soul of God(Jesus) die?
(B)How can God("the Father") forsake himself("the Son")?

I cannot give you my opinion on whether Christ's soul died (and how that could possibly happen) until you provide some idea of what you mean when you speak of the death endured by his soul. Otherwise, you might as well speak of the death endured by a blark.

Read John Chapter 6:63-64.

Pardon me if I express some surprise with your methodology here. You made the claim that the death of Christ's body would be "worthless and inconsequential." I respond by noting that Jesus himself contradicts this view, stating that his body would be given for the life of the world (hardly something of little value). To this, you merely tell me to read another passage of Scripture? As it happens, the reference I cited is sequentially prior to verses 63-64; so if anything, that passage must be interpreted in light of verse 51, and not the reverse (as you suggest). But secondly, could not I just as easily reply to your remarks by saying, "Reread John 6:51"?

Why would the prophet say of God what is applicable even to Satan, his angels and to sinful humanity?

Your assumption seems to be that prophets can never (or did never) ascribe to God what is also ascribed to sinful humanity. This assumption is demonstrably false:

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

In this passage Jesus explicitly ascribes to God (the giving of good gifts) what he also ascribes to sinful humanity. Thus, the idea that prophets never do this is simply mistaken. Christ, the greatest prophet of all, did this very thing!

To answer your question, one may note as you have above, that God is not like the pagan deities. He was never born, and he will never perish, as will the idols (cf. Jeremiah 10:10).

A "male" is not "human + male", but simply "human", i.e. "male" is sub-set of "human". But a "God-Man" is "God" + something outside the subset of what is God, i.e. "human"..

As has been said, one needn't view the situation in this way. Rather, one may say that being a "God-man" is being "God" + the instantiation of possible humanity (possible humanity being a subset of the divine substance, and actual humanity being an accidental property that inheres in a particular exemplification of the divine substance).

Apologia4JC18

September 7th 2005, 09:01 AM

Hello alam.

I appreciate your willingness to present these issues with such clarity and logical rigor. I look forward to a very interesting and fruitful exchange.

With respect to your remarks concerning the best possible world, I will cede for the sake of argument that such a world does not exist, that in fact the maximal description of reality could always be better than what it is. However, this is not strictly relevant to the point I was making: that God, when faced with two options (one of which is clearly better than the other), will always choose the better of the two. This I think follows pretty clearly from omni-benevolence. One way to avoid this idea (as you mentioned) is to posit a voluntaristic notion of God's relation to goodness, though I think this view suffers from some insuperable difficulties of its own (that we can discuss later if you wish).

As to the notion that logic must play a central role in our interpretation of Scripture, once again we are in full agreement. However, I think that our interpretation of Scripture should guide our interpretation of what is rational, rather than the other way around.

My own view regarding the extent of Christ's knowledge while on earth is that he lived by the Father, that is, his spectrum of awareness was directly governed by his Father as he proceeded about his daily life as a human.
Though he clearly lacked awareness of certain things during this time, must this mean that he did not nevertheless have knowledge of them in another sense? I don't see why, anymore than the suppression of knowledge by unbelievers implies that they are without excuse, having no knowledge of God.

Thus, I wonder:

If it is true that -

(A) Unbelievers can actively cause themselves to lose awareness of truths about the world, all the while retaining knowledge of those truths. (cf. Romans 1:18)

Cannot a similar situation be possible with reference to Jesus? To wit,

(B) Jesus can actively cause himself to lose awareness of truths about the world, all the while retaining knowledge of those truths.

If one takes Scripture seriously, then (A) is possible, which seems to imply that (B) is also possible. Thus, it seems that this particular challenge to the incarnation is stripped of its force when viewed from within a Christian theological framework.

Any thoughts?

Pythagoras

September 7th 2005, 03:00 PM

Hi Apologia4,

By "fully", Trinitarians do not mean "exclusively".

Therefore Christ is not exclusively God, he is God + Human.

Rather, they mean that Christ has the nature of God in its entirety and the nature of man in its entirety.

Christ has both natures. He cannot be separated from the two. The best word to describe such a being is hybrid.

It may be said that being "possibly human" is a sub-set of being God.

This is an absurd statement. The bile says "God is not a man neither is he a son of man". Jesus was both.

In other words, God is not human, but he could choose to become human if he wished.

There is nothing in the Bible which suggests this point of view.

It will not do to assert that this is incoherent.

It will not do to say God is "fully man" without evidence from scripture.

You must demonstrate that it in factviolates the principles of logic.

Alam has already shown this in a previous post.
You must also demonstrate that this idea is found in scripture. So far you have shown nothing in this regard.

I cannot give you my opinion on whether Christ's soul died (and how that could possibly happen) until you provide some idea of what you mean when you speak of the death endured by his soul. Otherwise, you might as well speak of the death endured by a blark.

I'm beginning to loose patience with you.Please understand simple logic.

From the bible, we get the following information:

(a)the soul that sins will die.
(b)all men have sinned.
(c)Jesus christ paid the full penalty for our sins.
(d)Jesus christ died.

From the above information we can conclude Christ's soul died.

Do you follow?
Do you at least agree Christ's soul died, whatever that personally means to you?

In my understanding the soul dies when it is forsaken/separated from God.

Pardon me if I express some surprise with your methodology here. You made the claim that the death of Christ's body would be "worthless and inconsequential." I respond by noting that Jesus himself contradicts this view, stating that his body would be given for the life of the world (hardly something of little value). To this, you merely tell me to read another passage of Scripture? As it happens, the reference I cited is sequentially prior to verses 63-64; so if anything, that passage must be interpreted in light of verse 51, and not the reverse (as you suggest). But secondly, could not I just as easily reply to your remarks by saying, "Reread John 6:51"?

If only Christ's flesh died then he did nothing of consequence on the cross, since the flesh counts for nothing , John 6:63-64.

Your assumption seems to be that prophets can never (or did never) ascribe to God what is also ascribed to sinful humanity. This assumption is demonstrably false:

That's not my assumption. Please listen carefully.

The words "God cannot die" mean God cannot die not God cannot be annihilated. Two different words with two different meanings. No human or angelic soul is ever annihilated, but many angels and humans die. Habakuk is drawing a contrast between God, the pagan deities and the enemies of Israel by saying God doesn't die. In contrast the pagan deities very often die like all men do.

To answer your question, one may note as you have above, that God is not like the pagan deities. He was never born, and he will never perish, as will the idols (cf. Jeremiah 10:10).

How is not perishing different from the pagan deities/angelic-demonic beings/men-god who too never perish or are not annihilated?

God is not like the pagan deities because he cannot take human form and die like a man, in addition to being eternal , omnipotent and omniscient.

Rather, one may say that being a "God-man" is being "God" + the instantiation of possible humanity (possible humanity being a subset of the divine substance, and actual humanity being an accidental property that inheres in a particular exemplification of the divine substance

Are you saying man is of the same substance or ousia as God?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

September 7th 2005, 04:49 PM

Further comment,

As has been said, one needn't view the situation in this way. Rather, one may say that being a "God-man" is being "God" + the instantiation of possible humanity (possible humanity being a subset of the divine substance, and actual humanity being an accidental property that inheres in a particular exemplification of the divine substance).

The short answer is that there is no "sub-set" of God , which was the point of my whole argument and which Apologia4 seems to have overlooked. The bible says "there is no one like God", i.e. there is no sub-set of God, He is unique. To be human is to belong to a distinct category(a set)(women are a sub-set of this category) of created, fallable beings made in God's image. To say that "humanity is an accidental property inherent in a particular examplification of the divine substance" and then from this to conclude mankind is a sub-set of God same way men and women are sub-sets of humanity is crazy. It is to embrace multiple contradictions,since man is not of the category of God (or a sub-set of God) as he is not uncreated, omniscient, atemporal and omnipotent in essence.

The hypostatic union thus embraces multiple contradictions by trying to fuse two distinct categories together .

This is even more silly than saying "to be male is to be male+ human ".

best wishes,

sowerowrd

September 7th 2005, 09:23 PM

Hello Alam,

I am not sure that is more "proper," just more formal with the propositional letter. Let us agree on Aristotle's formulation, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

Agreed

Yet C (human nature) and B (divine nature) have conflicting properties, such as being finite (F) versus infinite (~F). When you predicate both of these of the single hypostasis A, again we seem to have a violation of non-contradiction (Fa & ~Fa).

But, human nature does have a great deal in common with the divine nature,
we have been created in the image of God. The similarity could be summed up with the analogy of action figures. Humans:Action Figures::God:Humans. Action figures look like us and are proportioned similar to us, alike but not the same; in the same manner we are like God in that we can comprehend our existance, reason, and we have a will. This is what sets apart from the rest of the living creatures on the earth. So, if God could talk through the mouth of a dumb donkey, it should not be such a far stretch to say that He took on the form of a man.

Well, I do believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just not that they are a sort of fraternity of co-eternal beings, and the verse in Matthew does not indicate that. Matthew 28:19 is consistent with the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to God the Father.

Firstly, what do you believe about them?

Seocndly, if the Son and the Spirit are only subordinate then why even mention them in the list of baptismal names? Or, why not list John the Baptist and all the other prophets and Michael the archangel as well?

The Diety of Christ:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God...

When Chrsit says to believe in Him, He means to believe more than the fact that He existed but to believe that he is the Alpha and Omega, to beleive that He is God. If you do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God Almighty in the flesh then you do not have forgiveness of sins, you are still an enemy of God. This is the true Gospel of Christ, praise God for even having a chance to be forgiven, praise God that He took the penalty for His children. Are you a child of God? Do you believe? :ponder:

alam

September 8th 2005, 10:57 PM

Hello Apologia4JC18,

I appreciate your willingness to present these issues with such clarity and logical rigor. I look forward to a very interesting and fruitful exchange.

Thank you, I do as well.

One way to avoid this idea (as you mentioned) is to posit a voluntaristic notion of God's relation to goodness, though I think this view suffers from some insuperable difficulties of its own (that we can discuss later if you wish).

Whenever you like.

For the record, I do not believe that God's relation to goodness is voluntary. God is Good and some things are against His will because they are repugnant to His nature. He is True (1 John 5:20), for example, and cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

However, the relation between God's nature and activity is negative--His nature precludes His doing certain things, but does not require Him to act. Were it not for the covenants God has already made with the world, He could, consistently with His goodness, cease to conserve the entire cosmos, having already done more for it, by bringing it into existence in the first place, than anyone could reasonably expect (cf. Rev. 4:11).

Applied to God's love, this view says that although God is without hatred (understanding the hatred which scripture ascribes to God as idiomatic for "loving less," cf. Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26), He is under no requirement to display as much love as He possibly can. His nature only precludes His doing something that is unloving/malicious.

If this is true, the question should not be whether we can imagine a more loving alternative to God's purpose that the Son bear the penalty of sin, but whether anything is actually un-loving about it.

With respect to your remarks concerning the best possible world, I will cede for the sake of argument that such a world does not exist, that in fact the maximal description of reality could always be better than what it is. However, this is not strictly relevant to the point I was making: that God, when faced with two options (one of which is clearly better than the other), will always choose the better of the two. This I think follows pretty clearly from omni-benevolence.

If reality could always be better than it is, then for any possible world God could have chosen, there must have been a better possible world He would have chosen against.

If God, when confronted with two choices, must choose the better of the two, and when confronted with three choices He must choose the better of the three (which would seem to follow given this view of omnibenevolence), then how many choices does it take to absolve God of the responsibility to choose the one that is best?

If there is no upper limit, then even given infinite choices God must choose the one that is best, or at least one that has no better; and if there is no upper limit to what is best, as you allow for argument's sake, then God cannot discharge His obligation short of communicating His own incommunicable nature.

A possible way out of this problem is to interpret omnibenevolence to mean that God, when confronted with two possibilities, one of which is good and one of which is evil, must actualize the good, but not that when confronted with two possibilities, one of which is good and one of which is better, must actualize the better.

This should present no problem unless we assume that any condition that is not infinitely good is partially evil.

If it is true that -

(A) Unbelievers can actively cause themselves to lose awareness of truths about the world, all the while retaining knowledge of those truths. (cf. Romans 1:18)

Cannot a similar situation be possible with reference to Jesus? To wit,

(B) Jesus can actively cause himself to lose awareness of truths about the world, all the while retaining knowledge of those truths.

If one takes Scripture seriously, then (A) is possible, which seems to imply that (B) is also possible. Thus, it seems that this particular challenge to the incarnation is stripped of its force when viewed from within a Christian theological framework.

Any thoughts?

You are right in that it is possible for a finite being to know something in one respect that they do not know in another. This can be voluntary, as when someone chooses to block something from their awareness, or involuntary, as when someone knows something that they cannot call to mind.

However, in section C in the previous post, I attempted to explain why I do not believe this state of affairs can be coherently ascribed to an omniscient being.

Also, Romans 1:23 indicates that God is not like unto corruptible man. Your proposition A, that "sinners cause themselves to lose awareness of truths about the world, all the while retaining knowledge of those truths," sounds very much like what I would call self-deception. Certainly God would not have deceived Himself in order to become a man.

alam

September 8th 2005, 11:31 PM

Hello Sowerowrd:

But, human nature does have a great deal in common with the divine nature,
we have been created in the image of God. The similarity could be summed up with the analogy of action figures. Humans:Action Figures::God:Humans. Action figures look like us and are proportioned similar to us, alike but not the same; in the same manner we are like God in that we can comprehend our existance, reason, and we have a will. This is what sets apart from the rest of the living creatures on the earth.

I agree with you there.

So, if God could talk through the mouth of a dumb donkey, it should not be such a far stretch to say that He took on the form of a man.

Yet the Incarnation does not mean that the Son just took on the "form" of a man. He was already doing that in the Old Testament. In the Incarnation he actually became a man.

Firstly, what do you believe about them?

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html]

Seocndly, if the Son and the Spirit are only subordinate then why even mention them in the list of baptismal names? Or, why not list John the Baptist and all the other prophets and Michael the archangel as well?

We enter into the Church, the Bride and the Body of Christ, through baptism. The justification and sanctification in Christ and the Holy Spirit are what allow the elect to enter and remain in God's church (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). Human prophets and angels do not have these powers.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God...

Jesus Christ is 'el gibbor or "mighty God." It is even correct to say that he is almighty or omnipotent with reference to the universe, as "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18). The point is that God the Father has given Christ the power that he has. Christ shares in God's power at God's will.

If you do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God Almighty in the flesh then you do not have forgiveness of sins, you are still an enemy of God.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Father who sent Christ is the only true God, and to acknowledge Him as such is part of eternal life.

Pythagoras

September 9th 2005, 01:46 AM

Greetings Alam,

Your post no. 47 was excellent..On another note,

Hello Sowerowrd:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Father who sent Christ is the only true God, and to acknowledge Him as such is part of eternal life.

In other words, those who do not acknowledge the Father as the Only true God cannot have eternal life.

Note also a teacher of the law in Mark 12:28 asked Jesus to name the most important commandment. Jesus recited the Shema:

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one, "answered Jesus,"is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one..."

Did this teacher of the law understand God to be a triune being? Does the Shema teach a triune being? Was Jesus refering to the triune being when he uttered the Shema? The honest answer to all three questions is 'no'. Therefore Mark. 12:28 proves the trinity doctrine false.

sowerowrd

September 9th 2005, 04:51 PM

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

I pray that your eyes will be opened to the true identity of Christ, and that you will experience the the work of the Holy Spirit who is more than just a force He is a person like you or me, albeit Divine.

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father (as God Almighty). He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption

You cannot grieve a force or power, only persons can be grieved.

Repent, and honor Christ before God snuffs you out.

:bow: Christ, the Great I AM

alam

September 9th 2005, 07:25 PM

Blessings Pythagoras,

In other words, those who do not acknowledge the Father as the Only true God cannot have eternal life.

We may hope that God will find a way for the sincerely deluded Trinitarians; I certainly do. But those who really do worship the Trinity as such with every fiber of their being, condemning any non-Trinitarian idea of God as a false god or manifestation of Satan, may even harden themselves into constitutional inability to tolerate the Heaven of the one true God.

Note also a teacher of the law in Mark 12:28 asked Jesus to name the most important commandment. Jesus recited the Shema:

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one, "answered Jesus,"is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one..."

Did this teacher of the law understand God to be a triune being? Does the Shema teach a triune being? Was Jesus refering to the triune being when he uttered the Shema? The honest answer to all three questions is 'no'. Therefore Mark. 12:28 proves the trinity doctrine false.

Mark 12:28-34 shows Christ's acceptance of the doctrine of God that was already in place in Judaism. He rebuked the Pharisees for many things, but their monotheism was not one of them.

Yours in Christ

alam

September 9th 2005, 08:06 PM

I pray that your eyes will be opened to the true identity of Christ, and that you will experience the the work of the Holy Spirit who is more than just a force He is a person like you or me, albeit Divine.

Agreed. Ulphilas' creed states that the Holy Spirit is a sanctifying power, but a power can also be a person. As it is written, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), "the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" (Matt. 24:29), and "powers being made subject unto him" (1 Pet. 3:22).

John 5:22,23
For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father (as God Almighty). He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Please refer back to the Semitic principle of delegation mentioned in post 47 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1187076&postcount=47) . In his capacity as the messenger/delegate of God, including his role as agent of God's judgment (John 5:30), Jesus is to be honored as if he were God in person.

This does not mean that the honor due to Christ is the same as the honor which is due to the Father. The Greek term translated as "just as" in John 5:23, καθως, does not assert complete equivalence, as you will admit on seeing its use in John chapter 17:

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as (καθως) we [are].

I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as (καθως) I am not of the world.

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as (καθως) thou hast loved me.

If you insist, on the authority of John 5:23, that the honor due to Christ is indiscernably the same as the honor which is due to the Father, you should also insist that the elect are one in the very same manner that the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11), that the elect are not from this world in the very same manner that Christ is not from this world (John 17:14,16), and that God loves the elect in the very same manner that He loves Christ (John 17:23)--the One whom He loved "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).

If you do not believe that John 17 requires such things, neither should you believe that John 5:23 requires us to honor Christ in the very same way that we honor the Father.

On the contrary, Christ's honor is derivative--an extension of the honor of the One who sent him. An insult done to the messenger of a king is an insult done to the king himself. Conversely, an honor paid to that messenger is an honor paid to the king (cf. Matt. 25:40,45). But in no circumstance would one honor the messenger as a king in his own right. To do so would detract from the sovereignty of the king himself, thereby detracting from the real basis of the messenger's honor. As Christ said, "he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." The honor of Christ is thus derived from the honor of the Father who sent him.

Repent, and honor Christ before God snuffs you out.

Hear your own advice and obey it.

Pythagoras

September 9th 2005, 09:00 PM

Greetings Alam,

We may hope that God will find a way for the sincerely deluded Trinitarians; I certainly do. But those who really do worship the Trinity as such with every fiber of their being, condemning any non-Trinitarian idea of God as a false god or manifestation of Satan, may even harden themselves into constitutional inability to tolerate the Heaven of the one true God.

How true.The god of this world has blinded their minds with strong chains of darkness. In this regard 2 Cor. 4:4 is instructive : "In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

They ernestly believe in the triune god, thereby sincerely mocking God. The Devil has perfected his hate in them, for through them he makes God into a joke.

Mark 12:28-34 shows Christ's acceptance of the doctrine of God that was already in place in Judaism. He rebuked the Pharisees for many things, but their monotheism was not one of them.

But ofcourse. The Shema is proof for us of the One God. God bless the Jews in this regard.

Blessings in Christ, the firstborn of God's creation.

sowerowrd

September 11th 2005, 07:48 PM

If you insist, on the authority of John 5:23, that the honor due to Christ is indiscernably the same as the honor which is due to the Father, you should also insist that the elect are one in the very same manner that the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11), that the elect are not from this world in the very same manner that Christ is not from this world (John 17:14,16), and that God loves the elect in the very same manner that He loves Christ (John 17:23)--the One whom He loved "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).

Yes, I do.

Jesus is to be honored as if he were God in person.

He is God in person, not just an agent of God but very God and very man.

Hear your own advice and obey it.

I have.

:solly:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!"

alam

September 12th 2005, 01:01 AM

Yes, I do.

Jesus was not of this world because he had personally come from above (John 8:23). Our heavenly citizenship is derived, is not our natural state, and thus differs from his.

I have.

You do not exalt the Son any more than I do. There is nothing God can do that the Son cannot (John 5:19). There is nothing we could expect God to do or be in the universe that the Son is not.

The only remaining way of levelling the Father and Son, if that's what you want, is to lower the Father--by denying that the Father has made the Son what he is, or by making the Father as conditioned upon the Son as the Son is upon the Father. Neither of these has any scriptural support.

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

In what way would you have this verse contradict my beliefs?

Krusader

September 13th 2005, 01:33 PM

"Unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins." Jesus, John 8.

alam

September 13th 2005, 01:40 PM

"Unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins." Jesus, John 8.

In what way would you have this verse contradict my beliefs Crusader?

Krusader

September 13th 2005, 02:03 PM

In what way would you have this verse contradict my beliefs Crusader?

"I AM" is an Old Testament title for Jehovah God as spoken by God to Moses. Jesus identifies Himself as the I AM of Scripture - and the Jews knew exactly what He was doing. There is One Jehovah God, and Christ is Jehovah the Son.

alam

September 13th 2005, 03:36 PM

Krusader

September 13th 2005, 03:47 PM

I AM is an explanation of the tetragrammaton. At least two bear that name, according to the scriptures. One of them is heavenly, and the other effects His will on earth (Genesis 19:24). The latter is often called the "angel (messenger /representative SHD #4397, worker cf. #4399) of the LORD."

This heavenly messenger of God appeared to Abraham and the patriarchs, to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), and became man as Jesus Christ. The aforementioned principle of delegation should be of immense help in understanding the categories involved.

"I AM," is a Name of the One, True God. Jesus claimed to be that One, True, God, and said that those that did not believe that He was the "I AM" would die in their sins. No angel is the "I AM," which is why the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that Jesus was none other than the Archangel Michael, do blaspheme by calling God a created angel!

The Jews knew very well Who Christ claimed to be - and sought to stone him for blashphemy, see John 10:30-33. "I AM" was a title well understood by the Jews of Christ's day. They remembered Moses' encounter with YHWH (I AM THAT I AM) on the mountain - they knew Who Jesus was associating Himself with - that's why they took up stones to kill Him.

sowerowrd

September 13th 2005, 05:36 PM

In what way would you have this verse contradict my beliefs?

Prieceisely what my sister Crusader said. You do not have to lower the Father to make Christ equal with Him, He already is in reality, although not in your own mind. No, what you need to do in exalt Christ to the level that He deserves, God Almighty El-Shaddai Jehovah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This is the mystery of the Gospel that is revealed to the children of God that the Messiah will be God in the flesh, Halleujah Praise God for HIs mercy and Grace, to leave the glory of heaven and die for His children.

Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ

:yes:

alam

September 13th 2005, 07:22 PM

Once again, I AM is an explanation of the tetragrammaton. At least two bear that name, according to the scriptures. One of them is heavenly, and the other effects His will on earth (Genesis 19:24). The latter is often called the "angel (messenger /representative SHD #4397, worker cf. #4399) of the LORD."

This heavenly messenger of God appeared to Abraham and the patriarchs, to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), and became man as Jesus Christ. The aforementioned principle of delegation should be of immense help in understanding the categories involved.

When you grasp this principle you will find that it offers a better, more scriptural understanding of the relation between Father and Son than the fourth century theology of ousia and hypostases. Furthermore, it is indeed orthodox, on the common witness of the early church fathers and the Council of Rimini, which superceded Nicea in 359, and whose adherents were allowed to retain their confession under Constantinople 381, canon 2.

"I AM," is a Name of the One, True God. Jesus claimed to be that One, True, God, and said that those that did not believe that He was the "I AM" would die in their sins. No angel is the "I AM," which is why the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that Jesus was none other than the Archangel Michael, do blaspheme by calling God a created angel!

The One who sent Jesus Christ into the world is the "only true God" (John 17:3). He is not Christ, for Christ taught, "neither came I of myself, but He sent me" (John 8:42). The Father is the One who sent Christ (John 8:16). Know the Father who sent Christ as the only true God, and you will have eternal life.

You do not have to lower the Father to make Christ equal with Him, He already is in reality, although not in your own mind. No, what you need to do in exalt Christ to the level that He deserves, God Almighty El-Shaddai Jehovah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In nothing do I esteem the Father as greater than the Son, if not in the Father's role as Father, as Source of all that the Son is and does. What the Son is and does is absolutely conditioned upon the Father, while the Father is not conditioned upon the Son. As it is written, "neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16).

Pythagoras

September 14th 2005, 01:14 PM

Hi Alam,

Once again, I AM is an explanation of the tetragrammaton. At least two bear that name, according to the scriptures. One of them is heavenly, and the other effects His will on earth (Genesis 19:24). The latter is often called the "angel (messenger /representative SHD #4397, worker cf. #4399) of the LORD."

.

You're absolutely right. . In the Old Testament on numerous occasions we see the Angel of the Lord bearing God's name as God's special messenger. It doesn't mean the Angel of the Lord is the Great "I am that I am".

The trinitarian argument doesn't work from another angle.Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus actually spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, John recorded Jesus' words in Greek. Ego eimi ("I am"), is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14: "And God spoke to Moses, saying,I am THE BEING; and He said, Thus you shall say to the children ofIsrael: THE BEING has sent me to you."

Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament where the Greek present tense of 'ego eimi', "I am", can be translated into the English perfect tense, "I have been." An example is John 14:9 .

In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman
existence in heaven. Jesus is proclaiminghere that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "BeforeAbraham came into being, I am." Similarily we read in the Assumption of Moses that Moses knew God had assigned him his place, his topos, his calling as it were. "He designed and devised me, and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant." The idea of Messiah , the Torah, even the prophets ( read Jeremiah 1:5 ) as pre-existent is well attested for in Jewish thought.

This is another case of trinitarians grasping at straws.

best wishes,

alam

September 15th 2005, 02:10 AM

Hi Alam,

You're absolutely right. . In the Old Testament on numerous occasions we see the Angel of the Lord bearing God's name as God's special messenger. It doesn't mean the Angel of the Lord is the Great "I am that I am".

The trinitarian argument doesn't work from another angle.Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus actually spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, John recorded Jesus' words in Greek. Ego eimi ("I am"), is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14: "And God spoke to Moses, saying,I am THE BEING; and He said, Thus you shall say to the children ofIsrael: THE BEING has sent me to you."

Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament where the Greek present tense of 'ego eimi', "I am", can be translated into the English perfect tense, "I have been." An example is John 14:9 .

In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman
existence in heaven. Jesus is proclaiminghere that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "BeforeAbraham came into being, I am." Similarily we read in the Assumption of Moses that Moses knew God had assigned him his place, his topos, his calling as it were. "He designed and devised me, and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant." The idea of Messiah , the Torah, even the prophets ( read Jeremiah 1:5 ) as pre-existent is well attested for in Jewish thought.

This is another case of trinitarians grasping at straws.

best wishes,

Greetings Pythagoras,

You are right, and thank you for mentioning these points-- 'ego eimi' is not necessarily a reference to Exodus 3:14 at all. Attempts to reconstruct the original Semitic phrase behind 'ego eimi' are speculative, since John uses the term even of ordinary cases of self-reference (John 9:9). The significance which the Gospels attach to 'ego eimi' in the Messianic context is apparently just that of being the Messiah or Promised One (Matt. 24:5 / Mark 13:6), the one whose coming was so widely anticipated that no introduction was necessary..

We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph (cf. Matt. 11:3).

Yours in Christ