PDA

View Full Version : Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology



Pages : [1] 2

37818
03-01-2015, 01:52 PM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.

Thoughtful Monk
03-01-2015, 02:24 PM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.

If memory services, this is one of the differences between Orthodox and Western Christology. I believe this week this difference provoked a debate after ISIS executed some Orthodox Christians and some US Christians questioned with the Orthodox are really Christian or not.

For the record, I recognize Orthodox Christians has being Christian.

Chrawnus
03-01-2015, 02:27 PM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


I would say Hebrews 1:3 gives pretty strong support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son:

3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The footnotes for the HSCB translation of this verse at biblegateway.com (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201%3A3&version=HCSB) gives the following alternatives for the word 'expression' in Heb 1:3;

Representation, copy or reproduction.

But in any case, if this verse is interpreted literally, then the Son, by virtue of being the expression, copy or reproduction of the Fathers nature must owe his eternal existence to the father, by logical necessity. If the Son is not begotten of the Father, but exists self-sufficiently, then he cannot be said to be the expression of God's/the Father's nature in any meaningful sense.

Chrawnus
03-01-2015, 02:31 PM
If memory services, this is one of the differences between Orthodox and Western Christology

No, not really. Lutherans believe that the Son is begotten of the Father aswell, and I'm pretty certain Anglicans do as well. Roman Catholics definitely believe in the eternal generation of the Son. I'm not certain, but I would venture to say that the denial that the Son is begotten by the Father is mainly found in evangelical circles.

Chrawnus
03-01-2015, 02:34 PM
Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.

The Father is not begotten, as he is the source of godhood in the Trinity, but He communicates this divinity in eternity to both the Son and the Spirit.

Chrawnus
03-01-2015, 03:03 PM
Also, I would add that if you hold to the teaching that the Son is the Wisdom of the Father (which there is plenty of support for (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php)), then the teaching of the eternal generation of the Son follows logically from that.

One Bad Pig
03-01-2015, 04:48 PM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.
Pretty much all Trinitarians I know accept the Christological pronouncements from the first six Ecumenical Councils (of course, it's the seventh one the outcome of which we celebrated today).

Spartacus
03-01-2015, 08:55 PM
:idea:

Filioque!

:outtie:

One Bad Pig
03-02-2015, 05:54 AM
:idea:

Filioque!

:outtie:That's what you get when you unilaterally alter something. :tongue:

37818
03-02-2015, 06:02 AM
I would say Hebrews 1:3 gives pretty strong support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son:

3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The footnotes for the HSCB translation of this verse at biblegateway.com (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201%3A3&version=HCSB) gives the following alternatives for the word 'expression' in Heb 1:3;

Representation, copy or reproduction.

But in any case, if this verse is interpreted literally, then the Son, by virtue of being the expression, copy or reproduction of the Fathers nature must owe his eternal existence to the father, by logical necessity. If the Son is not begotten of the Father, but exists self-sufficiently, then he cannot be said to be the expression of God's/the Father's nature in any meaningful sense.No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.


The Father is not begotten, as he is the source of godhood in the Trinity, but He communicates this divinity in eternity to both the Son and the Spirit.So not being begotten or made being They are the One God.

Leonhard
03-02-2015, 07:10 AM
I'm sorry 37818, but its really difficult to understand your writing. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying and how it differs from what Adrift told you.

Leonhard
03-02-2015, 07:21 AM
No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.

Did you mean to say: "He is the Only Begotten Son, which means He (The Son) is the expression of God (The Father?) and His (The Son?) very nature as being God (The Trinity?). He was not begotten, or made, in order to be the Son of God."

I've added some place where your use of pronouns becomes confusing when discussing God as Trinity.

As it is, this is a statement, in fact just a repetition of your original point. I'm with Adrift on this. Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 08:55 AM
No. The only-begotten Son meaning He is the expression of God and His very nature of being God, not being begotten or made in order to be the Son of God.

The Son is begotten in eternity, but not created. The expressions "expression of God" and "radiance of God's glory" points to this.



So not being begotten or made being They are the One God.

If the Son and the Spírit is the source of Their own godhood it would seem that there are not one God, but three. :shrug:

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 08:56 AM
Did you mean to say: "He is the Only Begotten Son, which means He (The Son) is the expression of God (The Father?) and His (The Son?) very nature as being God (The Trinity?). He was not begotten, or made, in order to be the Son of God."

I've added some place where your use of pronouns becomes confusing when discussing God as Trinity.

As it is, this is a statement, in fact just a repetition of your original point. I'm with Adrift on this. Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.

Did Adrift say something on the Trinity in another thread? Because I don't see any of his posts in this thread. :huh:

Cerebrum123
03-02-2015, 08:58 AM
Did Adrift say something on the Trinity in another thread? Because I don't see any of his posts in this thread. :huh:

I think he meant you. :yes:

Leonhard
03-02-2015, 09:40 AM
I think he meant you. :yes:

Got the names confused when I wrote the post. Nicely caught Cerebrum.

Cerebrum123
03-02-2015, 09:42 AM
Got the names confused when I wrote the post. Nicely caught Cerebrum.

Seemed to be merely a matter of logical inference at this point. :teeth:

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 09:45 AM
Seemed to be merely a matter of logical inference at this point. :teeth:

You're such a brainiac.

Cerebrum123
03-02-2015, 09:48 AM
You're such a brainiac.

Thank you! I think. :noid:

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 09:49 AM
Thank you! I think. :noid:

Did I compliment you, or was it an insult? The world might never know. :smug:

Cerebrum123
03-02-2015, 09:55 AM
Did I compliment you, or was it an insult? The world might never know. :smug:

Or you could just tell me. :poke:

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 09:56 AM
Or you could just tell me. :poke:

No. :smug:

Cerebrum123
03-02-2015, 09:57 AM
No. :smug:

Nevermind, sorry for dragging this off topic.

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 09:59 AM
Nevermind, sorry for dragging this off topic.

Yeah, I might have gotten a bit too carried away aswell. :frown:

37818
03-02-2015, 05:43 PM
Did you mean to say: "He is the Only Begotten Son, which means He (The Son) is the expression of God (The Father?) and His (The Son?) very nature as being God (The Trinity?). He was not begotten, or made, in order to be the Son of God."Yes.



I've added some place where your use of pronouns becomes confusing when discussing God as Trinity.The Trinity is an explanation of God and the persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Not at issue. Rather alleging the Son was begotten of the Father before creation. Which has no Biblical support that I know of.


As it is, this is a statement, in fact just a repetition of your original point. I'm with Adrift on this. Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.Again, the Trinity explanation, One God and three Persons who are that One God, is not at issue here. Rather, God is not begotten, therefore the only-begotten Son who is God with His Father being co-eternal is also not begotten to be the Son.

One Bad Pig
03-02-2015, 05:51 PM
Rather, God is not begotten, therefore the only-begotten Son who is God with His Father being co-eternal is also not begotten to be the Son.
:huh: How is someone who is called 'the only-begotten son not identifiable as begotten?

37818
03-02-2015, 05:58 PM
The Son is begotten in eternity, . . . Where does God's word teache this?
. . . but not created. The only-begotten is the uncaused, not begotten, cause of creation.


The expressions "expression of God" and "radiance of God's glory" points to this. Got Scripture?




If the Son and the Spírit is the source of Their own godhood it would seem that there are not one God, but three. :shrug:There is only the One God. The Persons who are that One God are co-eternal, therefore are unbegotten being that One God.

37818
03-02-2015, 06:02 PM
:huh: How is someone who is called 'the only-begotten son not identifiable as begotten?

Only-begotten is the parental relationship not His becoming the Son.

One Bad Pig
03-02-2015, 06:08 PM
Only-begotten is the parental relationship not His becoming the Son.

:huh: I think you're misinterpreting the passage you're disputing. The people who accepted that phrase as part of the Creed most definitely do not believe that Jesus became the Son.

37818
03-02-2015, 06:27 PM
:huh: I think you're misinterpreting the passage you're disputing. The people who accepted that phrase as part of the Creed most definitely do not believe that Jesus became the Son.I am not misinterpting, I understand that interpretation. It simply is not Biblical at all. At issue is not the eternal second Person of the Trinity. But like the term "Trinity," the terminology "the eternal Son," while Biblical, those terms are not used in Holy Scripture. I believe in the eternal Sonship.
See this article: https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/walter-martin-vs-d-a-carson-on-the-eternal-sonship-of-jesus/

One Bad Pig
03-02-2015, 07:16 PM
I am not misinterpting, I understand that interpretation. It simply is not Biblical at all. At issue is not the eternal second Person of the Trinity. But like the term "Trinity," the terminology "the eternal Son," while Biblical, those terms are not used in Holy Scripture. I believe in the eternal Sonship.
See this article: https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/walter-martin-vs-d-a-carson-on-the-eternal-sonship-of-jesus/

:huh: I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're saying 'the eternal Son' is not Biblical at all, but then you call it Biblical in the next sentence. The phrase 'begotten of the Father before all ages" is intended to affirm the eternal Sonship of Jesus.

Chrawnus
03-02-2015, 08:42 PM
Got Scripture?


The terms 'expression' and 'radiance' are themselves what points towards the Son being begotten by the Father.



There is only the One God. The Persons who are that One God are co-eternal, therefore are unbegotten being that One God.


There is no contradiction between being eternal and being begotten.

37818
03-03-2015, 06:00 AM
:huh: I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're saying 'the eternal Son' is not Biblical at all, but then you call it Biblical in the next sentence. The phrase 'begotten of the Father before all ages" is intended to affirm the eternal Sonship of Jesus.
So based on that logic the Trinity is not Biblical! That the terminology is what is not found in the Bible. The truth that there are three Persons who are each identified to be that one God, is taught in the word of God. That the only-begotten Son preexisted creation is taught in holy scripture. What is not taught in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation.

37818
03-03-2015, 06:07 AM
The terms 'expression' and 'radiance' are themselves what points towards the Son being begotten by the Father. . Where do you find that explicitly taught in the word of God?




There is no contradiction between being eternal and being begotten.What is begotten has a beginning at being begotten. What has a beginning is not eternal. Again, where is the holy scripture?

Spartacus
03-03-2015, 06:08 AM
So based on that logic the Trinity is not Biblical! That the terminology is what is not found in the Bible. The truth that there are three Persons who are each identified to be the one God, is taught in the word of God. That the only-begotten Son preexisted creation is taught in holy scripture. What is not tought in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation.

I'm with OBP. I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. There is no such thing as "before" the Son, and there is certainly no such thing as the "creation" of the Son. God the Son is not a creature in orthodox (or Orthodox) theology.

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 06:14 AM
So based on that logic the Trinity is not Biblical! That the terminology is what is not found in the Bible. The truth that there are three Persons who are each identified to be the one God, is taught in the word of God. That the only-begotten Son preexisted creation is taught in holy scripture.
Yes, that is what "begotten of the Father before all ages" means.

What is not tought in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation.
:huh: The Bible does not teach that the Son was created. And even if it did, the idea of someone being begotten before being created is a logical impossibility. Who do you think believes that?

37818
03-03-2015, 06:17 AM
I'm with OBP. I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. There is no such thing as "before" the Son, and there is certainly no such thing as the "creation" of the Son. God the Son is not a creature in orthodox (or Orthodox) theology.

???????? The only-begotten Son is the uncreated creator of all things!!! That is not at issue.

37818
03-03-2015, 06:24 AM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.No where does the word of God teach that the [eternal] only-begotten Son of God the Father was begotten before time. What I am asking is the Biblical bases. Any other arguments are mere interpretations, not the word of God on the matter.

37818
03-03-2015, 06:34 AM
Yes, that is what "begotten of the Father before all ages" means. So then it means the same thing as never being begotten. Right? [Like parallel lines, equal distant, intersect at infinity, same as never intersecting.]


:huh: The Bible does not teach that the Son was created. And even if it did, the idea of someone being begotten before being created is a logical impossibility. Who do you think believes that?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

37818
03-03-2015, 06:43 AM
I believe in the only-begotten Son of God who is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages. Not begotten and not created to be the Son, being always the Son of God. The eternal Son of God.

DesertBerean
03-03-2015, 06:49 AM
John 1:18, and of course John 3:16, say Jesus is the only begotten Son and is himself God as well. My own denomination (Assemblies of God) says of the Godhead:


Wherefore the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one.

...so, while I don't know what your church says, 37818, I'm more concerned why you're confused. ..

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 07:00 AM
So then it means the same thing as never being begotten. Right? [Like parallel lines, equal distant, intersect at infinity, same as never intersecting.]
:huh: No. The Son is described many times in scripture as the only begotten. Why are you denying scripture?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
Wikipedia? Seriously? Not even clicking on that. Arius is way too controversial a topic to consider trusting a source that can be edited by anyone.

37818
03-03-2015, 08:57 AM
:huh: No. The Son is described many times in scripture as the only begotten. Why are you denying scripture?The meaning of "only-begotten" and "begotten" are not the same. You are falsely accusing me of denying what I affirm, that the only-begotten Son of God is the eternal Son of God. The fact is no where in the Bible does the word of God teach "begotten of the Father before all ages."


Wikipedia? Seriously? Not even clicking on that. Arius is way too controversial a topic to consider trusting a source that can be edited by anyone.Arius held that the Son of God is begotten therefore made. Which the Nicene Creed says "begotten and not made." I think it would better be said, "only-begotten and not made" or better yet, "not begotten and not made."

Dr Walter Martin, a different example, held that the eternal Word the second person of the Trinity became the Son.

37818
03-03-2015, 09:04 AM
John 1:18, and of course John 3:16, say Jesus is the only begotten Son and is himself God as well. My own denomination (Assemblies of God) says of the Godhead:
Wherefore the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one.



...so, while I don't know what your church says, 37818, I'm more concerned why you're confused. ..What does the Bible say? The Biblical use of "begotten" regarding the Son of God has to do with His bodily resurrection. Not His preexistence as the Son.

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 09:41 AM
The meaning of "only-begotten" and "begotten" are not the same. You are falsely accusing me of denying what I affirm, that the only-begotten Son of God is the eternal Son of God. The fact is no where in the Bible does the word of God teach "begotten of the Father before all ages."
Arius held that the Son of God is begotten therefore made. Which the Nicene Creed says "begotten and not made." I think it would better be said, "only-begotten and not made" or better yet, "not begotten and not made."
You're really splitting hairs here. And you are denying Heb 5:5. "Only-begotten" is a SUBSET of "begotten." :duh: I think I'll take the word of people who actually thought in Greek.


Dr Walter Martin, a different example, held that the eternal Word the second person of the Trinity became the Son.
Then Dr. Walter Martin is wrong. Becoming implies temporality, which puts him in the same boat as Arius.

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 09:42 AM
What does the Bible say? The Biblical use of "begotten" regarding the Son of God has to do with His bodily resurrection. Not His preexistence as the Son.
No. Read John 1:1-18 again.

Chrawnus
03-03-2015, 10:44 AM
Where do you find that explicitly taught in the word of God?

I'm not sure using the Scripture as a dictionary is a proper use of the sacred writings. :huh:



What is begotten has a beginning at being begotten. What has a beginning is not eternal. Again, where is the holy scripture?

The bolded is patently false. Jesus being begotten of the Father means that he derives His being and divinity from the Father, it does not mean that he has a beginning. And as I said, Heb 1:3 is the scripture I'm using as support. The Son is the exact expression of God the Father by virtue of him being begotten of the Father.

37818
03-03-2015, 12:11 PM
You're really splitting hairs here. And you are denying Heb 5:5. "Only-begotten" is a SUBSET of "begotten." :duh: I think I'll take the word of people who actually thought in Greek.So you hold the Son of God did not really become the only-begotten until His resurrection and ascension then.

Hebrews 5:5, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."




Then Dr. Walter Martin is wrong. Becoming implies temporality, which puts him in the same boat as Arius.It was because of Dr Martin, in his book "kingdom of the Cults" that caused me to study this some 20 years ago. I concluded the word of God does teach the eternal Sonship. The Trinity is a temporal relationship, which has always existed, since God is eternal. But the church Fathers fail in this. Causing the errs of Arianism and Sabellianism.

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 12:46 PM
So you hold the Son of God did not really become the only-begotten until His resurrection and ascension then.

Hebrews 5:5, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."
Acts 13:33, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
:doh: NO! I have no idea how you get that from my posts here. :argh:

It was because of Dr Martin, in his book "kingdom of the Cults" that caused me to study this some 20 years ago. I concluded the word of God does teach the eternal Sonship. The Trinity is a temporal relationship, which has always existed, since God is eternal.
No, the Trinity is not a temporal relationship; time did not exist prior to creation, and the Trinity is from eternity (has always existed).

But the church Fathers fail in this. Causing the errs of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Perhaps Origen (who was later condemned for heretical teachings) failed at this, but the Fathers who incorporated that quote in the Creed came AFTER Arius and Sabellius. The only one who seems to be failing to interpret the phrase properly is you.

DesertBerean
03-03-2015, 01:19 PM
I don't recall Martin saying that. I'll have to look it up and get back to you.

T-Shirt Ninja
03-03-2015, 01:25 PM
Good garsh, I post one little thing a few days ago and check back today to find this debate going on.

37818, I think you're very confused about the Trinity being eternal.

Leonhard
03-03-2015, 01:46 PM
???????? The only-begotten Son is the uncreated creator of all things!!! That is not at issue.

Ease off the number of question and exclamation marks, it makes you look aggressive and irrational, which is not what you should be trying to convey. Right now we're all struggling to understand you.

We know that the Son was not created, 37818, but they were responding to what you said. They thought you meant that The Son was created ("What is not taught in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation."). Since none of them ever brought up the idea that The Son was created, we assumed that you believed that he was, or at least that yet again your use of language terrible confuses what you're trying to convey.

To be frank I really have no clear idea of what you're saying, or what exactly you're objecting to.


Where do you find that explicitly taught in the word of God?

Why does it matter whether its explicitly taught? If you press this point you'll be committing a special pleading fallacy.


What is begotten has a beginning at being begotten. What has a beginning is not eternal.

Here's a snip from the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."

That The Son is begotten means that He is consubstantial with the Father, and perfectly one with Him in essence, but not in person. Denying that The Son is begotten of the Father, is to deny that The Son is of the same substance as the Father, and therefore to deny God's simplicity in the Trinity.

37818
03-03-2015, 01:48 PM
No. Read John 1:1-18 again.It speaks of the only-begotten, Not of being begotten. You are reading into the text what is not there.

Leonhard
03-03-2015, 01:53 PM
Here's a question for you 37818. Do you believe that the The Son, during the incarnation, underwent a change going from a Divine Substance to becoming a human? Where as in classical theology, Jesus had two natures, His divine nature (which underwent no change in the incarnation), and His human nature. And that therefore He has two wills, His divine will and His human will that coexist in one person.

37818
03-03-2015, 01:53 PM
I'm not sure using the Scripture as a dictionary is a proper use of the sacred writings. :huh:Yes, the word of God is not a Dictionary. So according to you we are to disregard Biblical usage and meaning.




The bolded is patently false. Jesus being begotten of the Father means that he derives His being and divinity from the Father, it does not mean that he has a beginning. And as I said, Heb 1:3 is the scripture I'm using as support. The Son is the exact expression of God the Father by virtue of him being begotten of the Father.You are arguing interpretation of a Creed. Which uses a term [begotten] in an unbiblical way.

I am asking for the Biblical support. [Knowing there is none.]

37818
03-03-2015, 01:58 PM
Here's a question for you 37818. Do you believe that the The Son, during the incarnation, underwent a change going from a Divine Substance to becoming a human? Where as in classical theology, Jesus had two natures, His divine nature (which underwent no change in the incarnation), and His human nature. And that therefore He has two wills, His divine will and His human will that coexist in one person.

I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures. Divine being God with the Father [John 1:1, 3]. And being also not divine in being someone other than God too. ["with God," John 1:2]. It was in His non divine nature which changed, from how He was "with God." Being with/facing someone is not to be that someone. He was both "with God" and "was God." In that He was God He did not change. How He was "with God" did change in the incarnation.

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 02:13 PM
I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures. Divine being God with the Father [John 1:1, 3]. And being also not divine in being someone other than God too. ["with God," John 1:2]. It was in His non divine nature which changed, from how He was "with God." Being with/facing someone is not to be that someone. He was both "with God" and "was God." In that He was God He did not change. How He was "with God" did change in the incarnation.
Your belief is unorthodox. Please change your faith designation accordingly.

The Son of God was not of two natures until He became incarnate. He became man at the Incarnation - that's what "incarnation" MEANS!

Pentecost
03-03-2015, 06:05 PM
Is it explicit unorthoodoxy to claim the Son alway had a man nature but at the incarnation took on flesh and so became full man at that point? It is wrong, but is it unorthodox?

One Bad Pig
03-03-2015, 07:38 PM
Is it explicit unorthoodoxy to claim the Son alway had a man nature but at the incarnation took on flesh and so became full man at that point? It is wrong, but is it unorthodox?
Human nature is created, so the Son cannot have always had a human nature. And He couldn't be perfect man if he were only partly man; if anything, that's even worse. And orthodoxy is largely Christological, so an error in Christology is almost certainly going to qualify as unorthodox.

Pentecost
03-03-2015, 08:05 PM
Human nature is created, so the Son cannot have always had a human nature. And He couldn't be perfect man if he were only partly man; if anything, that's even worse. And orthodoxy is largely Christological, so an error in Christology is almost certainly going to qualify as unorthodox.

Thank for your explanation even though it was not required. Certainly if we hold to the either Nicene or Athanasian creeds as authoritative in determining orthodoxy then 37818's statements are unorthodox, (and my charicterization of his statement).

37818
03-03-2015, 09:21 PM
Stop all of you. Accussing me of stuff that is not what I believe. The Son of God did not become a man until His incarntion. Before we go any further, please let me establish what I believe where my beliefs are orthodox and Biblical. Point by point first. You can all start by reading my profile.

Pentecost
03-03-2015, 09:56 PM
Oh, I fully believe you are orthodox. I apologize if my statements implied that I thought you were. I do not apologize if my statements implied I think what you said was unorthodox... Because without better explanation I do.

Leonhard
03-03-2015, 11:59 PM
Before we go any further, please let me establish what I believe where my beliefs are orthodox and Biblical. Point by point first. You can all start by reading my profile.

I took the liberty of taking these quotes and arranging them as a list, because in your profile they were arranged in a format that wasn't all that easy to get an overview on.



I believe the one true God as one Person being the Father.
I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That the Son of God is God's temporal agent in all things.
Creation, and in both the appearing and reveling God to man.
God being eternal and immutable.
The only begotten Son being both eternal and temporal, being eternal, without beginning, in so being, not begotten nor made.
So also being God's temporal agent as Creator (John 1:1-3.)
I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth.
In becoming man, not ceasing being God.
That He lived a holy sinless life, died on the cross for sins of all men.
And was buried and rose bodily as the first immortal man.
Ascending into the heaven of heavens to be our mediator until He returns at His second coming.

As it is, I think there's a lot of contradictions in this. You can't both hold that God The Father is simple identical with the one true God, and therefore is one person, and then later hold to the trinity of God being three persons. Not without an adequate explanation for how this is consistent. So while the second statement is fine, the first sentence right out of the bat is highly problematic. If you had written it like this "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." that might not be as problematicm that's orthodoxy; The Father is God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Creation, and in both the appearing and reveling God to man." Its a completely broken sentence. There are severe grammar mistakes here, missing words, and even a typo. I can figure some of it out. I assume for instance you meant to write 'revealing' and not 'reveling'. However I only have a vague notion of what you mean this sentence to say, specifically. That Creation was by the Son (orthodoxy), and/or that Creation reveals the Son?

We all agree that God is eternal and immutable. However the Son isn't temporal. If the Son is temporal, then God is temporal and that simple isn't the case. God undergoes no change, and that is the same with The Son's divine nature. The Son in becoming incarnate took on a human nature, and that nature is subject to change of course, but His divine nature remained unchanged by this. And if you take the word 'begotten' to mean that The Son underwent a divine birth of sorts, then we're in agreement. Christ was not born of the Father in this way. However The Son is of the same substance as The Father and proceeds from The Father, and that He is the only one of that sort. This is what is meant by only-beg

"In becoming man, not ceasing being God." Minor quibble, you missed some words again, and a grammar mistake regarding tense. It should be "In becoming man, He did not cease being God."

37818
03-04-2015, 12:10 PM
As it is, I think there's a lot of contradictions in this. You can't both hold that God The Father is simple identical with the one true God, and therefore is one person, and then later hold to the trinity of God being three persons. Not without an adequate explanation for how this is consistent. So while the second statement is fine, the first sentence right out of the bat is highly problematic. If you had written it like this "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." that might not be as problematic that's orthodoxy; The Father is God.


I believe the one true God as one Person being the Father.My statement as I phrased it is based on Jesus' words in His prayer to the Father, ". . . And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, . . . ." -- John 17:3.

I have rephrased other parts in my profile statements. Left this one unchanged at this time. Your suggested wording, "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." Says the same thing.

37818
03-04-2015, 12:19 PM
Your belief is unorthodox. Please change your faith designation accordingly.What belief?


The Son of God was not of two natures until He became incarnate. He became man at the Incarnation - that's what "incarnation" MEANS!I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.

37818
03-04-2015, 02:03 PM
Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary being fully human and fully God. He lived a sinless life and through His substitutionary death, atoned for our sins. He was bodily resurrected and ascended into Heaven. He will return bodily, personally, and visibly.

Resurrection
We believe in the future bodily resurrection of all persons, the just and the unjust, and the Final Judgment.

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Church
We believe in the Church universal, which is the living spiritual Body of Christ, of which all believers are members.



Administrator Remark
It is well understood that all participants on this forum will not or do not affirm the above Statement of Faith in part or whole. This is by no means a regulation for participation at TheologyWeb or in any way serves as a censor, through interaction we seek to learn and educate. The Statement of Faith is not intended to indicative a comprehensive statement of the doctrinal positions of any staff member, nor is it intended to be comprehensive about what is required to have sound doctrine. It is a minimum standard that serves to identify things which we believe are common denominators in Christianity and which we use to determine participation in Christian-only areas and profile designations of Christian. It is not intended to be an endorsement of the orthodoxy of any member.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
Amen

Leonhard
03-04-2015, 04:04 PM
I have rephrased other parts in my profile statements. Left this one unchanged at this time. Your suggested wording, "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." Says the same thing.

Neat, its wonderful that you want to update your works. I try to learn as well.

However there's a difference between saying "The Father is God." and "God is The Father.", if there is no difference, then God is equivalent with the Father. They'd be in an identical relationship. This can't be the case for if A is B and C is B, in an identical relationship, then A is C. But then unfortunately you'd get that the Person of The Son is identical with the Person of The Father, which is a heretical position. So I think greater care with the logic there is needed.

The best fix is simple to strike the first sentence, and simple have "I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As the first sentence.

Adrift
03-04-2015, 04:52 PM
I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.

I think I've seen you mention this before. Do you mind expounding on it a bit?

Tell me if I have this right:

You believe that Jesus has two natures.
You believe one nature is fully divine and one nature is fully human.
You believe in the incarnation.
You believe that Jesus' fully human nature is "temporal".

This is where it gets really confusing for the rest of us:
You do NOT believe that Jesus took on his human nature at his incarnation, instead you believe that both his divine and human natures are eternal.
The reason you believe both of Jesus' nature's are eternal is because you believe that Jesus taking on a second nature would somehow effect his characteristic of immutability.

Before I show you why this second part is confusing to the rest of us, and why it sounds unorthodox to us, could you confirm that I've accurately described your view?

Adrift
03-04-2015, 04:55 PM
It speaks of the only-begotten, Not of being begotten. You are reading into the text what is not there.

What exactly is the distinction for you between the words "only-begotten" and "begotten" that you so strongly reject the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed?

The communication breakdown seems to center on those two words, and specifically your issue with the word "begotten".

37818
03-04-2015, 08:59 PM
What exactly is the distinction for you between the words "only-begotten" and "begotten" that you so strongly reject the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed?

The communication breakdown seems to center on those two words, and specifically your issue with the word "begotten".

The second Psalm is a prophecy of the resurrection of the Son of God. The term "begotten" is used to refer to His resurrection, not His preexistence.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

". . . God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

Also a couple things to note. That the Son was already the Son being "begotten." And "this day" refers to a time for the event.

Begotten - γεγεννηκα.

Only-begotten - μονογενη which is from γίνομαι with μόνος as a prefix to γίνομαι. Meaning a unique relative. [Abraham had two sons, but only Isaac was called his only-begotten: Hebrews 11:17.] It is used 9 times in the NT.

Adrift
03-04-2015, 09:30 PM
The second Psalm is a prophecy of the resurrection of the Son of God. The term "begotten" is used to refer to His resurrection, not His preexistence.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

". . . God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

Also a couple things to note. That the Son was already the Son being "begotten." And "this day" refers to a time for the event.

Begotten - γεγεννηκα.

Only-begotten - μονογενη which is from γίνομαι with μόνος as a prefix to γίνομαι. Meaning a unique relative. [Abraham had two sons, but only Isaac was called his only-begotten: Hebrews 11:17.] It is used 9 times in the NT.

I don't know if its because of your sentence structure, or because you're not really explaining it that well, but I don't see anything in the above post that really explains or highlights your rejection of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe someone else can make sense of it though, and restate it so that it makes sense to me.

This doctrine that you have concerning the words "only-begotten" and "begotten", they're very...unique. Are you aware of that fact? Who taught you this curious bit of doctrine surrounding these two words?

Also, did you get a chance to read my other post?

37818
03-04-2015, 09:36 PM
Neat, its wonderful that you want to update your works. I try to learn as well.

However there's a difference between saying "The Father is God." and "God is The Father.", if there is no difference, then God is equivalent with the Father. They'd be in an identical relationship. This can't be the case for if A is B and C is B, in an identical relationship, then A is C. But then unfortunately you'd get that the Person of The Son is identical with the Person of The Father, which is a heretical position. So I think greater care with the logic there is needed.

The best fix is simple to strike the first sentence, and simple have "I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As the first sentence.

God in the OT is presented as a single Person. All appearances of God in the OT was none other than the Son (John1:18).

In the NT a distinction is often made between our Lord Jesus Christ and God. We can note, that Thomas addressed Jesus as both (John 20:28).

Romans 1:7, ". . . Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Romans 15:6, ". . . That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 1:3, ". . . Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 8:6, ". . . But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."
Ephesians 4:5, 6, ". . . One Lord, . . . One God and Father . . . ."

Jesus makes the distinction, "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? . . . " The first word "LORD" referring to God, the second use referring to the Messiah being Lord, as distinct from God.

The theologian Van Til holds that God is both a person and persons. He is a staunch trinitarian.


But is Van Til really orthodox in this area of Christian theism? What about, for instance, his doctrine of the Trinity? Van Til believed that God is at the same time both one person and three persons. As Frame says: “For Van Til, God is not simply a unity of persons; he is a person” (65, italics his). This, to be sure, is not the teaching of orthodox Christianity, which maintains that God is one in essence (or substance) and three in persons. As the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.”

Van Til denied that his concept of the Trinity was a contradiction, yet he “embraces with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory” nature of this view (67). Frame admits that his mentor’s view is somewhat novel; he calls it “a very bold theological move” (65). But his attempt to clear up the “apparent contradiction” only aggravates the problem; he retreats with the incredible claim that the Bible is imprecise regarding this essential doctrine of Christianity: “Scripture itself often fails to be precise about the mysteries of the faith” (69).

These are just some of the reasons for my statement. It being better than the way Van Til argues it.

37818
03-04-2015, 10:14 PM
I don't know if its because of your sentence structure, or because you're not really explaining it that well, but I don't see anything in the above post that really explains or highlights your rejection of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe someone else can make sense of it though, and restate it so that it makes sense to me.

This doctrine that you have concerning the words "only-begotten" and "begotten", they're very...unique. Are you aware of that fact? Who taught you this curious bit of doctrine surrounding these two words?

The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning. Very simply the statement "begotten of the Father before all ages" is NOT Biblical. This is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures in any way. Had it read, "the only-begotten of the Father before all ages" I would be fine with that, because that concept is taught.








Here's a snip from the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."

That The Son is begotten means that He is consubstantial with the Father, and perfectly one with Him in essence, but not in person. Denying that The Son is begotten of the Father, is to deny that The Son is of the same substance as the Father, and therefore to deny God's simplicity in the Trinity.

I am going to rephrase this snippet to be more Biblical and as I believe:
"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God, of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."




Also, did you get a chance to read my other post?
I think I've seen you mention this before. Do you mind expounding on it a bit?

Tell me if I have this right:

You believe that Jesus has two natures.
You believe one nature is fully divine and one nature is fully human.
You believe in the incarnation.
You believe that Jesus' fully human nature is "temporal".

This is where it gets really confusing for the rest of us:
You do NOT believe that Jesus took on his human nature at his incarnation, instead you believe that both his divine and human natures are eternal.
The reason you believe both of Jesus' nature's are eternal is because you believe that Jesus taking on a second nature would somehow effect his characteristic of immutability.

Before I show you why this second part is confusing to the rest of us, and why it sounds unorthodox to us, could you confirm that I've accurately described your view?

Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.

Look at John 1:1, 2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . ."

What is "with God" is not the same as God. Yet He "was God." He was both. Not the same Person, but the same God. v.3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Identifying Him as God (Genesis 1:1).

Let us look at the concept of an uncaused cause. To be uncaused is to be eternal. A cause is temporal. Creation is a temporal act. Walking in the garden was a temporal act [". . . the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: . . ." -- Genesis 3:8.] The incarnation (John 1:14) was a temporal act. One God, who is more than one Person. ("us" Genesis 3:22.)

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent. Eternal in that the Son is God with the Father. "with God." "was God."

Chrawnus
03-04-2015, 10:35 PM
The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning.

The idea of being begotten as it is understood in the Nicene creed most definitely does not denote a beginning. Until you understand this basic point you will continue to misunderstand what the creed is saying when it affirms that the Son is begotten by the Father.

37818
03-04-2015, 10:44 PM
The idea of being begotten as it is understood in the Nicene creed most definitely does not denote a beginning. Until you understand this basic point you will continue to misunderstand what the creed is saying when it affirms that the Son is begotten by the Father.The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning. Parallels lines do not intersect. One can say "parallel lines intersect at infinity." So to use "begotten" in the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages," would have the same meaning as "not begotten." I think the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages" is better as "the only begotten of the Father before all ages." It was over the use of "begotten" that the writers of that Creed needed to say "begotten and not made." To argue against "not begotten and not made" only proves that the usage is bad. Besides not being used in Holy Scripture in that way ever. All I had asked for was Biblical support of that. That usage is extra Biblical.

Leonhard
03-04-2015, 11:05 PM
God in the OT is presented as a single Person. All appearances of God in the OT was none other than the Son (John1:18).

There's nothing wrong with referring to God as a single person, in a much as God is an entity. However this God is equivalent The Father. Otherwise The Father and The Son are one not only in substance, but also identity. When you're referring to God the person, you're referring to the full trinity, otherwise you'll end up in contradiction.


The theologian Van Til holds that God is both a person and persons. He is a staunch trinitarian.

I'm certainly no fan of Van Till, who defends contradictions and seems to be pleased about it, but that doesn't fail to make them contradictions and therefore false. And I don't deny that he's a trinitarian, or at least tries to be, the same with you, I am saying that your view doesn't make the kind of sense you want it to make.

It doesn't help to just stomp your foot and yell "Yes God is one Person: The Father. And God is a trinity of Persons: The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost." No matter what kind of logic you use, this would necessarily imply a contradiction.

Chrawnus
03-04-2015, 11:25 PM
The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning.

Which is not the way it is used in the Nicene creed.

Leonhard
03-04-2015, 11:33 PM
The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning. ... So to use "begotten" in the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages," would have the same meaning as "not begotten."

The ordinary term isn't what is being employed here 37818. If you're going to criticize a position, the first thing you want to do is to try to understand the other sides point of view. That's what we've tried to do with you for a while, and its starting to become clearer what you believe about the Trinity and why we believe it to be mistaken.

The Nicene Creed does not use begotten in a way that denotes a beginning, but as something that implies a particular relationship between The Son and The Father.

I mean look at the creed, it even explains what 'only-begotten and begotten' means in it.

"...
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
..."

Saying that the Son is begotten of the Father is a good short hand for saying:


"The Son is God."
"The Son has the same glory as the Father."
"The Son though having been incarnate is still fully God."
"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."


All of which is absolutely undeniable in any proper understanding of the Trinity.


I think the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages" is better as "the only begotten of the Father before all ages." It was over the use of "begotten" that the writers of that Creed needed to say "begotten and not made." To argue against "not begotten and not made" only proves that the usage is bad..

It has served the Church well for nearly two millennia. If you don't like it, then that's a subjective opinion of personal taste. That's not something I can argue against. You're free to feel that way though.


All I had asked for was Biblical support of that. That usage is extra Biblical.

You've certainly argued other things than merely asking for a part of the Bible with such a reference.

If all this is an argument about what phrase you prefer to describe it with, then you're not attacking a real position. And that wasn't clear at the time earlier in this thread, because you're kinda muddled in your writing and repetitive.

If all you were asking for was whether Christ had ever directly been described as "begotten of the Father" in the Bible, then no that doesn't occur, and that doesn't weaken the Creed or orthodox theology about the Trinity. For that matter the word 'Trinity', or even 'person', does not exist in the Bible. In fact the word person was invented originally to describe what in God was three, if not God Himself. There's no reason to restrain our theological language to what the Bible by historical accident and divine providence happens to contain. Someone of with that kind of pedantic interest might as well start to describe God as "Long of nose." as that's the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase used to show that "God is patient."

Personally I have no qualms, for many theological reasons about who Jesus is as the Son, and theological about the trinity, to say that Jesus is begotten. Unless you're dealing with cranks, who work on their own, believe their own works to be superior to anyone else's, then you'll never encounter a Christian who seriously thinks that the Son, being God, had a beginning.

Adrift
03-05-2015, 06:51 AM
The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning. Very simply the statement "begotten of the Father before all ages" is NOT Biblical. This is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures in any way. Had it read, "the only-begotten of the Father before all ages" I would be fine with that, because that concept is taught.

I agree with the others that "begotten" in the Nicene Creed doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

There's an Orthodox message forum discussion (http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/4788-the-use-of-born-vs-begotten-in-the-nicene-creed/) on this subject, and one of the mods, the Very Reverend Professor Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg), BA, M.St., D.Phil. (Dean; Patristics and Church History) has a great post on the subject, some of which I quote below:

So we have a phrase in the Creed which twice emphasises that the Son's existence is understood as being characterised by His relation to the Father, which is described as His (a) being begotten by the Father, and (b) being only-begotten of the Father. 'To beget' and 'to give birth' are really quite synonymous in terms of language, so the difference in English translation there is not the real nuance of the Creed. It is focused on the fact of the Son's being uniquely begotten of His Father.

The revised (i.e. Constantinopolitan, final) version of the Creed makes this nuance somewhat clearer by its reordering of the terms: the scriptural μονογενῆ is provided first, maintaining the scriptural confession of the Son as 'only-begotten of the father'; and then using γεννηθέντα to describe what this means: that He was begotten by the Father 'before all ages', not in time or bound by our normal conceptions of human begetting - but uniquely in form and reality, the one unique Son.


Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.


I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent. Eternal in that the Son is God with the Father. "with God." "was God."

The above is a little confusing because you're using the words "eternal" and "temporal" in an unusual way. You seem to be saying that Jesus always had his two natures, which contradicts the orthodox view that Jesus added a second nature at his incarnation. You distinguish these two natures by referring to them as 1. eternal, and 2. temporal.

Now, you do realize that when someone says that Jesus ALWAYS had two natures, that in a sense, both of Jesus' natures are eternal. Right?

But I'm guessing how you're using the words "eternal" and "temporal" is to mean something like: 1. eternal is outside of time, and, as you state, with the Father. and 2. temporal is within time (but, not with the Father?).

I'm assuming a lot of this has to do with your rejection of creatio ex nihilo. Is that correct?

Just so you know, the orthodox view that Jesus added or assumed his second nature at the incarnation does not affect his immutability. Immutability only has to do with his divinity and his divine nature.

It seems to me that your view that Jesus' "temporal" nature always existing (rather than finding its origin at the incarnation) will be problematic if we want to say that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. The orthodox view is that: what you call Jesus' "eternal nature", we call Jesus' "divine nature" (which is truly/fully divine/God). And what you call Jesus' "temporal nature" we call Jesus' truly/fully "human nature". If Jesus' had a pre-human nature called a "temporal nature", then that seems to deny his being truly/fully human. You might be able to get around this by saying that humans also have a pre-human "temporal nature", but that skirts awfully close to the Mormon idea of pre-mortal existence. I don't think you want to go there, though.

37818
03-05-2015, 07:35 AM
The writers of the Nicene Creed find it necessary to make the qualification "begotten, not made." I do not disagree with its intended meaning. I disagree with this unique wording as I have already argued.

Adrift
03-05-2015, 08:13 AM
The writers of the Nicene Creed find it necessary to make the qualification "begotten, not made." I do not disagree with its intended meaning. I disagree with this unique wording as I have already argued.

If you don't disagree with the Creed's intended meaning, why worry about the wording? Everyone knows what the wording is supposed to mean.

37818
03-05-2015, 08:51 AM
If you don't disagree with the Creed's intended meaning, why worry about the wording? Everyone knows what the wording is supposed to mean.

It is still based on an extra Biblical interpretation which lead to Arianism. The Son of God was not begotten to become the eternal Son of God. The Biblical use of the word "begotten" in regards to the Son of God was only to His resurrection. And creeds are statements of faith, and are not a valid standard to supersede the authority of the written word of God.

One Bad Pig
03-05-2015, 11:01 AM
What belief?
I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.
You do not have an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, because you misapprehend the meaning of begotten as used and have a flawed understanding of time. The Incarnation does not impact the immutability of the Son's divine nature. You are, of course, free to dispute the meaning of begotten, but in doing so you are rejecting the orthodox position.

37818
03-05-2015, 08:56 PM
You do not have an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, because you misapprehend the meaning of begotten as used and have a flawed understanding of time. The Incarnation does not impact the immutability of the Son's divine nature. You are, of course, free to dispute the meaning of begotten, but in doing so you are rejecting the orthodox position.My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox. You do not understand my view. I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages." I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.

Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?

Leonhard
03-06-2015, 12:53 AM
My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox. You do not understand my view. I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages."

Yes you do, you do misapprehend that word in that you keep insisting repetitively that it means that Christ came into existence at some point. That it denies the eternal and unchanging reality of his deity. That's not how the word is meant to be used. No Church Father, or any respected theologian following the Creeds formulation in the Nicene Council to mean that. In fact I'm not even sure you'd find lay Christians actively believing this.

You seem to insist on it for some reason.


Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?

Originally we weren't sure what exactly you were arguing. We now know that you merely the expression that uses 'begotten'. If you had actually denied that The Son was begotten of the Father, in the way its used int he Creed, then you'd have implicitly engaged in a heresy. You'd be believing in Jesus not as he exist. It would make you a material heretic. Since this is not he case you're not a heretic.

I don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?

Leonhard
03-06-2015, 12:53 AM
I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.

Want a ladder to help you get down from the high horse.

Adrift
03-06-2015, 05:06 AM
I don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?

Sounds like he doesn't believe that Jesus gained a human nature, but that his so-called "temporary nature" changed to a human one at the incarnation. I guess the idea is that it doesn't matter if Jesus' temporal or 'in-time' nature changes, because if the one in-time changes, it doesn't affect his immutability somehow. Its a complicated and unnecessarily extraneous solution to the problem of Jesus' immutability in the face of his incarnation. The orthodox view that Jesus simply assumed a second nature at the incarnation is a lot simpler, and logical, and doesn't at all affect his divine immutability.

37818
03-06-2015, 05:50 AM
Yes you do, you do misapprehend that word in that you keep insisting repetitively that it means that Christ came into existence at some point. That it denies the eternal and unchanging reality of his deity. That's not how the word is meant to be used. No Church Father, or any respected theologian following the Creeds formulation in the Nicene Council to mean that. In fact I'm not even sure you'd find lay Christians actively believing this.You are wrong. The word can have that meaning as testified by the needed qualification in the creed, "begotten, not made." My objection is to this unique usage, a usage of it not found in the holy scripture. And that creeds are not final authority in matters of faith or practice.


You seem to insist on it for some reason. My view point is baptist, that the holy scripture, not statements [creeds] of faith, is the final authority of faith and practice.




Originally we weren't sure what exactly you were arguing. We now know that you merely the expression that uses 'begotten'. If you had actually denied that The Son was begotten of the Father, in the way its used int he Creed, then you'd have implicitly engaged in a heresy. You'd be believing in Jesus not as he exist. It would make you a material heretic. Since this is not he case you're not a heretic. No. That creed in is not the word of God. To use it like the word of God is a damnable heresy. No one has gotten eternal life from it.

Chrawnus
03-06-2015, 06:01 AM
You are wrong. The word can have that meaning as testified by the needed qualification in the creed, "begotten, not made."

:doh:

That's not a qualification of the word begotten. The creed is saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made.

It is not saying "the Son is begotten, but by begotten we don't mean in a sense that he is created" rather, it is saying something closer to "the Son is begotten, as opposed to being made/created".

DesertBerean
03-06-2015, 06:18 AM
Phil 2:6 - 8?

One Bad Pig
03-06-2015, 06:28 AM
My view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox.
:doh: Everyone thinks their view is biblical. The Arians argued from scripture too. Does that make them orthodox? :no:

You do not understand my view.
You're right, your view is incomprehensible to me.

I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ.
The question is, what do you mean by "the eternal Sonship of Christ"?

I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages." I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.
Correction: you deny what, in your opinion, contradicts the word of God. You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of 'contradicts' which you seem to think sometimes means "does not appear explicitly in."


Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?
Let's not open that can of worms here. I don't worry about who's saved; I let God handle that.

37818
03-06-2015, 12:06 PM
I don't recall Martin saying that. I'll have to look it up and get back to you.

(a) the doctrine of "eternal generation" or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman
Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in ad. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to
misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the
realms of Christology.

(b) Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar
applied to Him in His incarnation.

(c) The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father," and has meaning only by analogy to
the fathers and sons we see in the created world. The term "Father," incidentally, never carries the
descriptive adjective "eternal" in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal 61 ("The
eternal Spirit"—Hebrews 9:14), emphasising the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional,
as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal
generation" misunderstandings of the theory as it is accepted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, if by eternal Sonship is meant that the
second person of the Trinity is both created and eternal in the same way and the same manner. This would
be a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word "Son" in such a sense predicates
time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless—the Word
was in the beginning, not the Son!Page numbers may vary with edition of the book. So I did not include page number. But it is from chapter 5 on Jehovah's Witnesses.

37818
03-06-2015, 12:15 PM
:doh: Everyone thinks their view is biblical. The Arians argued from scripture too. Does that make them orthodox? :no: But not all issues are essential to salvation.


You're right, your view is incomprehensible to me.The how can you be sure my view is heresy?


The question is, what do you mean by "the eternal Sonship of Christ"?That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.


Correction: you deny what, in your opinion, contradicts the word of God. You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of 'contradicts' which you seem to think sometimes means "does not appear explicitly in." It can be so. But that is not always the case.


Let's not open that can of worms here. I don't worry about who's saved; I let God handle that.Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

Chrawnus
03-06-2015, 12:17 PM
Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

Could you please clarify? Are you saying that people who say the Son is begotten of the Father believes in the "concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son"?

Leonhard
03-06-2015, 03:10 PM
I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation.

Yeah, but none of us believe that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son.

37818
03-07-2015, 05:32 AM
Could you please clarify? Are you saying that people who say the Son is begotten of the Father believes in the "concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son"?
Dr Walter Martin. He held that view. Studying this question I personally came to the conclusion Dr Martin is mistaken, and I came to the understanding that eternal Sonship is true. John MacAuthur held that view then change his view to believing in eternal Sonship, thinking now Ps 2:7 "this day" means in eternity past. :lolo:

37818
03-07-2015, 05:48 AM
Phil 2:6 - 8?"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " --[I] Philippians 2:5-8.

Chrawnus
03-07-2015, 05:53 AM
Dr Walter Martin. He held that view. Studying this question I personally came to the conclusion Dr Martin is mistaken, and I came to the understanding that eternal Sonship is true. John MacAuthur held that view then change his view to believing in eternal Sonship, thinking now Ps 2:7 "this day" means in eternity past. :lolo:

Great, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.

DesertBerean
03-07-2015, 06:25 AM
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " --[I] Philippians 2:5-8.
Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?

One Bad Pig
03-07-2015, 11:10 AM
But not all issues are essential to salvation.
Agreed.


The how can you be sure my view is heresy?
I can't be. However, when you state
I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures. implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.


That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.
Ok.


It can be so. But that is not always the case.
Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?


Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.
Ok.

37818
03-07-2015, 12:12 PM
I can't be. However, when you state implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.




Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.

One Bad Pig
03-07-2015, 05:06 PM
Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures.
Which is wrong.

Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed.
Yes.

In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation.
No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.

He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause.
Yes.

Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures.
This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?

Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed.
Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.

That He "was God" never changed.
True.


The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.
No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.

37818
03-08-2015, 05:22 AM
Great, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.

The Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.

37818
03-08-2015, 05:29 AM
Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?

Is eternal the same nature as temporal? Uncaused is eternal in nature. All causes are temporal. The uncaused cause has two natures. But is One being. (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17, this is the Uncaused Cause.)

37818
03-08-2015, 05:54 AM
Which is wrong. Adding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.



No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created. All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.




This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures? The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.


Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?



No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.

Chrawnus
03-08-2015, 06:09 AM
The Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.


All causes are temporal.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

Chrawnus
03-08-2015, 06:54 AM
Also, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, several things would seem to follow. One, it becomes inexplicable how it is that the Son and the Father share the same essence, since if the Son is the source of His own essence (instead of the Father communicating this essence to Him eternally and timelessly) it would seem to follow that there are two sources of divinity (three if you also deny the procession of the Holy Spirit) which would seem to give us not three persons in one being, but three persons in three beings.

Two, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, it is not clear to me how the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship can be affirmed. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (That is, the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father) explains how the Son can be equal with the Father, because the Son shares in the Fathers being and divinity, but it also explains why He is the Son, rather than being the Father, on account of Him being begotten, rather than begetting.

37818
03-08-2015, 08:56 AM
I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.




You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

Chrawnus
03-08-2015, 09:39 AM
Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.

Then you do not understand what the Nicene creed means when it affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.



That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

And your understanding of causation is confused. A cause and effect relationship in no way or form necessitates change. For example, me being created in the image of God is the cause of me being a rational being and having free will, and this cause and effect relationship is not one that is characterised by change.

37818
03-08-2015, 12:15 PM
I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.




You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

Chrawnus
03-08-2015, 12:28 PM
The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.

The Son of God is not a begotten God if by begotten we mean that the Son has a beginning. But that is not what we mean.

The teaching that the Son is begotten by the Father means that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father. Do you deny that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father, or do you hold that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Son Himself?



A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

You are confused because you think that being caused necessary implies change, which it does not. There is nothing to understand, because your identification of timeless causation with never being caused at all is confused. A more proper way to explain it would be that a timeless causation is an example of causation where the cause and effect exists simultaneously with no temporal change between the cause and effect.

One Bad Pig
03-08-2015, 01:49 PM
Adding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.
:no: It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.


All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.
This doesn't even come close to addressing my point.


The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.
Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?


I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?
You keep saying that, but you never argue from this position when you discuss the two natures of the Son.


Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.
What are you trying to do, give me so much work that I'll give up and go away? I refuted YOUR assertion from context.

One Bad Pig
03-08-2015, 01:52 PM
The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT.
Then what is the Father?

37818
03-08-2015, 03:24 PM
Then what is the Father?
Yehwah.

37818
03-09-2015, 06:08 AM
The Son of God is not a begotten God if by begotten we mean that the Son has a beginning. But that is not what we mean. OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.


The teaching that the Son is begotten by the Father means that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father. Do you deny that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father, or do you hold that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Son Himself? The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.



You are confused because you think that being caused necessary implies change, which it does not. There is nothing to understand, because your identification of timeless causation with never being caused at all is confused. A more proper way to explain it would be that a timeless causation is an example of causation where the cause and effect exists simultaneously with no temporal change between the cause and effect.
We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

37818
03-09-2015, 06:47 AM
:no: It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it. My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.




This doesn't even come close to addressing my point.

No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?




Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?No, I did not I did not dodge your,
This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?My answer being that the Son was also other than God. My meaning being, no, the Father does not have two natures. That the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3.

Adrift
03-09-2015, 07:27 AM
My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.



How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

The whole point of the orthodox view (that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation) is that his divine nature DID NOT CHANGE. In other words, by taking on a second nature, a fully human nature, the divine nature was left untouched. Jesus' divine nature retained its immutable characteristic.

Your unique view that Jesus had a beginningless in-time nature running alongside his beginningless outside-time nature runs into all sorts of issues:

First of all, your view that Jesus had some sort of "temporal" nature, pre-incarnation, that CHANGED into a human nature is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It makes the simple doctrine of Jesus assuming a second nature far more complicated than it needs to be. Moreso than the official orthodox doctrine of the church, it seems that your view points to a Jesus who is mutable. By attempting to safeguard against what you fear about the orthodox doctrine, you're actually making things worse.

Second of all, this view of a pre-incarnate second nature robs Jesus of his humanity. The whole point in saying that Jesus assumed his human nature at the incarnation is that he was like us in every way. How can Jesus be like us if in fact he had a pre-existing "temporary" nature that changed into a human nature?

Chrawnus
03-09-2015, 07:53 AM
OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.



The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?



We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallell lines.

And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills" (NASB rendering). Given that the NT writers themselves identify the Son with God's Wisdom (Luk 11:49 and 1 Cor 1:24) making the connection between Proverbs 8:22-31 and Jesus is completely warranted. And since Wisdom is said to have been brought forth(begotten), it follows that one can use such a term to signify the relationship that the Son has with the Father in eternity.

37818
03-09-2015, 09:01 AM
"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further. Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.




I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?Yes.




Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallel lines.Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.


And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled, . . ." <snip> No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

Chrawnus
03-09-2015, 09:16 AM
Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.

If something has already been defined as timeless/eternal it is impossible for it to be understood in terms of created, or "made".




Yes.


Is he also the source of the Son's being/essence?



Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.
No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

I disagree. Jesus himself refers to himself as Wisdom in Luk 11:49, and Paul calls Jesus God's Wisdom in 1 Cor 1:24. I would rather side with Jesus Himself, and Paul on this issue.


We can again endorse the church fathers' identification of the Son of God with divine Wisdom because the writers of the New Testament do the same thing. Contemporary critical scholars generally agree that the New Testament writers make this identification. For example, John depicts the preexistent Logos, or Son, in terms of the Jewish understanding of personified divine Wisdom. Like Wisdom he is from the beginning (Jn 1:1; cf. Prov 8:22-23; Sir 24:9; Wis 6:22); the agent of creation (Jn 1:2; cf. Prov 8:27-30; Sir 1:4; 24:9; 43:26); descended from heaven to dwell among people (Jn 3:17; cf. Prov 8:31; Sir 24:8; Bar 3:3; Wis 9:10); to reflect the glory of God (Jn 1:14; 2:11; cf. Wis 7:25); to be the light that comes into the world (Jn 8:12; cf. Wis 7:26); and to be born of God (Jn18:37;40 cf. Prov 8:25).41 Paul also identifies the Son with divine Wisdom.42 In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, Paul explicitly calls Christ "the Wisdom of God," and in Colossians 1:15-20 he designates Christ as "the image of God," "the firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15 TNIV), the agent of creation (Col 1:16), "the beginning" (Col 1:18) and the "fullness of God" (Col 1:19), all attributes or activities predicated of divine Wisdom. In Hebrews 1:1-3, the author of the epistle similarly speaks of the Son in terms of divine Wisdom to develop a christological argument reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX).43 Here the Son is again depicted as the agent of creation (Heb 1:2) and the "reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:3; cf. Wis 7:26).


So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.

Adrift
03-09-2015, 09:27 AM
"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

Yeah, it seems to me that the Athanasian Creed confirms this ancient understanding when it says, The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. They seemed to have understood that "begotten" was something entirely different from "made" or "created". I mean, the whole point of the Nicene Creed was to repudiate Arianism, which taught that Jesus was created by God. Why would a creed that is contrary to that assertion, in the end declare it?

37818
03-09-2015, 12:19 PM
If something has already been defined as timeless/eternal it is impossible for it to be understood in terms of created, or "made".




Is he also the source of the Son's being/essence?The Son is Yehwah.
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. . . ." -- Acts 10:43.

"I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. . . ." -- Isaiah 43:11.






I disagree. Jesus himself refers to himself as Wisdom in Luk 11:49, and Paul calls Jesus God's Wisdom in 1 Cor 1:24. I would rather side with Jesus Himself, and Paul on this issue.


We can again endorse the church fathers' identification of the Son of God with divine Wisdom because the writers of the New Testament do the same thing. Contemporary critical scholars generally agree that the New Testament writers make this identification. For example, John depicts the preexistent Logos, or Son, in terms of the Jewish understanding of personified divine Wisdom. Like Wisdom he is from the beginning (Jn 1:1; cf. Prov 8:22-23; Sir 24:9; Wis 6:22); the agent of creation (Jn 1:2; cf. Prov 8:27-30; Sir 1:4; 24:9; 43:26); descended from heaven to dwell among people (Jn 3:17; cf. Prov 8:31; Sir 24:8; Bar 3:3; Wis 9:10); to reflect the glory of God (Jn 1:14; 2:11; cf. Wis 7:25); to be the light that comes into the world (Jn 8:12; cf. Wis 7:26); and to be born of God (Jn18:37;40 cf. Prov 8:25).41 Paul also identifies the Son with divine Wisdom.42 In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, Paul explicitly calls Christ "the Wisdom of God," and in Colossians 1:15-20 he designates Christ as "the image of God," "the firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15 TNIV), the agent of creation (Col 1:16), "the beginning" (Col 1:18) and the "fullness of God" (Col 1:19), all attributes or activities predicated of divine Wisdom. In Hebrews 1:1-3, the author of the epistle similarly speaks of the Son in terms of divine Wisdom to develop a christological argument reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX).43 Here the Son is again depicted as the agent of creation (Heb 1:2) and the "reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:3; cf. Wis 7:26).


So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.Wisdom is she.

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: . . ." -- Proverbs 1:20.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: . . ." -- Proverbs 9:1

37818
03-09-2015, 01:53 PM
One form of the current traditional Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The following is corrected based on the Bible:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

One Bad Pig
03-09-2015, 06:19 PM
My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.



How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?
Adrift answered this pretty well, I think.

No, I did not I did not dodge your, My answer being that the Son was also other than God. My meaning being, no, the Father does not have two natures. That the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3.
I disagree that the Son is the uncaused cause; He is begotten of the Father, Who alone is unoriginate; the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. If all three are uncaused causes, then we no longer have a trinity, but a triad.

One Bad Pig
03-09-2015, 06:27 PM
One form of the current traditional Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The following is corrected based on the Bible:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I think I'll take the consensus of a large number of people who spoke and thought in Greek and had to deal with vigorous counter-arguments all the time over your independent second-language at best formulation (which, I note, uses and neglects to correct the adulterated Roman Catholic version which adds to scripture).

37818
03-09-2015, 07:21 PM
The whole point of the orthodox view (that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation) is that his divine nature DID NOT CHANGE. In other words, by taking on a second nature, a fully human nature, the divine nature was left untouched. Jesus' divine nature retained its immutable characteristic. If His nature was only being God immutable, how can His Person change to have an added nature of any kind? He could not actually become human. That would be a change from only being God in nature to not only being God in nature.



Your unique view that Jesus had a beginningless in-time nature running alongside his beginningless outside-time nature runs into all sorts of issues:

First of all, your view that Jesus had some sort of "temporal" nature, pre-incarnation, that CHANGED into a human nature is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It makes the simple doctrine of Jesus assuming a second nature far more complicated than it needs to be. Moreso than the official orthodox doctrine of the church, it seems that your view points to a Jesus who is mutable. By attempting to safeguard against what you fear about the orthodox doctrine, you're actually making things worse. How?


Second of all, this view of a pre-incarnate second nature robs Jesus of his humanity. The whole point in saying that Jesus assumed his human nature at the incarnation is that he was like us in every way. How can Jesus be like us if in fact he had a pre-existing "temporary" nature that changed into a human nature?He became really human. It was not a mere added facade of Him not changing to become human.

He was "with God." John 1:2. Meaning?

37818
03-09-2015, 07:34 PM
Adrift answered this pretty well, I think.

I disagree that the Son is the uncaused cause; He is begotten of the Father, Who alone is unoriginate; the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. If all three are uncaused causes, then we no longer have a trinity, but a triad.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9.

In my view all three are the one Yehwah. All three are the One uncaused. Only the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3. Colossians 1:16-17.

37818
03-09-2015, 07:37 PM
I think I'll take the consensus of a large number of people who spoke and thought in Greek and had to deal with vigorous counter-arguments all the time over your independent second-language at best formulation (which, I note, uses and neglects to correct the adulterated Roman Catholic version which adds to scripture).OK. Specifically?

37818
03-09-2015, 07:57 PM
The Orthodox Nicene Creed,
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.

As I believe,

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, the only-begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; not begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.

Now I see part of what you meant. Thank you.

Chrawnus
03-09-2015, 09:49 PM
If His nature was only being God immutable, how can His Person change to have an added nature of any kind? He could not actually become human. That would be a change from only being God in nature to not only being God in nature.

But it wouldn't be a change in His divine nature. His divine nature remains unchanged, but He takes on a human nature in addition to His divine nature.

Chrawnus
03-09-2015, 10:02 PM
Wisdom is she.

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: . . ." -- Proverbs 1:20.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: . . ." -- Proverbs 9:1

What's your point? The fact that the writers of the OT and deuterocanonical wisdom literature speaks of Wisdom as a she does not mean that Wisdom can't be identified with Jesus. And it doesn't deal with the fact that the writers of the New Testament themselves explicitly tell us that Jesus is Wisdom, and indirectly by drawing parallels between Jesus and things said about Wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature. As I said, I would rather stand with Jesus Himself and Paul on this issue, rather than someone who objects that Jesus can't be God's Wisdom because Wisdom is described as a she.

Adrift
03-09-2015, 10:22 PM
If His nature was only being God immutable, how can His Person change to have an added nature of any kind? He could not actually become human. That would be a change from only being God in nature to not only being God in nature.

But that's what we're telling you. By assuming a human nature Christ's Person DOESN'T CHANGE. As more than one old theologian put it, Christ's Person didn't change by assuming a human nature anymore than your person changes when you put on clothes.

To paraphrase Aquinas' view,

The creation of good things does not add anything to God's goodness, and similarly one should not think that the union of uncreated goodness with something good created, i.e. Christ's human nature, adds something to the uncreated goodness.


How?

Because you're asserting that Christ had some sort of nature that co-existed with his divine nature that was neither divine nor human. As far as I know, no one's ever heard of this before. Its some sort of strange stop-gap you're using to explain how God can work in time before Christ's incarnation and yet remain immutable, as though God's immutability suggested that his divinity were absolutely static, and that his divine nature was unable to interact with creation.


He became really human. It was not a mere added facade of Him not changing to become human.

Yes, I realize that you believe that. But you're suggesting that Jesus transformed into a human through some non-divine second nature that, as far as I know, has never been mentioned by orthodoxy's greatest theologians. The standard orthodox belief is that Christ assumed a second nature upon his incarnation through Mary so that he was human in all ways like we are human. Here, read the Chalcedonian Creed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

Jesus assumed his human nature by Mary. His second nature didn't pre-exist in some sort of non-human temporal state. If it did pre-exist, and he is like us in all things but without sin, then what you're suggesting is that we too had a pre-existing non-human, non-divine nature before we were born.


He was "with God." John 1:2. Meaning?

Meaning his divine nature was with God.

footwasher
03-09-2015, 10:24 PM
The Son is Yehwah.
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. . . ." -- Acts 10:43.

"I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. . . ." -- Isaiah 43:11.



Wisdom is she.

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: . . ." -- Proverbs 1:20.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: . . ." -- Proverbs 9:1

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cdelsandjesus.php

Quote
The tract also says that "unfortunately" Wisdom is "personified as a woman" which is only a problem for our modern, gender-concerned society. Gender for the ancients was a matter of role, not equipment; Wisdom played a "feminine" role (that of maintainer of the universal "household") and this has no bearing on the masculine incarnation of Jesus as Wisdom (whom, as we note in the article linked atop, claimed to be this Wisdom anyway). Indeed, widows were allowed to assume "male" roles to survive and were considered as "male" in role by others.

Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism adds another salient point: "Attribution of female roles to gods was by no means an Israelite invention." [91] Even the OT attributes female imagery to Yahweh (Deut. 32:18, Ps. 22:9-10, Is. 46:3, 66:9, 13) as Jesus applies female imagery to himself (as a mother hen over Jerusalem).

Yahweh and other ancient deities were beyond sexuality, but nevertheless expressed themselves in "genderly" ways. The Ugaritic deity Athtar is called in inscriptions both "father" and "mother". The "male" deities Shamash, Istanu, and Gatumdug are called a "mother". Female deities could also be ascribed male qualities. The Christadelphian objection is anachronistic.

-JPH

37818
03-10-2015, 05:46 AM
But it wouldn't be a change in His divine nature. His divine nature remains unchanged, but He takes on a human nature in addition to His divine nature.If His person is only of the divine nature there cannot be any change. Adding to the divine nature is a change to the divine nature.

DesertBerean
03-10-2015, 05:51 AM
:argh:

37818
03-10-2015, 05:56 AM
What's your point? The fact that the writers of the OT and deuterocanonical wisdom literature speaks of Wisdom as a she does not mean that Wisdom can't be identified with Jesus. And it doesn't deal with the fact that the writers of the New Testament themselves explicitly tell us that Jesus is Wisdom, and indirectly by drawing parallels between Jesus and things said about Wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature. As I said, I would rather stand with Jesus Himself and Paul on this issue, rather than someone who objects that Jesus can't be God's Wisdom because Wisdom is described as a she.


http://www.tektonics.org/af/cdelsandjesus.php

Quote
The tract also says that "unfortunately" Wisdom is "personified as a woman" which is only a problem for our modern, gender-concerned society. Gender for the ancients was a matter of role, not equipment; Wisdom played a "feminine" role (that of maintainer of the universal "household") and this has no bearing on the masculine incarnation of Jesus as Wisdom (whom, as we note in the article linked atop, claimed to be this Wisdom anyway). Indeed, widows were allowed to assume "male" roles to survive and were considered as "male" in role by others.

Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism adds another salient point: "Attribution of female roles to gods was by no means an Israelite invention." [91] Even the OT attributes female imagery to Yahweh (Deut. 32:18, Ps. 22:9-10, Is. 46:3, 66:9, 13) as Jesus applies female imagery to himself (as a mother hen over Jerusalem).

Yahweh and other ancient deities were beyond sexuality, but nevertheless expressed themselves in "genderly" ways. The Ugaritic deity Athtar is called in inscriptions both "father" and "mother". The "male" deities Shamash, Istanu, and Gatumdug are called a "mother". Female deities could also be ascribed male qualities. The Christadelphian objection is anachronistic.

-JPH

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

37818
03-10-2015, 06:09 AM
:argh:

What is believed that is agreed upon? What is the difference being disagreed upon? Make the two lists. We take the common ground and work from there. When ever there is disagreement of any kind, there is always something being believed differently. But then we need to understand what that fundamental is.

A high level argument has some low level key difference. We need to identify it.

For me the Apostolic authority is the written word of God. [The 66 book Book we call the Bible. ] Not merely some statement of belief [creed].

37818
03-10-2015, 06:14 AM
But that's what we're telling you. By assuming a human nature Christ's Person DOESN'T CHANGE. As more than one old theologian put it, Christ's Person didn't change by assuming a human nature anymore than your person changes when you put on clothes.

To paraphrase Aquinas' view,

The creation of good things does not add anything to God's goodness, and similarly one should not think that the union of uncreated goodness with something good created, i.e. Christ's human nature, adds something to the uncreated goodness.



Because you're asserting that Christ had some sort of nature that co-existed with his divine nature that was neither divine nor human. As far as I know, no one's ever heard of this before. Its some sort of strange stop-gap you're using to explain how God can work in time before Christ's incarnation and yet remain immutable, as though God's immutability suggested that his divinity were absolutely static, and that his divine nature was unable to interact with creation.



Yes, I realize that you believe that. But you're suggesting that Jesus transformed into a human through some non-divine second nature that, as far as I know, has never been mentioned by orthodoxy's greatest theologians. The standard orthodox belief is that Christ assumed a second nature upon his incarnation through Mary so that he was human in all ways like we are human. Here, read the Chalcedonian Creed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

Jesus assumed his human nature by Mary. His second nature didn't pre-exist in some sort of non-human temporal state. If it did pre-exist, and he is like us in all things but without sin, then what you're suggesting is that we too had a pre-existing non-human, non-divine nature before we were born.



Meaning his divine nature was with God.You are not making any sense to me. So your line of argument does not do me any good.

37818
03-10-2015, 06:25 AM
But it wouldn't be a change in His divine nature. His divine nature remains unchanged, but He takes on a human nature in addition to His divine nature.
That is a change. There is no way around that. From only being divine to not solely being divine. That is a change and so negates any supposed claim of immutability. Given: only being divine to begin with.

Adrift
03-10-2015, 06:31 AM
You are not making any sense to me. So your line of argument does not do me any good.

Honestly, I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

DesertBerean
03-10-2015, 06:36 AM
What is believed that is agreed upon? What is the difference being disagreed upon? Make the two lists. We take the common ground and work from there. When ever there is disagreement of any kind, there is always something being believed differently. But then we need to understand what that fundamental is.

A high level argument has some low level key difference. We need to identify it.

For me the Apostolic authority is the written word of God. [The 66 book Book we call the Bible. ] Not merely some statement of belief [creed].

Nope. You dug yourself into this hole and refused the ladder.

Chrawnus
03-10-2015, 08:47 AM
"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

When are you going to deal with the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself makes the connection between Wisdom and the Son? :huh:

37818
03-10-2015, 01:49 PM
Nope. You dug yourself into this hole and refused the ladder.So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

What did I say that is not true? Quote me. Give the holy scripture.

37818
03-10-2015, 01:57 PM
When are you going to deal with the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself makes the connection between Wisdom and the Son? :huh:I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT. That the connection is that He as God possesses her.
"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." -- John 1:3.

Adrift
03-10-2015, 02:19 PM
So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

What did I say that is not true?

That Jesus did not assume or add his human nature at the incarnation through Mary, but that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation; An "eternal" divine nature (which is true), and another nature that you call a "temporal" nature (which is not true). You then suggest that this "temporal" nature changed into his human nature at the incarnation.


Quote me.

Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent.

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.


Give the holy scripture.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Hebrews 2:14-17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

One Bad Pig
03-10-2015, 06:29 PM
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9.
Sure.


In my view all three are the one Yehwah.
Sure.

All three are the One uncaused.
Not possible. If all three were uncaused, there would be three Gods, not one.

Only the Son is the uncaused cause.
This makes absolutely no sense (and is contradictory to your last assertion, to boot).

One Bad Pig
03-10-2015, 06:32 PM
"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

This was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").

Chrawnus
03-11-2015, 05:39 AM
I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

Huh? :hrm:



The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT.

Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1

37818
03-11-2015, 06:33 AM
Huh? :hrm: I had typed "what" for the word "want."



Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

Chrawnus
03-11-2015, 06:43 AM
I had typed "what" for the word "want."

Thank you for the clarification.



"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

All appearances of God/YHWH in the OT might be of the Son (and I would be inclined to agree with you on that), but that does not mean that all references/mentions of YHWH/God in the OT is of the Son. Proverbs 8:22 is not an appearance of the LORD, but rather a reference, which means that you cannot use the fact that no one has seen the Father to argue that it couldn't possibly refer to Him.

37818
03-11-2015, 06:45 AM
So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

What did I say that is not true?

That Jesus did not assume or add his human nature at the incarnation through Mary, but that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation; An "eternal" divine nature (which is true), and another nature that you call a "temporal" nature (which is not true). You then suggest that this "temporal" nature changed into his human nature at the incarnation.

Quote me.

Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent.

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.


Give the holy scripture.
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Hebrews 2:14-17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth. In becoming man, He did not cease being God. That He lived a holy sinless life, died on the cross for sins of all men. And was buried and rose bodily as the first immortal man. Ascending into the heaven of heavens to be our mediator until He returns at His second coming.

Chrawnus
03-11-2015, 06:52 AM
This was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").

:yes:


A historical example of one text leading the church into error is seen in the Arian debate, specifically on the question of the generation of the Son. The Arians of the fourth century constantly appealed to one text, Proverbs 8:22, in their "authorized version," the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), to prove that the Son, identified with personified Wisdom in this verse, was created in time by God the Father. In Greek the text does speak of the creation of Wisdom in time, but none of the Nicene fathers would allow this interpretation.17 For them the whole of Scripture made it clear that the Son was not a creature brought forth in time. This one discordant text, they argued, had to be interpreted in the light of what was primary and foundational in scriptural revelation. The renowned Reformed New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, noting how Christians often major on one text,I" makes the startling conclusion that "the fountainhead of all false biblical interpretation and of all heresy is invariably the isolation and the absolutising of one single passage.""

Note however how none of the Nicene fathers argued that Proverbs 8:22 didn't speak of the Son, but rather that the Arians misinterpreted the verse because they ignored passages in the Bible which clearly showed that the Son was eternal.

Adrift
03-11-2015, 07:41 AM
I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth. In becoming man, He did not cease being God. That He lived a holy sinless life, died on the cross for sins of all men. And was buried and rose bodily as the first immortal man. Ascending into the heaven of heavens to be our mediator until He returns at His second coming.

I know you believe all of that. You also believe that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation. That isn't an orthodox view.

37818
03-11-2015, 08:51 AM
I know you believe all of that. You also believe that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation. That isn't an orthodox view.That "orthodox" view knows nothing for or against it. It is silent. What it does profess, and I agree with, the Son of God has two natures being both fully God and becoming fully man.

Adrift
03-11-2015, 09:06 AM
That "orthodox" view knows nothing for or against it. It is silent.

It isn't silent, and certainly not on this matter. If it were silent we wouldn't have been having this discussion.


What it does profess, and I agree with, the Son of God has two natures being both fully God and becoming fully man.

It also professes that Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation. That is the orthodox view that you challenge.

37818
03-11-2015, 12:16 PM
It isn't silent, and certainly not on this matter. If it were silent we wouldn't have been having this discussion.Give one citation where they mention a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? It is agreed that the Son had a pre-incarnate divine nature, being "of one essence with the Father.". The fact is saying the "the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages." is a different characteristic from the Father. I see it as another nature, in being the Son as distinct from the Father. While still being the same God as the Father.




It also professes that Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation. That is the orthodox view that you challenge.I never challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature. I only asserted that there was another nature which was changed in the adding the incarnation. Not His divine nature had changed. If He only had a divine nature, I have argued then in that case, it did change being alone.

Adrift
03-11-2015, 12:42 PM
Give one citation where they mention a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? It is agreed that the Son had a pre-incarnate divine nature, being "of one essence with the Father.".

Are you playing games 37818 or do you really not understand the argument against your position? Why in the world would I want to find a citation that says that a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? Of course a pre-incarnate nature is allowed! In keeping with orthodox belief, I believe that Jesus had ONE (1) pre-incarnate nature. A divine nature.

You believe that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before his incarnation. That is not orthodox belief.


I never challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature.

I don't know what this means. Who said that you "challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature"? What I said that you challenged was that "Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation."


I only asserted that there was another nature which was changed in the adding the incarnation.

This sentence its a little nonsensical, because an incarnation is not a thing that can be added. Its a process.

At any rate, the view that there was another nature other than Christ's divine nature -- a nature that you call a "temporal" nature, and that you claim existed before the incarnation (that changed at the incarnation) -- that view is unorthodox.


Not His divine nature had changed. If He only had a divine nature, I have argued then it did change being alone.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this to you, but maybe if I put it in all caps.

I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS' DIVINE NATURE CHANGED AT THE INCARNATION.

I NEVER thought you thought that. So you can stop repeating it like I didn't realize it. Okay?

The issue that I have with your view is your belief that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before the incarnation, and that one of those natures (HIS TEMPORARY NATURE) changed at the incarnation. THAT IS UNORTHODOX. Jesus DID NOT have TWO (2) natures before his incarnation. He had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation. That one nature was divine.

And the orthodox view is that at the incarnation Jesus assumed a second nature without changing the divine nature. I went into how that is possible in post #133, but instead of engaging that reply you hand waved it away and said it didn't make sense to you.

37818
03-11-2015, 02:01 PM
Adrift.

Please make clear why the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, being begotten does not constitute a different nature from the Father's nature. Seen they both are one being the one divine nature?

I see two natures. One makes the Son distinct from the Father.

Adrift
03-11-2015, 02:35 PM
Adrift.

Please make clear why the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, being begotten does not constitute a different nature from the Father's nature. Seen they both are one being the one divine nature?

I have no idea what you're asking me here. It is you who are challenging the orthodox view on the two natures of Jesus, not me. Its your claim that Jesus has TWO (2) natures before the incarnation. The orthodox view is that Jesus had only ONE (1) nature before the incarnation and TWO after the incarnation.

The reason the early church formulated the concept of Jesus' two natures (1 before the incarnation, 2 after the incarnation) has to do with Jesus retaining his full divinity, in light of his adding a full humanity. You've taken the doctrine of the Two Natures of Jesus Christ, that was postulated specifically to explain the incarnation in light of the fact that Jesus is immutable in his divinity, and you've added to it, you've twisted it, and you've made it far more complex than it ought to be.


I see two natures. One makes the Son distinct from the Father.

I would agree that having two natures (AFTER THE INCARNATION) is one of the things that makes the Son distinct from the Father.

37818
03-11-2015, 08:12 PM
I have no idea what you're asking me here. It is you who are challenging the orthodox view on the two natures of Jesus, not me. Its your claim that Jesus has TWO (2) natures before the incarnation. The orthodox view is that Jesus had only ONE (1) nature before the incarnation and TWO after the incarnation.No. I do not believe traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things. So far my understanding is been dismissed with "its not orthodox." And comes across as vilification rather than correction.


The reason the early church formulated the concept of Jesus' two natures (1 before the incarnation, 2 after the incarnation) has to do with Jesus retaining his full divinity, in light of his adding a full humanity. You've taken the doctrine of the Two Natures of Jesus Christ, that was postulated specifically to explain the incarnation in light of the fact that Jesus is immutable in his divinity, and you've added to it, you've twisted it, and you've made it far more complex than it ought to be.Jesus having two natures in His incarnation, I do not see it as an issue. Since it is true.

Your understanding of "with God" came across as problematic. Since being "with" someone is not the same as being that someone. And the Son is not the Father. And the Son's deity is the Father. Two Persons the same God. Having the same nature as God "was God." So was both other than God and God too. The implication being He had and has nature which was not God. "The same was in the beginning with God." In the incarnation (v.14) which being a man is not God. But He did not cease being God. How He was "with God" changed.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." I understand two natures here, before the incarnation.






I would agree that having two natures (AFTER THE INCARNATION) is one of the things that makes the Son distinct from the Father. The Son of God was always distinct from God. Even though being the Son He was also equal to God as God. Subordinate as the Son but equal as God.

Adrift
03-11-2015, 10:00 PM
No. I do not believe traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things.

Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?


So far my understanding is been dismissed with "its not orthodox." And comes across as vilification rather than correction.

I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away.


Jesus having two natures in His incarnation, I do not see it as an issue. Since it is true.

You're playing games again. The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.


Your understanding of "with God" came across as problematic. Since being "with" someone is not the same as being that someone.

John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.


And the Son is not the Father. And the Son's deity is the Father. Two Persons the same God. Having the same nature as God "was God."

Yes.


So was both other than God and God too.

More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.


The implication being He had and has nature which was not God.

Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.


How He was "with God" changed.

If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." I understand two natures here, before the incarnation.

Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.





The Son of God was always distinct from God. Even though being the Son He was also equal to God as God. Subordinate as the Son but equal as God.

Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.

DesertBerean
03-11-2015, 10:19 PM
Like I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.

Pentecost
03-12-2015, 02:12 PM
There are two things I feel I must note here, first, the reason 37818 that you have proposed for coming up with this second nature pre-incarnation is that you seem to think that if a being only has one nature, then an inherent quality of that nature must be that it is the only nature, which is false. Adding a human nature would not change the God nature unless that was a quality held by the God nature, which is not the usual understanding at all. An imperfect example is that if I am standing alone at a bus stop I have the quality of being alone, but it is not part of my nature to be alone, and so if someone joins me in waiting, I am no longer alone, but I retain my nature. Therefore, the idea that I needed an unmentioned essentially meaningless second person waiting with me before the person mentioned in my narrative arrived so as to make sure I never lost the quality of being alone, is pointless. And further, if we are adding arbitrary qualities to the nature of God, then one might say that the divine nature of the Son changed because the union changed from being between divine and temporal to divine and human, which is just as much a change as the one you are seeking to avoid. The orthodox understanding is the only one that may be logically held here.

My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it? Is it mentioned in Scripture other than your proof text of John 1:1-2? Which is properly understood imo, in the idea that Jesus was both God and with another who was God, aka the Father, or the Spirit. Which removes the perogative to imagine how Jesus could have been both God and with Himself without a second nature, because this text is not referring to his nature, it is referring to his essance of oneness within the Trinity, but distinctness from the Father, and Spirit.

Adrift
03-12-2015, 02:35 PM
My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it?

If I'm understanding 37818's view correctly, part of his thinking that Jesus had some sort of temporal nature before the incarnation is tied to his mistaken belief that the divine characteristic of immutability is static rather than dynamic. He seems to think that the divine nature cannot, of itself, do anything in time. It can't create, and it can't interact with its creation, because to do so, in his opinion, would necessitate change. So he came up with this concept of God having some stop-gap nature that would allow him to be in time, while the divine nature just chilled out. But that's clearly not what's in mind by the traditional view of God's immutability.

Speaking to this in defense of the doctrine of God's immutability from (primarily Open Theist) detractors, the professor of religion at Pepperdine University, Ron Highfield writes,

What shall we say to these criticisms? First, let us deal with the critics' descriptions of the traditional doctrine. All of the critics mentioned present the tradition as if it were saying that God is unrelated, static, cold, aloof, unresponsive, and dead. But, as we have already seen, this caricature bears little resemblance to the God of the church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and orthodox Protestantism. For them, God is not "static" -- a term that applies to something that has potential for movement but is stuck in its present state -- but pure act. God's immutability is not the immutability of a rock but the immutability of a perfectly dynamic and unlimited life. ...God's immutability does not render him unrelated and aloof; rather, it guarantees his ability to be absolutely present as our totally reliable Creator. If God were not immutable, he could not come near to us -- as in the incarnation -- without being changed by the relationship. God could not be himself for us. Far from making God unresponsive and dead, his immutability assures us that God is life itself without any admixture of death (that is, mere potentiality). God is eternally and proactively our good in every situation.

37818
03-12-2015, 07:08 PM
Like I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.

No. I'm not digging the hole. But I am being pushed in to one that was already dug, not by me.

There is a saying:

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity." -- Rupertus Meldenius

Now I see this disagreement on the preexistent nature of Christ before His incarnation to be a secondary issue. Not a matter, necessarily regarding salvation. Now if this disagreement leads to denial of some essentials of the faith, then in that case it is a problem.

The church teachers were teaching the Son of God being the only-begotten was do to some kind of being begotten of the Father before all ages. Which the person known as Arius is attributed to have written or said, "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

My view is the only-begotten is of the Father before all ages, not begotten, not made. That the Nicene Creed intention is to quell the false view of Arius, saying "begotten, not made."

It is my understanding that the Biblical use of the term "begotten" regards to the Son of God is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). Signifying that Christ is the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

If this "hole" is do to my asking for the Biblical basis for "begotten of the Father before all ages." I have no disagreement with the intent. Just that it is unique as as fare as I can discern not Biblical. And as an interpretation not a matter against salvation to those who accept that in that creed. That "hole" has been here a lot longer, before I asked (4th century). Arius' error is based of this unbiblical notion of being "begotten of the Father" before creation.

37818
03-12-2015, 07:31 PM
Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?




I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away. Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.




You're playing games again.You are not making any sense.
The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.

Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"




John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.[quote]Yes.






[quote]
More correctly, other than the Father, and God too. The text does not say "Father" but "with God."




Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.His human nature became His second nature.




If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.Yes, I have said this.




Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.Well maybe at this point what is being called orthodox is not orthodox.







Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indecationg He was also someone other than God.

37818
03-12-2015, 07:32 PM
Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?




I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away. Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.




You're playing games again.You are not making any sense.
The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.

Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"




John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.Yes.








More correctly, other than the Father, and God too. The text does not say "Father" but "with God."




Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.His human nature became His second nature.




If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.Yes, I have said this.




Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.







Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.

Adrift
03-12-2015, 07:39 PM
No. I'm not digging the hole. But I am being pushed in to one that was already dug, not by me.

There is a saying:

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity." -- Rupertus Meldenius

Now I see this disagreement on the preexistent nature of Christ before His incarnation to be a secondary issue. Not a matter, necessarily regarding salvation. Now if this disagreement leads to denial of some essentials of the faith, then in that case it is a problem.

The church teachers were teaching the Son of God being the only-begotten was do to some kind of being begotten of the Father before all ages. Which the person known as Arius is attributed to have written or said, "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

My view is the only-begotten is of the Father before all ages, not begotten, not made. That the Nicene Creed intention is to quell the false view of Arius, saying "begotten, not made."

It is my understanding that the Biblical use of the term "begotten" regards to the Son of God is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). Signifying that Christ is the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

If this "hole" is do to my asking for the Biblical basis for "begotten of the Father before all ages." I have no disagreement with the intent. Just that it is unique as as fare as I can discern not Biblical. And as an interpretation not a matter against salvation to those who accept that in that creed. That "hole" has been here a lot longer, before I asked (4th century). Arius' error is based of this unbiblical notion of being "begotten of the Father" before creation.

Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature. :huh:

Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.

37818
03-12-2015, 07:53 PM
There are two things I feel I must note here, first, the reason 37818 that you have proposed for coming up with this second nature pre-incarnation is that you seem to think that if a being only has one nature, then an inherent quality of that nature must be that it is the only nature, which is false. Adding a human nature would not change the God nature unless that was a quality held by the God nature, which is not the usual understanding at all. An imperfect example is that if I am standing alone at a bus stop I have the quality of being alone, but it is not part of my nature to be alone, and so if someone joins me in waiting, I am no longer alone, but I retain my nature. Therefore, the idea that I needed an unmentioned essentially meaningless second person waiting with me before the person mentioned in my narrative arrived so as to make sure I never lost the quality of being alone, is pointless. And further, if we are adding arbitrary qualities to the nature of God, then one might say that the divine nature of the Son changed because the union changed from being between divine and temporal to divine and human, which is just as much a change as the one you are seeking to avoid. The orthodox understanding is the only one that may be logically held here.

My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it? Is it mentioned in Scripture other than your proof text of John 1:1-2? Which is properly understood imo, in the idea that Jesus was both God and with another who was God, aka the Father, or the Spirit. Which removes the perogative to imagine how Jesus could have been both God and with Himself without a second nature, because this text is not referring to his nature, it is referring to his essance of oneness within the Trinity, but distinctness from the Father, and Spirit.Immutability is the characteristic of truth. What is immutable is static. God's omniscience is static. Truth is immutability. The relationship of God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit allows change/mutability. That is on the account of the temporal relationship of God to the Son of God.

"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -- Mark 1:11.
" And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." -- Mark 9:7.
"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:7.
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32.

Adrift
03-12-2015, 08:03 PM
Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why?

I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.


If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?

That's not really relevant to our discussion.


Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.

I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.


Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God.

You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.


Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"

:no: The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures.


The text does not say "Father" but "with God."

So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father? Another compromise?


His human nature became His second nature.

Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature.


What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.

That's what every unorthodox person claims.


Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.

Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.

37818
03-12-2015, 08:11 PM
Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature. :huh:

Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.

Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
Leaving everything else believed intact.
Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
Can you do that in your mind?

Now with only those changes - how does that negate salvation?

Adrift
03-12-2015, 08:21 PM
Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
Leaving everything else believed intact.
Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
Can you do that in your mind?

I have absolutely no problem understanding that you are making an issue out of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed that no one else here has an issue with, and I have no problem imagining that Jesus had an in-time second nature before his incarnation, which turned into a human nature at the incarnation (even though that isn't the case). I've repeated your argument back to you a number of times throughout this thread, so its strange that you repeat it again and again as though I didn't know it. And I never said your view negates salvation (though, I suppose it could).

37818
03-12-2015, 08:47 PM
I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.I know I am now saved (Ephesians 2:8-9) That I now know I have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 9-13).




That's not really relevant to our discussion.Oh, but it is: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ." -- 2 John 9 (Also John 8:24)




I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.So are you saying orthodox does not need to be according to God's word?




You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.You are not understanding. Jesus was fully a human. Which is not to be God (Numbers 23:19). Yet He was also fully God (John 5:18). If He was not God, He would be a sinner being a man (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15).




:no: The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures. No I am not confusing Persons with Natures. Where John 1:1 says "was God" refers to natures. Where John 1:1, 2 says "with God" refers to Persons. One who is "with God" is not the Person God.




So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father? Of course is refers to the Son with the Father. The Son "of God." The Father is God. The Son is "of God." But the text says "with God" it is not saying it in the form "with the Father." Indicating being someone else than God. They are both the same God. Two Persons. The Son is not God apart from God.




Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature. It is His second nature now and forever (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 13:8).




That's what every unorthodox person claims.So your admit being unorthodox? Seriously, do you think I set out to believe what I should know is not true? I believe the word of God. Show me from the Bible. I have tried to convey what I believe is Biblical. And that what is truly Biblical is truly orthodox. If it be contrary to the Bible it is then not orthodox.




Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.I understand the Son and Father is in mind. But text does not use "with the Father" rather "with God" making it explicit twice (v.1 and v.2) emphasizing that the Word was someone else beside God. And also was God too (v.1 and v.3). That is what it says.

37818
03-12-2015, 08:51 PM
I have absolutely no problem understanding that you are making an issue out of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed that no one else here has an issue with, and I have no problem imagining that Jesus had an in-time second nature before his incarnation, which turned into a human nature at the incarnation (even though that isn't the case). I've repeated your argument back to you a number of times throughout this thread, so its strange that you repeat it again and again as though I didn't know it. And I never said your view negates salvation (though, I suppose it could).

Supposing something does not make it true, just because you choose not to believe what you disagree with.

Can you show my view is not according to the word of God?

Then why did you say or suggest I should not call myself Christian?

Adrift
03-12-2015, 09:35 PM
I know I am now saved (Ephesians 2:8-9) That I now know I have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 9-13).


Oh, but it is: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ." -- 2 John 9 (Also John 8:24)


So are you saying orthodox does not need to be according to God's word?


You are not understanding. Jesus was fully a human. Which is not to be God (Numbers 23:19). Yet He was also fully God (John 5:18). If He was not God, He would be a sinner being a man (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15).


No I am not confusing Persons with Natures. Where John 1:1 says "was God" refers to natures. Where John 1:1, 2 says "with God" refers to Persons. One who is "with God" is not the Person God.


Of course is refers to the Son with the Father. The Son "of God." The Father is God. The Son is "of God." But the text says "with God" it is not saying it in the form "with the Father." Indicating being someone else than God. They are both the same God. Two Persons. The Son is not God apart from God.


It is His second nature now and forever (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 13:8).


So your admit being unorthodox? Seriously, do you think I set out to believe what I should know is not true? I believe the word of God. Show me from the Bible. I have tried to convey what I believe is Biblical. And that what is truly Biblical is truly orthodox. If it be contrary to the Bible it is then not orthodox.


I understand the Son and Father is in mind. But text does not use "with the Father" rather "with God" making it explicit twice (v.1 and v.2) emphasizing that the Word was someone else beside God. And also was God too (v.1 and v.3). That is what it says.

This is getting boring. Here's a commentary on the passage by D.A. Carson. Hopefully it'll pinpoint for you where you're off in your understanding.

Because this Word, this divine self-expression, existed in the beginning, one might suppose that it was either with God, or nothing less than God himself. John insists the Word was both. The Word, he says, was with God. The preposition translated ‘with’ is pros, which commonly means ‘to’ or ‘toward’. On that basis, many writers say John is trying to express a peculiar intimacy between the Word and God: the Word is oriented toward God, like lovers perpetually running toward each other in a beach scene from a sentimental film. That surely claims too much. In first–century Greek pros was encroaching on the territory normally occupied by other words for ‘with’. In the NIV, the following instances of ‘with’ all have pros behind them: ‘Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ (Mk. 6:3); ‘Every day I was with you’ (Mk. 14:49); ‘at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8); ‘I would have liked to keep him with me’ (Phm. 13); ‘the eternal life, which was with the Father’ (1 Jn. 1:2). What we notice about all these examples, however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:15), pros may mean ‘with’ only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the ‘Word’ he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him.

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

37818
03-12-2015, 09:43 PM
Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.

Adrift
03-12-2015, 09:43 PM
Then why did you say or suggest I should not call myself Christian?

I didn't. What I asked was, "shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view?"

DesertBerean
03-12-2015, 09:58 PM
Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.
Not sure who told you that...but if it was from us staff, it would have been rather a request to designate yourself Unorthodox.

Pentecost
03-13-2015, 06:32 PM
Immutability is the characteristic of truth. What is immutable is static. God's omniscience is static. Truth is immutability. The relationship of God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit allows change/mutability. That is on the account of the temporal relationship of God to the Son of God. I no longer understand you. Can you please clarify? Until I understand you I cannot morally choose to divide from you. In fact, having progressed to where we are in the conversation, I am doubtful this is even a conversation of orthodoxy, but because we are touching on the the basics of Christian theology. Your denial of the Nicene Creed, either Western or Eastern seems odd because you seem to deny it based on a false understanding of it. I agree with you that the creeds are not in any way equivalent to Scripture, but the Nicene Creed is a summary of Biblical faith when understood the way it was intended.


"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -- Mark 1:11.
" And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." -- Mark 9:7.
"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:7.
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32. I assume this was in response to my asking for texts that support your view? If so thank you. Unfortunately, I do not know how you would argue they support your unique position.

Edit: I found your post in unorthodox theology, if you are no longer allowed to post in this section I would love to continue speaking to you there.

mossrose
03-13-2015, 07:04 PM
Bye. I'm being asked to say I'm not a Christian.

No, you were asked to change to "unorthodox". There is a setting for Christian (unothodox), that would have been fine, but you apparently didn't understand what I told you to do. I will take the blame for that since I apparently didn't know you wouldn't understand me.

37818
03-24-2015, 06:09 AM
No, you were asked to change to "unorthodox". There is a setting for Christian (unothodox), that would have been fine, but you apparently didn't understand what I told you to do. I will take the blame for that since I apparently didn't know you wouldn't understand me.
Christianity 201

Laying on of hands isn't always a good thing. General topics within historic Christianity. Christian Only.Respectfully, mossrose, your statement is false. Unorthodox is not to be a Christian. Non-christians, whether they use the label Christian or not, are lost, in need of salvation.

" . . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath 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." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

One Bad Pig
03-24-2015, 06:19 AM
Christianity 201

Laying on of hands isn't always a good thing. General topics within historic Christianity. Christian Only.Respectfully, mossrose, your statement is false. Unorthodox is not to be a Christian. Non-christians, whether they use the label Christian or not, are lost, in need of salvation.

" . . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath 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." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.
Respectfully, you are not the arbiter of what words mean, here or anywhere.

37818
03-25-2015, 06:25 AM
Respectfully, you are not the arbiter of what words mean, here or anywhere.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.

One Bad Pig
03-26-2015, 07:20 AM
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.
What is this, a random bible verse? Or are you trying to imply that we're lost? :ahem:

Leonhard
04-04-2015, 07:18 AM
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26.

Amen... did you have a point with it though? :lol:

37818
04-20-2015, 07:58 PM
Amen... did you have a point with it though? :lol:


I'm the one here being exclude as if not Christian from the "Christian only" forums. What essential of the Christian faith do I deny?

What comes to mind, David when Saul sought to kill him wrote, "no man cared for my soul." While it is not the same, it came to mind.

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 06:14 AM
I'm the one here being exclude as if not Christian from the "Christian only" forums. What essential of the Christian faith do I deny?
We're excluding you from those forums because your beliefs are not orthodox, not because we don't think you're a Christian in any sense.


What comes to mind, David when Saul sought to kill him wrote, "no man cared for my soul." While it is not the same, it came to mind.
:ahem: Your martyr complex is duly noted.

37818
04-21-2015, 12:12 PM
We're excluding you from those forums because your beliefs are not orthodox, not because we don't think you're a Christian in any sense. Ah, being exclued from "Christian only" forum, is not in any sense?


:ahem: Your martyr complex is duly noted.If it is not a matter of salvation, then it is a secondary issue. What specific truth am I denying? [for clarity.] And then why is it essential to orthodoxy? This is important is it not?

One Bad Pig
04-21-2015, 03:03 PM
Ah, being exclued from "Christian only" forum, is not in any sense?
We have guidelines (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=45) which clearly explain what we mean by that.


If it is not a matter of salvation, then it is a secondary issue. What specific truth am I denying? [for clarity.] And then why is it essential to orthodoxy? This is important is it not?
You've been told, repeatedly, that your christology (and hence your view of the Trinity) is unorthodox, and why, in this thread. I don't see any need to rehash old ground yet again because you're still not satisfied. It's not going to get any clearer until you start using the same definitions everyone else does.

37818
04-22-2015, 05:43 AM
We have guidelines (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=45) which clearly explain what we mean by that.I meet those guide lines.


You've been told, repeatedly, that your christology (and hence your view of the Trinity) is unorthodox, . . . Alleged. The fact is that I do agree with the Tweb mission statement.




. . . and why, in this thread. I don't see any need to rehash old ground yet again because you're still not satisfied. It's not going to get any clearer until you start using the same definitions everyone else does.OK. Has the definition of the trinity changed? One God who is three Persons. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the three Persons who are the one God. That the Son of God in the incarnation is both fully man and remains fully God.

One Bad Pig
04-22-2015, 07:10 AM
I meet those guide lines.
Allegedly.


Alleged. The fact is that I do agree with the Tweb mission statement.
Which we're revising to make it more difficult for people like you who like to use their own definitions, much like the Nicene Creed was formulated to exclude Arians, who could agree with a wink and a nod with earlier creeds.


OK. Has the definition of the trinity changed? One God who is three Persons. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the three Persons who are the one God. That the Son of God in the incarnation is both fully man and remains fully God.
The devil, as they say, is in the details. When you "hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures," that is a claim alien to orthodox thought. When you reject that the Son was begotten of the Father before all ages, you are rejecting orthodox thought.

Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something.

37818
04-22-2015, 07:07 PM
Which we're revising to make it more difficult for people like you who like to use their own definitions, much like the Nicene Creed was formulated to exclude Arians, who could agree with a wink and a nod with earlier creeds.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. When you "hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures," that is a claim alien to orthodox thought. When you reject that the Son was begotten of the Father before all ages, you are rejecting orthodox thought.

Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something.

What essential cardinal truth of orthodoxy is denied by holding the Son of God always had two natures, the divine nature and a changeable nature?

One Bad Pig
04-23-2015, 06:43 AM
What essential cardinal truth of orthodoxy is denied by holding the Son of God always had two natures, the divine nature and a changeable nature?
It denies that the two natures of Christ are God and man by substituting "changeable" for "human." The terms are not synonymous.

And I am done arguing this with you.

37818
04-23-2015, 08:57 AM
It denies that the two natures of Christ are God and man by substituting "changeable" for "human." The terms are not synonymous.

And I am done arguing this with you.So you are not interested in helping me change my mind.

The fact is the Person who is only-begotten of the God the Father changed from not being human before the incarnation to being human in the incarnation. That shows a changeable nature in becoming human. Of course we agree that His divine nature did not change.

37818
04-23-2015, 12:30 PM
It denies that the two natures of Christ are God and man by substituting "changeable" for "human." The terms are not synonymous.

No it does not. The divine nature is not denied. And in the incarnation where He became Human, He remained fully God in becoming fully human. How He was with God changed, not that He was God, that did not change.

37818
04-24-2015, 05:32 AM
And now . . . "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Hebrews 13:8.

37818
05-31-2015, 09:01 PM
. . . begotten of the Father before all ages. . . .
How is this part of that creed not extra Biblical? What Holy Scriptures is it based?


Now I agree that the only-begotten Son was not begotten and not made being the one and the same God with His Father, not being the same Persons in being the one and the same God.

Reason being that God is not begotten and not made.

. . . that only since the incarnation is Jesus "begotten" in any sense; He was the unique Son of God in eternity before creation, but there was no "begetting" before the first advent. The Nicene Creed, by projecting back half of an adjective in a linguistically inappropriate way has thrown unnecessary confusion into many people's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. English versions which honor it with flawed translations of monogenes merely make things worse. Yet another reason why we go to and with scripture and not the tradition that follows it.


Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.
(http://ichthys.com/mail-Only-Begotten-Mother-Of-God-On-This-Rock.htm)

One Bad Pig
06-05-2015, 10:59 AM
. . . that only since the incarnation is Jesus "begotten" in any sense; He was the unique Son of God in eternity before creation, but there was no "begetting" before the first advent. The Nicene Creed, by projecting back half of an adjective in a linguistically inappropriate way has thrown unnecessary confusion into many people's understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. English versions which honor it with flawed translations of monogenes merely make things worse. Yet another reason why we go to and with scripture and not the tradition that follows it.


Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.
(http://ichthys.com/mail-Only-Begotten-Mother-Of-God-On-This-Rock.htm)
Dr. Luginbill is operating outside his field of expertise. Dr. Craig at least admits that the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Dropping it, however, would create more problems that it would solve, as it almost indubitably necessitate also dropping "of one essence" and the Trinity would essentially be indistinguishable from tritheism. Dr. Craig also inexplicably ignores the Nicene distinction "of one essence" which was crucially added to the creed to distinguish the Son from creation. Lastly, he ignores that the procession of the Spirit IS explicitly stated in Scripture (John 15:26) - which by his interpretation, "introduces subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself". I generally respect Dr. Craig, but he's wrong on this.

37818
06-21-2015, 01:44 PM
. . . . Dr. Craig at least admits that the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Dropping it, however, would create more problems that it would solve, as it almost indubitably necessitate also dropping "of one essence" and the Trinity would essentially be indistinguishable from tritheism. Dr. Craig also inexplicably ignores the Nicene distinction "of one essence" which was crucially added to the creed to distinguish the Son from creation. Lastly, he ignores that the procession of the Spirit IS explicitly stated in Scripture (John 15:26) - which by his interpretation, "introduces subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself". I generally respect Dr. Craig, but he's wrong on this.

Dr. Craig also believes "Only Begotten" refers primarily to Christ's incarnation:
5. . . . I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. . . . (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-the-father-causally-prior-to-the-son)

apostoli
07-02-2015, 04:02 AM
...Denying that Christ proceeds from the Father, is to deny an important aspect of the nature of the Trinity. We're not saying that there was a point where The Son did not exist, and after which He came into existence. We're saying that He is eternally proceeding from the Father.Imu, the RCC and the rest of Christianity that adheres to the Nicene faith has never taught that the Son "proceeds from the Father"!!!

The idea of procession is exclusively said of the Holy Spirit (have a read up on the filioque controversies between the east and the west. nb: a few decades ago, during the reconciliation talks, the RCC argued that the east misunderstood the meaning of the Latin expression "procedit" which the east took to mean origin (as in first principle) and appealed to John 15:26. The RCC argued that "procedit" can also refer to an "intermediary origin" and pointed out that John 15:26 and John 16:7 both refer to the Son sending the parakletos (the Holy Spirit). The east counters that John 15:26 states emphatically that the procession of the parakletos is exclusive to the Father. The RCC didn't (doesn't) disagree and so declared (declares) emphatically (in total agreement with the east) that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but is sent to us by the Son. The RCC went on to emphatically agree that the Father is exclusively the source and cause of the Spirit, just as the Father is exclusively the source and cause of the Son - albeit the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and is received by us via the Son, while the Son was begotten/born of the Father before the ages and was sent to us by the Father).

A while ago the RCC threw out the ambiguous and watered down statement of faith that arose after Vatican II when the church adopted a policy of vernacularising church teaching and the mass (a dismal failure that led to all sorts of silly ideas amongst both the ignorant lay and clergy). The church has now reverted to an earlier statement of faith that conforms to the Greek of the Nicene Creed (well, excluding the retention of the filioque) and the Latin of the early Roman church. Thus all Catholics are to confess "...I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages...For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man."
http://www.cam.org.au/Catholic-Faith/Prayers/Prayers/Article/753/the-profession-of-faith-the-nicene-creed

Imo, if one declares themselves Catholic, it is always a good idea to relate what the Church actually teaches and not rely on personally held propositions...

apostoli
07-02-2015, 06:36 AM
So you are not interested in helping me change my mind.

The fact is the Person who is only-begotten of the God the Father changed from not being human before the incarnation to being human in the incarnation. That shows a changeable nature in becoming human. Of course we agree that His divine nature did not change.In the thread "True Orthodxy" I made a response to you on another matter. That response referred to several Greek terms which have relevance to your comments regarding changability.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6043-True-orthodoxy&p=214380&viewfull=1#post214380

The terms I referred to were:

* "prosopon/prosopa" = "the actors mask/s" (Latin: personae, English: person). This is the outward form of a thing (eg: the progression of infant to child, to youth, to adult). That which is seen by others. Such is 100% changeable.

* "hypostasis" = "the concrete reality of a thing". Basically "the self identification". This is an individual's consistency, albeit it can attract "accidents" (not injury. imu things that are transitional) and has potentialities (things as yet not realised eg: becoming husband/wife, father/mother etc).

As an aside: I think it was Aristotle that suggested that a king that became a slave was never a king, and a slave that became a king was always a king. Thus, in the first instance the kingship was accidental while in the later the kingship was in potentiality.

* "ousia/physis" = "the absolute reality of a thing". Imu, once defined this is always invariable/unchangeable. Imu, a hypostasis can retain multiple ousia, directly or in potentiality. Thus the reality of the Son in his hypostasis, after the incarnation, was to retain the ousia of the divine while accumulating to himself the ousia of humanity (imu, a potentiality before the incarnation). cp. Col 2:9 where A.Paul says of the Son "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the state of being God bodily." ("the state of being God" Gr: theotēs rendered in the KJV as "Godhead").

You asked OBP "What essential cardinal truth of orthodoxy is denied by holding the Son of God always had two natures, the divine nature and a changeable nature?" Well, it is a contradiction in terms. Ousia/Physis is never changeable, it/they are always consistent. (nb: "physis" is regularly rendered "nature" in English, whilst "ousia" is usually rendered "essence")

37818
07-04-2015, 12:52 AM
Apostoli,

There is a problem of terminology. And an a problem of conveying of truth using the proper words.
The fact is the only-begotten Son of God did not become the only-begotten, He always was the only-begotten. The incarnation was a change from only being in the form of God to not on!y being in the form of God.

All temporal acts of the eternal God was on account of the only-begotten. Creation, walking in the garden, etc. A nature, if it be, allowing for this, and so the incarnation. The only-begotten remaining always being eternal God, now also being an eternal Man.

apostoli
07-04-2015, 06:34 AM
Apostoli,

There is a problem of terminology. And an a problem of conveying of truth using the proper words.Understanding the teaching of the early fathers, imo, has several advantages: it gives us a common language to communicate ideas and it clarifies the teaching of scripture and the orthodox churches (eg: at Heb 1:3 the Greek word "hypostasis" is used. In the text the Son is described as having the imprint of his Father's "hypostasis" - such leads us to understand what is meant by Nicea's teaching of the "homoousios" (English: consubstantial). For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios and I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the imprint of my father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).


The fact is the only-begotten Son of God did not become the only-begotten, He always was the only-begotten.One cannot "become" the only-begotten of anything. One either is or isn't! To be "only-begotten" there must be no natural siblings ever. Hence, we are taught that the Son was "born" of God, whereas the Parakletos (the Spirit) proceeds from the Father alone (cp. John 15:26).


He always was the only-begotten.The begettal of the Son by the Father is said to have occurred before all ages, before time existed, before the creation of all things created (I'm sure you agree that scripture attributes the creation of all things created to the Son).

It is taught that the Son was caused by the Father within eternity, and by definition there is no beginning or end to eternity. So logically, even though the Son has cause (the Father being his source and cause), there is no timeline, no beginning, no end - so in loose language it is permissible to say "He always was" to contradict y the Arians and like who taught "there was when he was not" (nb John 1:1a highlights that the Son is before time = "In the beginning was the Logos". The Greek word "en" rendered in English "was" is indefinite but it is the best that can be done without resorting to a phrase. The actual meaning of "en" is "existed and continues to exist").


The incarnation was a change from only being in the form of God to not on!y being in the form of God.I presume you are appealing to Phil 2:6-7. You need to get an understanding of "morphe" (usually translated "form". Some of the early fathers equated it with "eikon" (image). Thus we may have a pointer to Heb 1:3 (see above). Some modern commentators don't accept such an illusion (a pun on morphe in case you weren't aware. nb: morpheus was the god of dreams/illusion).

Working from memory: morphe indicates not simply the shape or image of a thing. Imu, the idea is that when the thing is experienced it causes us to contemplate the character of the thing. For instance: a statue of the King reminds us of his power and justice (or injustice). In Philippians, apart from reading that the Son being in the morphe of God. we also read of the Son adopting the morphe of a slave. In the last case we are drawn to contemplate the Son's servitude.

In anycase a change in morphe doesn't indicate any injury to the Son's personal hypostasis. The only impact was regarding peoples perception of him. Basically a change in prosopon (see previous post).

It is especially worth noting that A.Paul firmly stated that "... in [the Son] dwells all the fullness of the state of being God [gr: theotēs] bodily". (Col 2:9) So it is obvious Phil 2:6-7 doesn't mean what you appear to want it to mean. Col 2:9 suggests the Son retained the morphe of God when he was incarnated (albeit people didn't perceive it).


All temporal acts of the eternal God was on account of the only-begotten.Imu, regarding the temporal world, the Father's activity was through and for the Son. Assuming I understand your words as you mean them, I'm happy to agree with your statement.


Creation, walking in the garden, etc. A nature, if it be, allowing for this, and so the incarnation. The only-begotten remaining always being eternal God, now also being an eternal Man.Scripture tells us that the Son experienced a transfiguration before he ascended to heaven.

apostoli
07-04-2015, 09:27 AM
Oops! I made a major typo in the first part of my post #203... It should have read:

For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios as I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).

37818
07-04-2015, 10:51 AM
Oops! I made a major typo in the first part of my post #203... It should have read:

For instance: I am considered human because my father is/was human, what my father is/was so am I, we are homoousios as I possess the imprint of my father's hypostasis. In respect of the Son, the Niceans declared him to be "true God from true God" because he possessed the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis (see Heb 1:3).

I do not see this truth to be at issue. What I do see to be at issue is where, in my understanding of the word of God, an interpretation goes against the word of God. This concept "...born of the Father before all ages..." is an extra Biblical interpretation which gave rise to the error of Arius. And is at issue with me. See post #1 of this derail.

apostoli
07-04-2015, 10:16 PM
I do not see this truth to be at issue. What I do see to be at issue is where, in my understanding of the word of God, an interpretation goes against the word of God. This concept "...born of the Father before all ages..." is an extra Biblical interpretation which gave rise to the error of Arius. And is at issue with me. See post #1 of this derail.Actually the Arians had no problem with saying the Son was "born of the Father before the ages". The Arians generally and Arius particularly were very big on declaring the Son as not a part of creation and openly declared him God from God. There is documentary evidence should you care to seek it out. Eunomius, the most extreme Arian, in his writings reasoned that God begets (gives birth) even to the rain drops. Eunomius had a particular adversion to using the terms Father and Son when discussing Christ. Arius' concern was depicting the Father and Son as having or feeding from the same material substance. Search out Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia where he outlines some of the opinions he rejects. One that comes to mind is the silly analogy of a lamp with two wicks in the one pool of oil. In the Platonic thought of the time, God and the forms (substance) existed prior to creation. This is what Arius et al rightfully ranted against.

The idea that the Son was born of God before the ages is a biblical necessity. John 1:1a as I've previously shown proves the Son (as the Logos) existed before creation began, and for him to have been begotten, as scripture regularly attests, it is necessary for it to be said that he was born of God (especially if he is truely the only begotten Son and moreso, if the Son possesses the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis as scripture tells us - see Heb 1:3).

Where I assume you are befuddled is the word "born". I imagine you conceive such in the experience of mammals. Remember, mammals are flash and blood, whilst (according to scripture) God is Spirit (=does not have materiality).

Drawing on the witness of Rom 1:20 "...the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...": Using this scripture as a guide, we find organisms that don't reproduce from either sexual or asexual activity. Scientifically, there are two possible processes. I favour "Mitosis" where in replication no diminution of the parent occurs and the offspring is an exact copy of the parent.

When you free yourself from the blinkers you (or someone else) seems to have imposed on you, and open your eyes to scripture, you'll find that Nicean teaching is heavily supported by scripture...moreso than the Arian opinions that relied on philosophical opinion to the detriment of scripture (nb: Most modern day Arian types (eg:JWs) resort to distorting scripture to find support for their opposition to the teaching of Nicea. I'm speaking from experience having, via my ex-wife, wasted years among them absorbing and discussing their viewpoint. I never resisted their ideas but I did rely on scripture as the final arbitrator and I came to the conclusion they are aberrant ).

37818
07-06-2015, 08:22 PM
The idea that the Son was born of God before the ages is a biblical necessity. John 1:1a as I've previously shown proves the Son (as the Logos) existed before creation began, and for him to have been begotten, as scripture regularly attests, it is necessary for it to be said that he was born of God (especially if he is truely the only begotten Son and moreso, if the Son possesses the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis as scripture tells us - see Heb 1:3).

You might explain how you see it as a Biblical necessity.

Honestly, I do not see the Son who is the Logos being begotten in scripture before creation. In His incarnate, being born human, and in the resurrection, yes, He was begotten. But He was always the Son from eternity even as He was always God [i.e. Known as the Second Person of the Trinity].

apostoli
07-07-2015, 04:03 AM
You might explain how you see it as a Biblical necessity.I trust you have no complaints with scripture. To be "begotten" is to be "born". The Greek uses a compound word "monogenes" which is rendered "only begotten" - monos=only, alone, without companion. "genes" has the root ginomai=to become, ie: to come into existence.


Honestly, I do not see the Son who is the Logos being begotten in scripture before creation.Well I'm sure we agree that as Son, the only-begotten Son (as the Logos) existed before all things made that were made (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16 etc).

Now have a read of 1 John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". As noted above the phrase "only begotten" renders the compound Greek word "mongenes". "Genes" has the root "ginomai" which means "to come into existence". From A.John's witnesses, we determine that the Son, at the will of his Father, came into existence before anything was created, and that in time "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him".


In His incarnate, being born human, and in the resurrection, yes, He was begotten. But He was always the Son from eternity even as He was always God [i.e. Known as the Second Person of the Trinity].Different Greek word, not "monogenes"/"ginomai" but "gennaō". The later has a range of meanings. For instance notice the two meanings given the word in Matthew's genealogy which says "...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:16).

Then we have Heb 1:3 wherein the Son is described as having the exact imprint (Gr. charaktēr) of his Father's person (hypostasis). For such to be true, the Son would need to be the natural offspring of his Father.

Of course you could argue that the Son is 100% independent of God the Father and merely plays a role in some heavenly amusement. If so, then you must hold that he is son in name only. If so, you must hold that he is a son by adoption, and reject the scriptural witness that he really is the only begotten Son of God.

In an earlier post of yours I distinct picked up that you leaned to the heresy of the "Triad" (three gods who have independent existence acting in unison).

The Trinity doctrine which you seem to want to confess teaches us that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son and the Parakletos (the Helper/Comforter=the Holy Spirit). That is: the Son & Spirit have dependency on the Father. This is obvious in the scriptural witness that defines the teaching of the "Economic Trinity", in this the Son does whatever his Father tells him etc . Scripture is veiled to us when we wish to contemplate the "Immanent Trinity" (The inner life of the Father, Son & Spirit).

37818
07-08-2015, 06:35 PM
I trust you have no complaints with scripture. To be "begotten" is to be "born". The Greek uses a compound word "monogenes" which is rendered "only begotten" - monos=only, alone, without companion. "genes" has the root ginomai=to become, ie: to come into existence.
I believe the only-begotten Son was not begotten in any temporal sense to be the Son of God.


Well I'm sure we agree that as Son, the only-begotten Son (as the Logos) existed before all things made that were made (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16 etc).

Now have a read of 1 John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him". As noted above the phrase "only begotten" renders the compound Greek word "mongenes". "Genes" has the root "ginomai" which means "to come into existence". From A.John's witnesses, we determine that the Son, at the will of his Father, came into existence before anything was created, and that in time "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him".It was 1 John 4:9 along with other holy scriptures which settled the question of the eternal Sonship of God's Son to the Father.


Different Greek word, not "monogenes"/"ginomai" but "gennaō". The later has a range of meanings. For instance notice the two meanings given the word in Matthew's genealogy which says "...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:16). Yes, and He was the only begotten Son from eternity before He became Mary's Son.


Then we have Heb 1:3 wherein the Son is described as having the exact imprint (Gr. charaktēr) of his Father's person (hypostasis). For such to be true, the Son would need to be the natural offspring of his Father.Well, genuine relationship with the Father, without any temporal sense of being an offspring.


Of course you could argue that the Son is 100% independent of God the Father and merely plays a role in some heavenly amusement. If so, then you must hold that he is son in name only.That cannot work since the Father and the Son are the one YHWH. Though they are different personages.


If so, you must hold that he is a son by adoption, and reject the scriptural witness that he really is the only begotten Son of God. Two things here, The Son is the only begotten Son of God the Father from eternity. Second, there was an adoption after the incarnation, the bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:23, 29; Colossians 1:18). This adoption is not to be confused with the adoption heresy. Since the Son was always the only begotten Son (Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4; 1 John 4:9).


In an earlier post of yours I distinct picked up that you leaned to the heresy of the "Triad" (three gods who have independent existence acting in unison).I think you did not understand what I wrote. Please if you would, could you please cite my quote that you understood in this way?



The Trinity doctrine which you seem to want to confess teaches us that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son and the Parakletos (the Helper/Comforter=the Holy Spirit). That is: the Son & Spirit have dependency on the Father. This is obvious in the scriptural witness that defines the teaching of the "Economic Trinity", in this the Son does whatever his Father tells him etc . Scripture is veiled to us when we wish to contemplate the "Immanent Trinity" (The inner life of the Father, Son & Spirit).The "ontological trinity" there is no subordination, they are YHWH. Co-eternal, co-equal being God. In the "Economic Trinity" there is subornation of Persons and roles they have as the Persons they are. Now I believe this "Economic Trinity" also always existed too.

apostoli
07-10-2015, 11:02 AM
I believe the only-begotten Son was not begotten in any temporal sense to be the Son of God.Doesn't everybody? Even the Arians believed such!

What I've noticed in your writings is that you have a 100% temporal (fleshy) mindset, thus you reject the teachings of Christian Orthodoxy that the Son was born/caused in eternity (a non temporal origination within timelessness (eternity, which has no beginnings or end). Such has been a constant since the time the apostles wrote the scriptures attributed to them, and which the Church has always defended (albeit to end disputes amongst the impious philosophers within the Church, a more "technical" teaching has been meticulously articulated since at least 325/381CE).

Note Arius says in his letter to his friend Eunomius of Nicomedia...

"...we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent..."
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_letter_to_eusebius_of_nicomedia.htm

Have a read of Arius' letter to his opponent Alexander, bishop of Alexandria...
"...who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten..."
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_letter_to_alexander_of_alexandria.htm


Yes, and He was the only begotten Son from eternity before He became Mary's Son."from eternity" is more-or-less an idea that the Arians held to suggest that the Son was created as perfect God (but was not as the things that were created by the Son).

Christian Orthodoxy has it the Son was originated "within eternity" (nb: in eternity there is no beginnings or ends).


Well, genuine relationship with the Father, without any temporal sense of being an offspring.But offspring none-the-less. Else he is son by adoption, and not the only-begotten Son of the Father as scripture demands.


That cannot work since the Father and the Son are the one YHWH. Though they are different personages.As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth.


Two things here, The Son is the only begotten Son of God the Father from eternity.Not "from eternity" but "in eternity". You are making the same misake that the Arians did, in limiting the Son to a timeframe.


Second, there was an adoption after the incarnation, the bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:23, 29; Colossians 1:18). This adoption is not to be confused with the adoption heresy. Since the Son was always the only begotten Son (Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4; 1 John 4:9).No adoption what-so-ever. What we have is an appointment. In Colossians 1:18 the Son is appointed as firstborn from the dead (others had been raised from the dead before Jesus). Have a think on Abraham's appointment of Isaac as his firstborn, even though Ishmael was the first son Abraham had produced. To be made "firstborn" was to have the right to the family fortune...


I think you did not understand what I wrote. Please if you would, could you please cite my quote that you understood in this way?You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.

Trinitarianism (what Orthodox Christians teach, is three hypostases (persons) who are united by common ousia/physis. It is via the physis that each is experienced as God, and via the ousia/physis that they are held to be the one God.


The "ontological trinity" there is no subordinationTrue. Though being Son, the Son would be required to defer to his Father's will (eg: Jesus says that he didn't volunteer for his mission but the Father sent him).


...they are YHWH.Well each has the same name, just as I carry the name of my father. Nothing special about that...


Co-eternal, co-equal being God. In the "Economic Trinity" there is subornation of Persons and roles they have as the Persons they are. Now I believe this "Economic Trinity" also always existed too.If so then you contradict yourself. Christian Orthodoxy simply holds that in possession (ousia) there is no subordination of the persons of the Trinity (of most importance, each has identical operation (physis) and each retains identical ousia).

37818
07-11-2015, 07:01 PM
You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.So am I to understand that you deny that the One God was always a Trinity of Persons? And because I do not deny that God [Yehwah] is the One God whom the three Persons, The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are, you make the false accusation of "Tritheism."

The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be God's Son.. He is of the Father, yes. But they are the one[echâd] Yehwah [Self-Existent].

". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.

". . . that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him." -- Deuteronomy 4:35.

". . . I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: . . ." -- Isaiah 45:5.

". . . for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9.

". . . I [am] the LORD your God, and none else: . . ." -- Joel 2:27.


As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth.No, there is only one[echâd] YHWH.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4.

Do you believe, when Jesus was on earth,there were two who were the Son of man?

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13. Jesus being on earth as the man, was also in heaven.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

" To him[Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." -- Acts 10:43. What Name do all the prophets use, YHWH.

apostoli
07-16-2015, 12:47 AM
You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.So am I to understand that you deny that the One God was always a Trinity of Persons?Be aware that you are very close to introducing the heretical 4th man

The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.


There is a problem of terminology. And a problem of conveying truth using the proper words.Just as an observation: You seem to be inclined to introduce a 4th person into your explanations of your perspective. Maybe it is just your phrasing (?) but be aware in times past a couple of heresies grew from such carelessness.

Drawing on your numerous posts for inspiration, I'll rephrase the bit I've bolded above to highlight what I perceive you as actually saying: "the one God exists as a Trinity of Persons". Is that close to what you mean? If so you seem to want company with a range of heresies. As I remarked in an earlier post "You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies". Thus you confuse me and, from their responses to you, most of your other correspondents.

The Trinity as advocated by the Nicene churches (Catholic & Orthodox) starts with God the Father as the only true God (Jn 17:1-3 cp. 1 Cor 8:6, 12:6; Eph 4:6), and following scripture it is advocated that the harvest of all the activity of the Son and Spirit is ultimately directed towards the Father (cp. Phil 2:8-11; 1 Cor 15:24,28 "Then cometh the end, when he [the Son] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto [God the Father who] put all things under [the Son], that God [the Father] may be all in all."). In Nicene thought: relationally, the Son is homoousios with the Father as a result of his begetal by the Father, and the Spirit is homoousios with the Father due to her progression from the Father, and consequently is homoousios with the Son via relation. Thus as each is homoousios with the Father, the Son and the Spirit are each held to be true God in equivalence to the Father. In ousia the three are unified and comparable. Their godship is essential to the definition of their ousia. As for the three being the one God to us, see below...


And because I do not deny that God [Yehwah] is the One God whom the three Persons, The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are, you make the false accusation of "Tritheism."There is that 4th person again, to whom you make the three persons of the Trinity subordinate. Have a study of John 1:1-2, particularly study the word "pros" and you'll see how glaring your error actually is...

Not a false accusation, but a reality you have created for yourself. In your posts here at Theologyweb you advocate that there are three persons who have no origination, three unbegotten Gods. Such opinions are the mainstay of Tritheism.

In one of your posts (#209) you seem to have tempered your opinion, by suggesting that you would conditionally accept that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages, and is natural offspring of the Father. Your condition/s: as long as the Son is "not begotten in any temporal sense" and "without any temporal sense of being an offspring". My response: God is Spirit (John 4:24), so it is inconceivale that his operations are functionally comparable to the operations of things temporal.

Trinitarians teach there is only one unbegotten God, the Father, who is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. Exclusively, the Father begat the Son before all ages (cp. John 1:1-3), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (cp. John 15:26). The begetal and the procession occured from within eternity (cp. John 1:1a). By definition, there are no beginnings or ends in eternity. By definition, eternity is timelines. So it can't be said as the Arians demanded "there was when the Son was not". The idea "was" is a reference to time, and by definition, eternity is devoid of time. As you might see, the Nicenes attempted to divest themselves of temporal perspectives. However, without inventing a new vocabulary, the fathers used words that were familiar to them and conveyed the appropriate images.


The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be God's Son..That is true. To be a son or daughter is an inescapable consequence of being begotten. Thus the Trinitarian church teaches that as the Son is truely son, he is the natural offspring of the Father, and as a consequence of being the natural offspring of his Father, the Son is endowed with an exact replica of his Father's concrete and essential existence (compare Heb 1:3 which uses the Greek words charaktēr & hypostasis to express this truth).

The opinions you have expressed in your various posts, on face value, are in direct conflict with Hebrews 1:3 and consequently are a direct denial of the Nicean teaching concerning the homoousios (consubstantiality). In my observation, Hebrews 1:3 does great damage to your opinions.

In respect of Hebrews 1:3: The consequence of your opinions is that it would be necessary for the ousia of the Father to be imposed upon the person and so the endowment would be unnatural - foreign to the integrity of the person's existing hypostasis. Thus, your idea that the Son is without origination (is unbegotten) doesn't stand up biblically. Your opinion that the Son is unbegotten requires that the Son, is son in name only. Without begetal/birth (two things you have rejected out of hand) the only way the Son could actually become son is through the imposition of adoption.


He is of the Father, yes. But they are the one[echâd] Yehwah [Self-Existent].No ancient, medieval or modern Hebraist advocates that YHWH means "self existing". All agree that nobody born within the last 2000+ years knows what the Tetragammaton actually means or indicates. Most Hebraists agree that the phrase "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" with which God chose to memorialise himself indicates "continuous existence" and such fits perfectly with the context of Exodus 3:13-14

"Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

"Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" affirms that the God who spoke with Moses was existent with Moses' fathers - Abraham, Isacc and Jacob.

For your benefit, once again I will cite the authoritive medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides, whose writings have been preserved and protected by the Church...

"...all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never win be without existence..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm


". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.Interesting! Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).


". . . that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him." -- Deuteronomy 4:35.

". . . I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: . . ." -- Isaiah 45:5.

". . . for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9.

". . . I [am] the LORD your God, and none else: . . ." -- Joel 2:27.The context of all these passages, is YHWH's superiority to the man made idols which having been formed by man, remain impotent and inanimate. There is nothing that mankind might label god that can compete with the God of Israel. Ask any Rabbi what these passages indicate and they'll recite something along the lines that I've stated...



As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth. No, there is only one[echâd] YHWH.Guess you haven't read Genesis 2:23-24. In verse 24 we encounter the word echad used in reference to two people. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be echad flesh."

At Genesis 19:24 we find that the YHWH who had been visiting Abraham and, at the time was resident on earth (Gen 18), "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from" the YHWH in heaven. As persons, that makes two YHWHs.

I notice that below you attempted to address this but, apparently you are unaware that the clause in Jn 3:13 is considered to be spurios by a significant number of translators, and so is omitted from many modern translations. In anycase you paint yourself into a corner, as the clause you make yourself reliant upon is in direct conflict with texts such as John 6:32. See below...

We have previously agreed that the Father, Son and Spirit each have, as a personal possssion, the same name (Mt 21:19 cp. Phil 2:9). Additionally, I assume you acknowledge the distinct functionality of each of the three eg: neither the Father nor the Spirit were incarnated as man, but the Son was! Within this concept of functionality and the biblical witness, I understand the God of the Israelites to be the Memra of YHWH=the Logos of God=the Word of God=the angel of the LORD=the pre-incarnate Son of God. Always remember that no man has ever seen God and lived, yet Abraham saw him face to face, and Moses glimpsed the back of him, and both survived...

If you closely read the OT you will note that the word "God" when referring to YHWH is never used without qualification. Thus we read of "my God", "your God", "our God", "the God of Israel", "YHWH God", etc. Be very aware that in the OT the idea "God" is a man made accolade bestowed by men on idols, angels, demons, men and even YHWH. Basically, anyone or anything they feared got the title "God".

Remember A.Paul's witness "...there are gods many, and lords many. But to us there is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Cor 8:5-6)


"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4.Have a read of Deut 6:3 "...the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee...". Imu, Deut 6:3-4 is simply saying that "this YHWH is the same YHWH encountered by our fathers". There were no intervening YHWHs.

(nb: I wonder how the Sadduccees in Jesus' time interpreted Deut 6:3-4 given they held that all appearances of YHWH were transient).


Do you believe, when Jesus was on earth,there were two who were the Son of man?Why would I!!! See below...


"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13. Jesus being on earth as the man, was also in heaven.It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.


"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

" To him[Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." -- Acts 10:43. What Name do all the prophets use, YHWH.In the OT, YHWH is the God of Israel and all things are attributed to him. In the NT, the apostles attributed all creation and salvation etc to the activities of the Son of God, the son of man born to Mary, who was named Jesus (well actually "Yeshua", which means "YHWH is salvation"), and according to A.Paul God has exhalted the name Jesus above every other name....

I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9.

One Bad Pig
07-16-2015, 06:19 AM
Be aware that you are very close to introducing the heretical 4th man

The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.

:no: In orthodox Trinitarian thought, there is no such concept as "before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit."

If you closely read the OT you will note that the word "God" when referring to YHWH is never used without qualification. Thus we read of "my God", "your God", "our God", "the God of Israel", "YHWH God", etc. Be very aware that in the OT the idea "God" is a man made accolade bestowed by men on idols, angels, demons, men and even YHWH. Basically, anyone or anything they feared got the title "God".
:twitch:

It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.
Regardless, AFAIK is is generally accepted that Jesus was omnipresent as God even while incarnate (see John 1:48). The Orthodox position is that He certainly was. From the Paschal Hours:


In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, filling all things, Yourself uncircumscribed.

apostoli
07-16-2015, 10:31 PM
The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.:no: In orthodox Trinitarian thought, there is no such concept as "before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit." You are dead right. However, "before" in English has two usages, the one I meant was that of precedence, not that of time. The EOC & ROC insist that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit...such requires precedence... (nb: it was one of the Orthodox teachings that the EOC/ROC were insistent that the RCC confirm during the reconciliation talks).



It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.Regardless, AFAIK is is generally accepted that Jesus was omnipresent as God even while incarnate (see John 1:48). The Orthodox position is that He certainly was. From the Paschal Hours:


In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, filling all things, Yourself uncircumscribed."In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief...":

I have no problem with this view. After all Jesus died in the completeness of the hypostatic union. When Jesus was in paradise with the thief, both resided in Hades. This was in accord with Jewish and Christian expectation, to be in paradise was to be at Abraham's bosom, thus assured of the resurrection. A.Paul tells us that God [the Father] raised Jesus from the dead.

"on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you":

Such a thought does not conform with the biblical witness. One example: at John 17:5 Jesus prayed that the Father would restore his former glory. Imu, this was to be again seated at the Father's right hand. I presume that the author of the hymn took poetic licence to describe an emotional attachment rather than a tangible one.

A thought: Consider Luther's proposition...

If Jesus was simultaneously son of man and Son of God in his hypostasis, then he had to die in his entirety. As Luther put it for effect: God died upon the cross and was buried. To separate the divinity and the humanity as being in separate locations is a denial of Chalcedon.

37818
07-17-2015, 07:58 PM
apostol,


Do you count one or two saviours?One.


It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss.So you think 1% of the mss is to be well supported, as opposed 98.4% which has the reading? And 98.4% is not limited to just one ms family. Except ms family 35 which base in all the mss families.


I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9. Yes, and context. I'm sure you agree.

apostoli
07-18-2015, 06:54 AM
Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).One.So you reject Titus' witness that indisputably calls two persons (hypostases) "saviour". And do you reject the testimony of the author of Genesis (and Jesus' later preaching) that two people become echad (one)?

You probably aren't aware of it but iby your flippant answer you deny Christ! For the ancient churchmen all acknowledge that the Son has his own hypostasis and the Father has his own hypostasis and their hyposases' are not to be confounded nor confused...


So you think 1% of the mss is to be well supported, as opposed 98.4% which has the reading? And 98.4% is not limited to just one ms family. Except ms family 35 which base in all the mss families.I just related the current state of play amongst translators and antiquarians. I don't have an opinion on the matter (the mss), other than the text is considered dubious by various scholars and is contradicted by a significant number of new testament witnesses.

I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that supports the idea that the Son's hypostasis is divided (and except for possibly a Nestorian, I'm not aware of any churchman that would contradict Chalcedon and advocate such).

Come to think of it, I vaguely recall there was a gnostic heresy (Phantasm?) that had the Son's divinity residing in heaven while the guy on earth was just a shell animated by the Son's spirit (presumably transmitted from heaven).



I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9.Yes, and context. I'm sure you agree.From the text it seems Jesus/Yeshua replaces YHWH as the name above every other name.

37818
07-18-2015, 06:14 PM
So you reject Titus' witness that indisputably calls two persons (hypostases) "saviour". And do you reject the testimony of the author of Genesis (and Jesus' later preaching) that two people become echad (one)?

You probably aren't aware of it but iby your flippant answer you deny Christ! For the ancient churchmen all acknowledge that the Son has his own hypostasis and the Father has his own and their hyposases' are not to be confounded nor confused...

I just related the current state of play amongst translators and antiquarians. I don't have an opinion on the matter (the mss), other than the text is considered dubious by various scholars and is contradicted by a significant number of new testament witnesses.Well you are wrong on two counts. Paul in the letter to Titus by what he wrote acknowledges the deity of Christ and in so doing does not deny hypostasis of the Father and and their hyposases'.

". . . of God our Saviour; . . . after a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour." -- Titus 1:3-4. ASV.

In Ephesians calls Christ God, ". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. Made clear in the Darby translation.





From the text it seems Jesus/Yeshua replaces YHWH as the name above every other name.You can understand it that way. I'm fine with that. But as you rightly pointed out Jesus' name means YHWH is salvation.

". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:10, 12.

apostoli
07-18-2015, 11:37 PM
Well you are wrong on two counts. Paul in the letter to Titus by what he wrote acknowledges the deity of Christ and in so doing does not deny hypostasis of the Father and and their hyposases'.

". . . of God our Saviour; . . . after a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour." -- Titus 1:3-4. ASV.You are an amusement. In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?


In Ephesians calls Christ God,". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. Made clear in the Darby translation.You are either illiterate, a fool or an idiot. Ephesians 5:5 speaks of two persons (1. Christ, 2.God) as does the whole of the epistle. Notice Ephesians 5:2 "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

Next time you go mining for scriptures, read the whole book. Scripture itself makes you look the total fool and your deceit highlights you are totally devoid of integrity.

Try reading Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." A.Paul throughout his epistles distinguishes between God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. God to A.Paul is exclusively the Father. cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

ps: I went and checked Darby, he agrees with every other translation, translating the Greek literally "Christ and God"=""τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ". You should note the text does not read "τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν θεοῦ"="Christ our God", which is what you require...Please, in future don't insult me with your pretense at scholarship, it is painfully obvious that you are bone lazy in such matters...


You can understand it that way. I'm fine with that. But as you rightly pointed out Jesus' name means YHWH is salvation.

". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:10, 12.Very true!!! Which leads us back to you only counting the identification of one saviour in Titus, whereas A.Paul identifies two hypostases (persons) each of whom is our savior. You have locked onto the Hebrew word "echad" and have determined it is exclusive, whereas scripture makes it plain that "echad" is inclusive eg: Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

apostoli
07-19-2015, 01:01 AM
ps 37818:

Have a read of Titus 3:4-6 which is a little more expansive that Titus 1:3-4, but again identifies two saviours...

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour".

pss: You misread Titus 1:3-4, they do not speak of Jesus as being God. Titus 1:1 should have made that obvious to you "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ...". Two distinct people 1.God, 2.Jesus Christ...

37818
07-19-2015, 12:45 PM
You are an amusement. In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?Of course not. Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior. Both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ are that one Savior. Yes, Paul does refer to them separately as Savior. But at no time does he suggest they are two saviors. Do not forget the Son is called God and has a God, God His Father, yet they are not two God's, but they are the one God.



You are either illiterate, a fool or an idiot. Ephesians 5:5 speaks of two persons (1. Christ, 2.God) as does the whole of the epistle. <snip> ps: I went and checked Darby, he agrees with every other translation, translating the Greek literally "Christ and God"=""τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ". You should note the text does not read "τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν θεοῦ"="Christ our God", which is what you require...Please, in future don't insult me with your pretense at scholarship, it is painfully obvious that you are bone lazy in such matters... No. The Greek refers to Chirst as God there: . . . του χριστου και θεου. Look up the Granville Sharp's Rule in Greek grammar.




Try reading Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." A.Paul throughout his epistles distinguishes between God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .Not just there, but throughout Paul's letters.




Very true!!! Which leads us back to you only counting the identification of one saviour in Titus, whereas A.Paul identifies two hypostases (persons) each of whom is our savior. You have locked onto the Hebrew word "echad" and have determined it is exclusive, whereas scripture makes it plain that "echad" is inclusive eg: Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.I'm glad you noticed.


ps 37818:

Have a read of Titus 3:4-6 which is a little more expansive that Titus 1:3-4, but again identifies two saviours...

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour".

pss: You misread Titus 1:3-4, they do not speak of Jesus as being God. Titus 1:1 should have made that obvious to you "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ...". Two distinct people 1.God, 2.Jesus Christ...

That God the Father and the Lord Jesus Chrsit are two Persons is not at issue. That they are the same God and they are the one Savior.

Remember Jesus was addressed as both Lord and God (John 20:28).

". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.

". . . I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." -- Jesus, John 8:24.

There is only one Savior.

apostoli
07-20-2015, 04:55 AM
Hello 37818,

In earler posts you suggested your opinions are guided by the witness of the scriptures, and though we disagree on a few things, trust in the scriptures is something we seem to have in common. With that in mind I will attempt to keep my direct comments/opinion to a minimum, and rely on scripture to communicate my understanding of things. Thus my reponses might be a little more lengthy than usual and might come across as a bit preachy...

To keep myself on track I'll harken back to the chain of ur conversation to remind me of your chain of thought...


". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.

Interesting! Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).One

...In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?Of course not. Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior. Both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ are that one Savior. Yes, Paul does refer to them separately as Savior. But at no time does he suggest they are two saviors. Do not forget the Son is called God and has a God, God His Father, yet they are not two God's, but they are the one God.

According to Jesus, he did not instigate his participation in the salvation plan (cp. John 8:42, "for I have not come on my own initiative but He sent Me" (on my own inititive=NASB, NET; of my own accord=ESV, RSV; of myself=KJV and most others)). So if there is only one saviour, then it must be God the Father, and so you make Jesus just a tool. Alternatively, you have the Father being scourged, crucified, dead and buried along with Jesus, for in scripture, Jesus' status as our saviour is dependent on his dieing for our sins, and the Father resurrecting him (cp. 2 Tim 1:8-10). Your ideas just don't compute. It seems you haven't thought through your proposals, if you had consulted the scriptures for guidance you might have realised how off beam you are...maybe you just haven't communicated your ideas adequately. May I suggest you blend the scripture that supports whatever it is you wish to communicate into your responses. At the moment you just randomly quote scripture leaving me to figure out what you are attempting to demonstrate.

A.Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.

In an earlier post you misrepresented (or misread) Titus 1:3-4 to prove your one God, one Saviour theory. Unfortunately for you, I'm not as gullible as you would wish, and so I pointed you to Titus 1:1 & 3:4-6 which demonstrate how folish your misrepresentation (misreading) was/is. What worries me about you is that you are so tangled up in dogmaticism that you are blind to the simple message of scripture. Have a think on Mt 13:13-15.

Instead of mining scripture and deceiving yourself, I encourage you to actually study the NT and become enlightened with the truth! We wouldn't have a saviour of any type, or the hope of the resurrection, if God the Father hadn't sent his only begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world! (cp 1 John 4:14; John 3:17). So amoungst the several ways the Father is our Saviour, the Father is our Saviour because he sent his only begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world. Amoungst the several ways the Son is our Saviour, the Son is our Saviour because he obeyed his Father, obedient even unto death (cp. Phil 2:8-11), and so the Father raised him from the dead (Acts 4:10; 10:40; 13:30,37; Romans 4:24; 6:4; 10:9; etc etc).

Jesus himself tells us he did not come of his own volition but was sent (John 8:42). We also learn from scripture that it was the Father's will that the Son should suffer so that you might gain the promise of eternal life (cp. Luke 22:42; John 3:17; 5:24; Rom 5:10; Heb 2:9; etc etc). So, according to scripture the Father is the architect and instigator of our salvation The sole source, cause and direction of our salvation. Whereas, the Son's obedience to his Father is the mechanism (the plan) through which salvation has been made available to us, and for which the Son has been rewarded with a name above every other name (Phil 2:9).

You said "Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior..."

Hmmm. Lets see what what scripture says...

A.Paul in 1 Corinthians talks about the diversity of function amoungst the members of the one body (the Church). He emphasises that though there are many members there is only one body. The same is understood of the Godhead by all Trinitarians, three distinct hypostases (persons), each with an exclusive function...but homoousios...

Jesus declared his Father to be exclusively "the only true God" (John 17:3). The apostle Paul emphatically demands that "to us there is but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor 8:6) and at Ephesians 4:6 the apostle Paul declares "[There is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". On these witnesses the Father is the only genuine God, but...

Lets also see what the teaching of the Church has been since the day dot, and the consequent affirmations made by all Catholic and Orthodox Christians (and most Protestants)...

The Nicene & Nicene-Constantinopole creed/s demand we swear that "I believe in one God, the Father..."

The Father as the only true God is the starting point in the understanding of the teaching of the Trinity. In reciting the Nicene creed Catholics declare that we also believe in "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father".

Exclusively, we derive the phrase "only true God" from John 17:3. Here the Greek word translated as "true" is "alēthinon", it can mean true, real or genuine. The only verse in the NT I've detected where the later meanings might properly be applied is 1 Thessalonians 1:9 which could be translated "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and real (or genuine) God".

I hold that John 17:3 corresponds with John 3:33 "He who has received [the Son's] testimony has certified that God is true" (NKJV) and John 8:26 "...He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.". From the majority witness of scripture and John 3:33-34 where vs34 says "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God", I determine that John 3:33, 8:26 and 17:3 are better understood as "God is truthful", "He who sent me is truthful" and "the only truthful God". For through the Son, the Father has fulfilled his promises, giving us the hope of the resurrection and eternal life. "...I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us — eternal life" (1 John 2:21,24-25).

A question that puzzles some: Why does the creed call Jesus "true God from true God"? Well for a starter, at Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is described as having an exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis. As you know, in English we don't have a word to translate "hypostasis" so it is usually rendered "person". As you also know, a hypostasis is the "concrete reality" of a particular thing, loosely what it is to itself. The original Greek version of the creed speaks of the homoousios (English: consubstantiality) of the Father and the Son. As you know, Homoousios, means "of the same ousia". Loosely translated "ousia" is the "concrete reality" of a group of identical things (eg: what it is that defines human, or for that matter what it is that defines God). So if the Father is true/real/genuine God, so the Son... Also consider: if God the Father who made the promises is truthful, so the Word of God (the Son of God) through whom the promises were delivered and fulfilled...

1 John 5:20 also comes into play "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ." For the reasons given above, I think where "true" is rendered, we should read "truthful". For scripture reveals that God the Father's promises and the witness of his Son, and the fulfillment by the Son, that if believed, all lead to eternal life, and are not made up of empty words...

In summary: functionally there are two saviours, God the Father and God the Son (cp. Isaiah 19:20). Imo, though it isn't plainly stated in scripture there are actually three saviours, each with a different function - the third is the Spirit of truth whose function is to intercede for us...(cp. John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13-15:; Rom 8:26; 1 John 5:6)


That God the Father and the Lord Jesus Chrsit are two Persons is not at issue.At least we agree on that point.


That they are the same God and they are the one Savior.You didn't complete your thought but I've guessed what it might have been.

Obviously you reject the doctrine of the Trinity, for the Father is defined by both scripture and the creeds as the "one God" we believe in. The Nicean and the Nicean-Constantinople Creed/s testify that "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"; 1 Cor 8:6 declares "for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him" and Eph 4:6 states "[there is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all". In Trinitarian thought, the Godhead begins with the Father, the Son and Spirit are homoosios (consubstantial) with the Father.

As for your "one saviour" idea, there isn't any New Testament support, so it is some delusion of your own making. Jesus does say at John 14:10-11 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." Compare this with John 17:22-23 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.". From these verses, what conclusion do you come to?


Remember Jesus was addressed as both Lord and God (John 20:28).If you had read what A.John actually wrote you'd ralise that Thomas did not respond to Jesus' offer by addressing him as Lord and God, but Thomas responded to Jesus' offer with a belated realisation, saying "My Lord, and my God". Have a read of John 14:4-10 "Thomas said to [Jesus], Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way? Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works...”


There is only one SaviorIf so then according to Jesus' witness it is the Father alone. After all Jesus says "the Father who dwells in Me does the works" (John 14:10). Yet despite this, A.Paul is fond of calling the Father saviour and calling the Son saviour. The scriptural witness is that each is our saviour in a particular way. So the scriptural witness is there are two saviours, one who sends and the other who is sent, each working towards the same result.


". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.First point: Jesus was begotten not made (formed). Second point: Notice Isaiah 19:20 "they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and [the LORD] will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." It seems your mining of the scriptures has failed you again...


"... I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." -- Jesus, John 8:24.You really should try to find the context of a verse. Have a read of vs25 "Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He certainly wasn't claiming to be "the being" of Ex 3:14, the LXX rendering "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" = "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, HO ON has sent me to you."  I suggest Jesus was refering to himself as the Messiah. Now have a read of vs28-30 "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him." It is little wonder they now believed in him, given he cited Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah!

Just as an aside:

If you were attentive to scripture you would know that Jesus never declared himself to be the Messiah to any Jew, including the disciples, so it is little wonder that Jesus' audience asked "“Who are You?”. Jesus did hint at being the Messiah to the blind man, and he stated it plainly that he was the long awaited Messiah to the Samaritan woman, and when Peter was quizzed and responded that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus said "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Mt 16:17)

37818
07-20-2015, 08:51 PM
Obviously you reject the doctrine of the Trinity, . . .That is a falsehood, and is inflammatory! :flaming:



. . . for the Father is defined by both scripture and the creeds as the "one God" we believe in. The Nicean and the Nicean-Constantinople Creed/s testify that "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"; 1 Cor 8:6 declares "for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him" and Eph 4:6 states "[there is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all". In Trinitarian thought, the Godhead begins with the Father, the Son and Spirit are homoosios (consubstantial) with the Father.I agree with this. While I do disagee with the unbiblical parts of such creeds/statments of faith.

Your opening comment though is appreciated. Thank you.

In earler posts you suggested your opinions are guided by the witness of the scriptures, and though we disagree on a few things, trust in the scriptures is something we seem to have in common. With that in mind I will attempt to keep my direct comments/opinion to a minimum, and rely on scripture to communicate my understanding of things. . .


According to Jesus, he did not instigate his participation in the salvation plan (cp. John 8:42, "for I have not come on my own initiative but He sent Me" (on my own inititive=NASB, NET; of my own accord=ESV, RSV; of myself=KJV and most others)). So if there is only one saviour, then it must be God the Father, and so you make Jesus just a tool. Alternatively, you have the Father being scourged, crucified, dead and buried along with Jesus, for in scripture, Jesus' status as our saviour is dependent on his dieing for our sins, and the Father resurrecting him (cp. 2 Tim 1:8-10). Your ideas just don't compute. It seems you haven't thought through your proposals, if you had consulted the scriptures for guidance you might have realized how off beam you are...maybe you just haven't communicated your ideas adequately. May I suggest you blend the scripture that supports whatever it is you wish to communicate into your responses. At the moment you just randomly quote scripture leaving me to figure out what you are attempting to demonstrate. Hmm...

So you want my comments to explain the holy scriptures I might cite.


A.Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.

A couple things here. First my quoting Isaiah 43:11, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. " God claims there is no other Saviors besides Himself.

As for Isaiah 19:20, "And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." -- NKJV

It my understanding that this refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. So no, God does not tell Isaiah that He would send saviors.

My point, the only Savior is God, and through the One whom He sent. God is the Savior alone. Jesus Christ our Lord is how. The Son of God being in the incarnation being both God and the Son of man is that Savior.

Is that understandable to you?

A side point, who raised Jesus from the dead?

God the Father: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

Jesus Himself: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . _ . . . But he spake of the temple of his body." -- John 2:19, 21.

The Holy Spirit: ". . . the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead . . ." -- Romans 8:11.

Who raised Jesus from the dead, the Holy Trinity.

At issue:

. . . "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"

I do not dissagree that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." I do disagree with what I omitted and noted. Since true God is not begotten. If you want to deal with that, please do. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son. Since He was not begotten to become the Son. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.


You really should try to find the context of a verse. Have a read of vs25 "Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He certainly wasn't claiming to be "the being" of Ex 3:14, the LXX rendering "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" = "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, HO ON has sent me to you."  I suggest Jesus was referring to himself as the Messiah. Now have a read of vs28-30 "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him." It is little wonder they now believed in him, given he cited Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah!

You cite the LXX which is a translation, not actually what translates from the Hebrew, the "ho on" is more an interpretation of YHWH for the "I AM" than a translation of the "I AM."

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is [oh on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." -- Revelation 1:8. ASV

"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." -- Revelation 1:17, 18. ASV

Jesus to John identifies Himself as the Lord God.

" Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] [the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." -- Isaiah 44:6.

There are not two "first and lasts."

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13.

apostoli
07-21-2015, 01:36 AM
Hello 37818,

I'll respond to your post #222 (your latest post) more fully either later today or tomorrow, but for now, in an effort to avoid going back into our loop, I wish to concentrate on one subject...



.Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.
A couple things here. First my quoting Isaiah 43:11, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. " God claims there is no other Saviors besides Himself.Ah! But what was his meaning? The OT has God sending to the Israelites (or promising to send) what are called "saviours" from time to time (eg: 2 Kings 13:5; Isaiah 19:20 etc).

Isaiah 63:7-9 is interesting: "I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses.For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he [YHWH] was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old."

Notice that there are two saviours: the one that does the actual saving (the angel of YHWH's presence) and the one who is credited with the saving (YHWH). Here we have that "sender (God the Father) and the one sent (the Son of God)" scenario that we find in the NT. As you know I acknowledge the Memra of YHWH=the Word of God=the angel of YHWH=the angel of YHWH's presence as being the Son of God (our Messiah).


Jamieson, Fausset & Brown :: Commentary on Isaiah 63 has two notes I think are worthy of attention...

so--in virtue of His having chosen them, He became their Saviour. So the "therefore" ( Jer 31:33 ). His eternal choice is the ground of His actually saving men ( Eph 1:3, 4 ).

angel of his presence--literally, "of His face," that is, who stands before Him continually; Messiah ( Exd 14:19 23:20, 21 Pro 8:30 ), language applicable to no creature ( Exd 32:34 33:2, 14 Num 20:16 Mal 3:1 ).


As for Isaiah 19:20, "And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." -- NKJV

It my understanding that this refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. So no, God does not tell Isaiah that He would send saviors.You are off beam again, following your wishful thinking rather than paying attention to what the scriptures tell us. I'm sure you are aware that in the OT YHWH sent to the Israelites a Messiah (Saviour), who was a devout pagan = Cyrus the Great of Persia. See Isaiah 45:1 where he is called in English translations "the anointed", whereas the Hebrew calls him "mashiyach" = "messiah"). At Isaiah 44:28 he is even called YHWH's “Shepherd”. Why was this so? Well he saved Israel from the Babylonians, freed them from their captivity and decreed that the Jerusalem Temple be rebuilt. Of course Isaiah 45:1 tells us YHWH made this possible beacuse YHWH held Cyrus' right hand so he could subdue all the nations before him. Thus again we seem to have the sender and the one sent scenario. At Isaiah 45:15 & 21 YHWH is credited with the salvation, even though Cyrus did all the actual saving work. Cyrus is an obvious proof that YHWH stands by his word, for as promised (Isaiah 19:20) YHWH did send a saviour = Cyrus.

You said: "It my understanding that [Isaiah 19:20] refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent". Well, it seems your understanding is lacking as the case in point concerning Cyrus demonstrates. This is what I meant when I observed that you are so bound up in dogmatism that you are blind to the simplicity of scripture. For some reason unbeknown to me, you get a pig headed idea in your head and then start to delete or ignore any scripture that is at odds with your imagination.

[
]My point, the only Savior is God, and through the One whom He sent. God is the Savior alone. Jesus Christ our Lord is how. The Son of God being in the incarnation being both God and the Son of man is that Savior.In the OT all credit of any salvation act is given to whoever does the sending of the actual saviour (in the above case YHWH, the saviour in the minds of men). Whoever does the hard yards in the actual saving gets little credit (Jesus is the exception), even though he is the saviour in the eyes of men eg: Cyrus. So, as I remarked in my previous post, if there is only one Saviour, then it is the Father who sent the Son.

Now there is a little twist in the NT idea of two saviours instead of one: In the OT, the saviours YHWH sent were transient - just means to an end, they came and went, they died and were mostly forgotten. YHWH is forever credited exclusively with the historical salvation event.

In the NT, our hero does not die and is not forgotten! Instead he is rewarded with eternal life, the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18). Thus through the knowledge that God the Father rose Jesus from the dead we have a hope...

Now have a think on Colossians 1:18. I'll quote Darby "And *he* is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that *he* might have the first place in all things". Now if your view has any validity, how is that your God died and was buried? God cannot die but Jesus in the completeness of his hypostasis, in the completeness of the hypostatic union of the physes (natures) of God and man did die, as the Son of God and the son of man he died, was buried and on the third day his Father rose him from the dead! Also, how is it that the Son as God (as opposed to the Son of God) lacked preeminence in anything? I leave you to the mercy of the scriptures to find the answer/s!

37818
04-08-2016, 08:57 PM
Ease off the number of question and exclamation marks, it makes you look aggressive and irrational, which is not what you should be trying to convey. Right now we're all struggling to understand you.

We know that the Son was not created, 37818, but they were responding to what you said. They thought you meant that The Son was created ("What is not taught in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation."). Since none of them ever brought up the idea that The Son was created, we assumed that you believed that he was, or at least that yet again your use of language terrible confuses what you're trying to convey.

. . . Ah ha. When I said "His creation" I was referring to Him as the Creator, not the created!

37818
04-23-2016, 05:43 AM
:huh: How is someone who is called 'the only-begotten son not identifiable as begotten?

The Greek for only-begotten does not mean in Greek to be "begotton." It can and often is used of persons who were, but it, the Greek word translated sometimes as "only-begotten" does not contain the Greek which means "begotten."

One Bad Pig
04-23-2016, 11:33 AM
The Greek for only-begotten does not mean in Greek to be "begotton." It can and often is used of persons who were, but it, the Greek word translated sometimes as "only-begotten" does not contain the Greek which means "begotten."
Yes, but when used in the context of "son" the meanings are synonymous - which is why, e.g., the KJV so translates it.

37818
04-23-2016, 01:19 PM
Yes, but when used in the context of "son" the meanings are synonymous - which is why, e.g., the KJV so translates it.

Are you a KJV-Onlyist? I use the KJV as my primary Word of God translation. It has always been my understanding only-begotten regarding the Son of God did not mean He was begotten to be eternally the Son of God. As God, the Son of God is the LORD God even as His Father is the LORD God. They are the one same God co-equal co-eternal. There was never in eternity before all ages any begetting of the Son of God by God His Father. They are two of the three Persons who are that One LORD God (Isaiah 43:10-11).

Bisto
04-23-2016, 04:49 PM
...There was never in eternity before all ages any begetting of the Son of God by God His Father. They are two of the three Persons who are that One LORD God (Isaiah 43:10-11).

Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?

One Bad Pig
04-23-2016, 04:57 PM
Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been not begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?
Paul (the guy you're responding to) has a rather idiosyncratic view of the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to the Incarnation, which is (in large part) why he has the "non-traditional Christian" tag.

One Bad Pig
04-23-2016, 04:59 PM
Are you a KJV-Onlyist?
No. On the other hand, I am not anti-KJV either. It is (usually) a valid translation.
I use the KJV as my primary Word of God translation.
That's why, in particular, I mentioned it.

Bisto
04-23-2016, 05:14 PM
Paul (the guy you're responding to) has a rather idiosyncratic view of the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to the Incarnation, which is (in large part) why he has the "non-traditional Christian" tag.

That's what I've read, but I'd like to know where exactly the difference he holds is. From the posts I'm seeing here (though I didn't read the whole thread), I thought he might have an issue with something that isn't the usual deal ("talking past each other", I think this is called).

37818
04-23-2016, 10:37 PM
Hello.

I always thought that wording it that way ("the son was begotten before the ages...") does not intend to say that there was a time when the Son had not been begotten yet, as implying that he "changed" from not-begotten to begotten, not-Son to Son, before creation or whatever. Rather, I thought it implies he is always "begotten of" the Father, similar to how I continually beget my own speech... and since the Father has been around "since before all the ages, etc." then the Son was the begotten Son "since before all the ages, etc."

Is that a correct understanding of orthodoxy or am I missing something here?


That's what I've read, but I'd like to know where exactly the difference he holds is. From the posts I'm seeing here (though I didn't read the whole thread), I thought he might have an issue with something that isn't the usual deal ("talking past each other", I think this is called).

The terminology of "begotten of the Father before all ages" is problematic. I agree that the Son of God is "only-begotten of the Father before all ages." He did not become the only-begotten Son. He always was the only begotten Son.

The Greek translated "begotten" is never used in regard to the Son of God's preexistence. The Greek translated "only-begotten" means literally to "uniquely exist." The translation of that Greek into Latin as "only-begotten" caused the problem. And then that false notion that the Son of God was [eternally] begotten in some way gave rise to Ariius' notion that the "only-begotten" was created. So the Nicene Creed created to counter Arius' error need to add "begotten not made" since the phrase "begotten of the Father before all ages" was what is understood Arius believed.

What is wrong is making it an essential dogma of the Only Begotten as being "begotten of the Father before all ages." When effectively as understood is no different than saying the Only-Begotten was NOT begotten not made.

That use of the term of begotten to refer to the Only-Begotten's preexistence is not according to the Word of God. It is that simple.

Bisto
04-24-2016, 09:13 AM
The terminology of "begotten of the Father before all ages" is problematic. I agree that the Son of God is "only-begotten of the Father before all ages." He did not become the only-begotten Son. He always was the only begotten Son.

The Greek translated "begotten" is never used in regard to the Son of God's preexistence. The Greek translated "only-begotten" means literally to "uniquely exist." The translation of that Greek into Latin as "only-begotten" caused the problem. And then that false notion that the Son of God was [eternally] begotten in some way gave rise to Ariius' notion that the "only-begotten" was created. So the Nicene Creed created to counter Arius' error need to add "begotten not made" since the phrase "begotten of the Father before all ages" was what is understood Arius believed.

What is wrong is making it an essential dogma of the Only Begotten as being "begotten of the Father before all ages." When effectively as understood is no different than saying the Only-Begotten was NOT begotten not made.

That use of the term of begotten to refer to the Only-Begotten's preexistence is not according to the Word of God. It is that simple.

When reading "begotten of the Father before the ages", does Orthodoxy understand there was a previous "time"(?) when the Son was not begotten yet, as you seem to imply it does?

To my understanding, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

I mean, if the Son is God's Word, Wisdom, etc. then it isn't contrived to imagine, at least by analogy, that his begetting is in a way similar to how I beget my own speech and thought by speaking and thinking, i.e. by being myself. For as long as I have been and until I am no more (til I sleep), my speech is thus begotten from me. The Father has always been, so it follows the One who is His radiance and wisdom "flows forth" from Him from eternity to eternity. If "begotten" attempts to describe that, why is it wrong?

37818
04-24-2016, 03:31 PM
When reading "begotten of the Father before the ages", does Orthodoxy understand there was a previous "time"(?) when the Son was not begotten yet, as you seem to imply it does?No. There was no time "before" all ages. The ages being the beginning of time and eternity. The only-begotten Son was always the only-begotten Son. At issue is the concept of being "eternally" begotten in some way. The term "begotten" has the baggage of having a beginning. The concept of "eternally" begotten has no beginning. As far as I am concerned that is no different than saying not begotten - meaning no beginning.



To my understanding, it doesn't, but I could be wrong.If you mean no "time" before to be a before. I agree.



I mean, if the Son is God's Word, Wisdom, etc.You can believe and understand it that way if you want. The Son of God is the Word, yes. He the Son of God is the LORD God even as the Father is the LORD God. ". . . The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22. The LORD being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And that "me" being the spirit of wisdom in the Proverb. Wherein ". . . Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.



then it isn't contrived to imagine, at least by analogy, that his begetting is in a way similar to how I beget my own speech and thought by speaking and thinking, i.e. by being myself. For as long as I have been and until I am no more (til I sleep), my speech is thus begotten from me. The Father has always been, so it follows the One who is His radiance and wisdom "flows forth" from Him from eternity to eternity. If "begotten" attempts to describe that, why is it wrong?That is fine. But you will not find that usage of "begotten" in the Word of God. But it was that usage which lead to the error of Arius to claim the Word was a creation. Which is of course a false view.

Bisto
04-24-2016, 04:06 PM
No. There was no time "before" all ages. The ages being the beginning of time and eternity. The only-begotten Son was always the only-begotten Son. At issue is the concept of being "eternally" begotten in some way. The term "begotten" has the baggage of having a beginning. The concept of "eternally" begotten has no beginning. As far as I am concerned that is no different than saying not begotten - meaning no beginning.


If you mean no "time" before to be a before. I agree.

You can believe and understand it that way if you want. The Son of God is the Word, yes. He the Son of God is the LORD God even as the Father is the LORD God. ". . . The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22. The LORD being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And that "me" being the spirit of wisdom in the Proverb. Wherein ". . . Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.

That is fine. But you will not find that usage of "begotten" in the Word of God. But it was that usage which lead to the error of Arius to claim the Word was a creation. Which is of course a false view.

So the issue is whether "the Son had a beginning"? To my understanding it is correct to say the Father is the "beginning" of Christ as in being His source (that is the meaning of "God is the head of Christ" in 1 Cor. 11:3, right?), but that doesn't mean to say there was a point, chronological or otherwise, when the Son did not exist. Rather, we should be thinking in ontological terms, shouldn't we? As in, ontologically, the Son finds his beginning in the Father (always had, always does, always will)?

By the way, I haven't really looked it up, but I would think the "begotten before everything" bit might come from Prov. 8:24-25.

37818
04-24-2016, 05:34 PM
So the issue is whether "the Son had a beginning"?Dr Walter Martin held the view that the second person of the Godhead has no beginning. But as the Son has a beginning.
By insisting upon the unambiguous title of the pre-existent Christ, orthodox Christianity can successfully
undercut the emphasis Jehovah’s Witnesses place upon "monogenes," showing in contrast that "only
begotten" is a term best exemplified by His incarnational example; and further, that Jesus Christ is not
called by Scripture the "eternal Son," the error of ambiguity first arising from Origen under the title
"eternal generation," but rather He is the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), Creator of the Universe (2
Peter 3:5), Sustainer of all things (2 Peter 3:7), First Begotten from the dead (Acts 13:33), and our "Great
High Priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God … who can be touched with the
feelings of our infirmities and who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews
4:15). Let us fix these things in our minds, then:

(a) the doctrine of "eternal generation" or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman
Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in ad. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to
misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the
realms of Christology.

(b) Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar
applied to Him in His incarnation.

(c) The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father," and has meaning only by analogy to
the fathers and sons we see in the created world. The term "Father," incidentally, never carries the
descriptive adjective "eternal" in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal 61 ("The
eternal Spirit"—Hebrews 9:14), emphasising the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional,
as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal
generation" misunderstandings of the theory as it is accepted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, if by eternal Sonship is meant that the
second person of the Trinity is both created and eternal in the same way and the same manner. This would
be a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word "Son" in such a sense predicates
time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless—the Word
was in the beginning, not the Son!

The Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is now and for all eternity Son of God and Son of Man;
therefore, in this sense there is no contradiction in calling him the eternal Son. But to be biblical in the
true sense of the term we must be willing to admit that He was known prior to His incarnation as the
eternal Word, and knowledge of this fact cuts across the very basic groundwork and foundation of the
Arian system of theology espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses. For if "only begotten" means "unique" or
"only one of its kind," there cannot be any ground for rendering it "only generated" as Jehovah’s Witnesses often attempt to do in a vain attempt to rob Christ of His deity.





To my understanding it is correct to say the Father is the "beginning" of Christ as in being His source (that is the meaning of "God is the head of Christ" in 1 Cor. 11:3, right?), but that doesn't mean to say there was a point, chronological or otherwise, when the Son did not exist. Rather, we should be thinking in ontological terms, shouldn't we? As in, ontologically, the Son finds his beginning in the Father (always had, always does, always will)?That the Son proceeds from the Father is not at issue. That the Son of God always was the Son is at issue.



By the way, I haven't really looked it up, but I would think the "begotten before everything" bit might come from Prov. 8:24-25.Yeah. I do not agree, since it is my understanding the passage refers to the [in the Hebrew the female] spirit of wisdom, not the LORD God whom the Son of God also is (Proverbs 8:22; John 8:24).

One Bad Pig
04-24-2016, 06:09 PM
Dr Walter Martin held the view that the second person of the Godhead has no beginning. But as the Son has a beginning.
By insisting upon the unambiguous title of the pre-existent Christ, orthodox Christianity can successfully
undercut the emphasis Jehovah’s Witnesses place upon "monogenes," showing in contrast that "only
begotten" is a term best exemplified by His incarnational example; and further, that Jesus Christ is not
called by Scripture the "eternal Son," the error of ambiguity first arising from Origen under the title
"eternal generation," but rather He is the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), Creator of the Universe (2
Peter 3:5), Sustainer of all things (2 Peter 3:7), First Begotten from the dead (Acts 13:33), and our "Great
High Priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God … who can be touched with the
feelings of our infirmities and who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews
4:15). Let us fix these things in our minds, then:

(a) the doctrine of "eternal generation" or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman
Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in ad. 230, is a theory that opened the door theologically to
misinterpretation by the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which today still plague the Christian church in the
realms of Christology.

(b) Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and the term Son is much more familiar
applied to Him in His incarnation.

(c) The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father," and has meaning only by analogy to
the fathers and sons we see in the created world. The term "Father," incidentally, never carries the
descriptive adjective "eternal" in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal 61 ("The
eternal Spirit"—Hebrews 9:14), emphasising the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional,
as previously stated.

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal
generation" misunderstandings of the theory as it is accepted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy.

(e) Finally, there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, if by eternal Sonship is meant that the
second person of the Trinity is both created and eternal in the same way and the same manner. This would
be a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word "Son" in such a sense predicates
time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless—the Word
was in the beginning, not the Son!

The Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is now and for all eternity Son of God and Son of Man;
therefore, in this sense there is no contradiction in calling him the eternal Son. But to be biblical in the
true sense of the term we must be willing to admit that He was known prior to His incarnation as the
eternal Word, and knowledge of this fact cuts across the very basic groundwork and foundation of the
Arian system of theology espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses. For if "only begotten" means "unique" or
"only one of its kind," there cannot be any ground for rendering it "only generated" as Jehovah’s Witnesses often attempt to do in a vain attempt to rob Christ of His deity.



That the Son proceeds from the Father is not at issue. That the Son of God always was the Son is at issue.

Yeah. I do not agree, since it is my understanding the passage refers to the [in the Hebrew the female] spirit of wisdom, not the LORD God whom the Son of God also is (Proverbs 8:22; John 8:24).
In my version of Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults, the chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses is Chapter 4, not 5, and is 89 pages long, to boot. Please give a more accurate, and pinpoint, citation. Thanks. I have no interest in reading nearly 100 pages in order to verify it.

37818
04-24-2016, 07:04 PM
In my version of Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults, the chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses is Chapter 4, not 5, and is 89 pages long, to boot. Please give a more accurate, and pinpoint, citation. Thanks. I have no interest in reading nearly 100 pages in order to verify it.

I have 3 editions 1965, 1997 and a current edition [not handy so I used the PDF]. The CD that came with the 1997 edition was busted. I found this copy of it here. (http://servantofmessiah.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/Kingdom-of-the-Cults-by-Walter-Martin.pdf)

The page in this PDF edition was 325.

I came to disagree on Dr Martin's view regarding "eternal Sonship" by reason of John 1:14 and 1 John 4:9 the implication being that the Only-Begotten preexisted as such. (Also Isaiah 9:6 in conjunction with John 1:18 and John 14:6, 9. The Son not being the Father but fully representing Him.)

Bisto
04-24-2016, 09:10 PM
But isn't the love relationship between the Father and the Son best described as such filial relationship? I think the Word, Wisdom, etc. are used more to describe God's relationship with the created order, while Jesus used the filial language firstly to describe his relationship with the Father and secondarily to share that quality of relationship with God's covenant people.

Like someone said in the thread on the importance of the Trinity doctrine to understand and know God, I think this has to do with the fact that God is love -- and he was love before creating anything, and this eternal love has always been the love between Father and Son. Otherwise, wouldn't that be a fundamental change in God's nature, if he didn't love as a Father "before the ages"?


By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?

Bisto
04-24-2016, 09:14 PM
But isn't the love relationship between the Father and the Son best described as such filial relationship? I think the Word, Wisdom, etc. are used more to describe God's relationship with the created order, while Jesus used the filial language firstly to describe his relationship with the Father and secondarily to share that quality of relationship with God's covenant people.

Like someone said in the thread on the importance of the Trinity doctrine to understand and know God, I think this has to do with the fact that God is love -- and he was love before creating anything, and this eternal love has always been the love between Father and Son. Otherwise, wouldn't that be a fundamental change in God's nature, if he didn't love as a Father "before the ages"?

Edit: here's the quote.

Well if God is not triune, then love is a created thing & not a characteristic of God. In eternity past the Father, Son, Holy Spirit always loved each other. Love is a characteristic of God, like everything else that is good.

This must be the case if God is love, because God does not change.
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8

And again, if God is not triune. He existed in a state where he did not love & changed when he created things.

By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?

37818
04-25-2016, 07:56 PM
By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?

". . . For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6.

Bisto
04-26-2016, 04:02 PM
". . . For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6.

Ah right. I remember someone translated that as "he shall be called that BY...". I guess it was the Jewish reading.

Anyhow, what do you think about Love? Was God Love before all ages? The man you quote says that Jesus's Sonship is pretty much an Incarnation-onwards-only phenomenon. In the beginning was the Word, who was with God and was himself God. So, did the Father not love the Word as his Son "in the beginning", before all ages? Did not the Word love God as a Father "in the beginning", before all ages? Is their filial relationship truly based on our filial relationships? Did their relationship change when the Word became flesh? Did God's relationship (and how we are best to understand it) change when He, eternal and sovereign, mercifully reached out to save us, finite and tiny?

37818
04-26-2016, 07:17 PM
Ah right. I remember someone translated that as "he shall be called that BY...". I guess it was the Jewish reading.". . . his name shall be called . . ." He is not the Father, but fully represents the Father (John 14:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5). He is God with the Father. And the Son with God.


Anyhow, what do you think about Love? Was God Love before all ages?Yes and no. God is the metaphor for love (1 John 4:8, 16; 1 John 4:7-9). He is not the thing we call love. But in that He is the true source of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Galatians 5:22-23).



The man you quote says that Jesus's Sonship is pretty much an Incarnation-onwards-only phenomenon.Yes, and I do not agree with that limitation.


In the beginning was the Word, who was with God and was himself God. So, did the Father not love the Word as his Son "in the beginning", before all ages? Of course He always loved the Father, and the Father loved Him.



Did not the Word love God as a Father "in the beginning", before all ages? Absolutely.

Is their filial relationship truly based on our filial relationships?No. It is the other way around (Genesis 1:26).


Did their relationship change when the Word became flesh?I do not believe so.

Did God's relationship (and how we are best to understand it) change when He, eternal and sovereign, mercifully reached out to save us, finite and tiny?God does not change (Malachi 3:6), so no. It is we who are finite and tiny. Not God's love (John 3:16). While I believe God's love is conditional, it is also without any merit on our part that we can obtain it (1 John 4:10).

The Word, the Logos was always a different person than God. Being "with God" John 1:1,2. Even as the Word, the Logos was also always the LORD God (John 1:1, "was God," Creator John 1:3, 10, Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-19). The only thing which changed with the Word, the Logos, in the incarnation was how He was with God. Not that He was God, that did not change.

Bisto
04-27-2016, 07:08 AM
". . . his name shall be called . . ." He is not the Father, but fully represents the Father (John 14:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5). He is God with the Father. And the Son with God.
Okay. Let's roll with the Christian translation.

I just fininshed reading the thread. Somewhere you said you agree with everything orthodox except the "begotten" part (and your "two natures before Incarnation" idea, but I believe we can treat both topics separately). Correct?

So, I wish to continue asking questions to see where is the issue, if that's alright with you. So far I don't think you ultimately disagree with the usual Christology that much, I get it's more a vocabulary thing and what you mean with it vs. what others mean (admittedly, most everyone else, it would seem).


Yes and no. God is the metaphor for love (1 John 4:8, 16; 1 John 4:7-9). He is not the thing we call love. But in that He is the true source of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Galatians 5:22-23).

Okay, here is the thing. If the Son was unbegotten as you say, just like the Father was, then why are they Father and Son? Why isn't it more natural for them to be Brothers or something like that, if that is indeed the case?

You compare the "begotten before the ages" line with two straight lines that intersect "in infinity" and therefore they never intersect, but like others explained, said line rather attempts to say that the Father begets the Son outside time, in a logical, ontological way. The Son finds his being in the Father, reflects the Father, comes from the Father, is the proper offspring of the Father, the radiance of the Father's glory, the exact expression of the Father's character, etc. All these point to the idea that the Son in a very real sense finds his "beginning" in the Father. There is a fundamental difference of some kind between the Father and the Son, a real sense in which "the Father is greater than I", as Jesus said. How do you describe that difference? Why is it like that?


Yes, and I do not agree with that limitation.

Of course He always loved the Father, and the Father loved Him.

Absolutely.
No. It is the other way around (Genesis 1:26).

I do not believe so.
God does not change (Malachi 3:6), so no. It is we who are finite and tiny. Not God's love (John 3:16). While I believe God's love is conditional, it is also without any merit on our part that we can obtain it (1 John 4:10).
Okay, I guess we agree on those things then. (I'll leave my ideas on "conditional love" apart, since it's off-topic.)


The Word, the Logos was always a different person than God. Being "with God" John 1:1,2. Even as the Word, the Logos was also always the LORD God (John 1:1, "was God," Creator John 1:3, 10, Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-19). The only thing which changed with the Word, the Logos, in the incarnation was how He was with God. Not that He was God, that did not change.
Okay, let's check John 1:1.
Usually, when talking about YHWH (the LORD God) we mean "God", deity, Creator, Lord, the Trinity as a whole, the One who is to be worshipped. Correct?
Consequently, any of the three Persons of the Trinity can be properly called YHWH (the LORD), God, deity, Creator, Lord, and be rightly worshipped as such. The three Persons are all fully divine. Correct?

So if we distinguish between the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and God as a whole (the "essence"), do you read John 1:1 as follows, or not?:
In the beginning was the Word (the Son), and the Word (the Son) was with God (the Father), and the Word (the Son) was God (deity, divine, a member of the Godhead, one in the Trinity, etc.).



Another thing: can you defend your rejection of Jesus being God's Wisdom? Chrawnus provided some very strong data in favor of it. How do you explain it?

You say that since in a very real sense Jesus is YHWH (true), then YHWH's Wisdom must be Jesus's wisdom, as opposed to the Father's Wisdom. Your point about Wisdom's gender has already been shown to be a non-issue in context. As for the rest, you would have that:


Jesus used a mediator to create, that is, Wisdom, who helped Him (and the Father, and the Spirit) during creation (and one who must himself/herself somehow count as being a "part" of God, since elsewhere YHWH says he used no outside help to create),
the same one who was begotten from YHWH (the Son here) before creation,
the same one who served as mediator to man who dispenses life and favor from YHWH(Son),
the same one who claimed to be the owner and dispenser of power, and appointer of rulers,
the same one who inter-testamental Jews understood to be the radiance of YHWH(Son), and the perfect expression of His character, and one who ministers at a heavenly tabernacle in a priestly role,
the same one who was equated with the Memra/Word/Logos of God/YHWH(Son), etc...
and finally, the same one who the NT writers, even Jesus Himself, confusingly seemed to equate with Jesus (the Word/Logos of God). Many of Wisdom's OT roles are attributed to Him in the NT.

While the alternative, which you reject, is that Wisdom is another "title" for the Son Himself, who is the Wisdom of YHWH(Father). He performed all these things, as is said of Him in the OT, inter-testamental literature, and NT, a role he consciously fulfilled while He walked the earth, and which NT writers understood and acknowledged in no uncertain terms.

Doesn't it seem odd to you to reject the latter and accept the former? If you don't see it this way, then how do you explain the data?

37818
04-28-2016, 08:06 PM
Okay. Let's roll with the Christian translation.
". . . For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6 (9:5} Jewish Publication Society 1917.


. . . For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.". . .


I just fininshed reading the thread. Somewhere you said you agree with everything orthodox except the "begotten" part (and your "two natures before Incarnation" idea, but I believe we can treat both topics separately). Correct?OK.


So, I wish to continue asking questions to see where is the issue, if that's alright with you. So far I don't think you ultimately disagree with the usual Christology that much, I get it's more a vocabulary thing and what you mean with it vs. what others mean (admittedly, most everyone else, it would seem).



Okay, here is the thing. If the Son was unbegotten as you say, just like the Father was, then why are they Father and Son? Why isn't it more natural for them to be Brothers or something like that, if that is indeed the case?The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end. He is the Uniquely Existant (translated as "Only-Begotten" John 1:14, 18 etc.)


You compare the "begotten before the ages" line with two straight lines that intersect "in infinity" and therefore they never intersect, but like others explained, said line rather attempts to say that the Father begets the Son outside time, in a logical, ontological way. The Son finds his being in the Father, reflects the Father, comes from the Father, is the proper offspring of the Father, the radiance of the Father's glory, the exact expression of the Father's character, etc.Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.

All these point to the idea that the Son in a very real sense finds his "beginning" in the Father.Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.


There is a fundamental difference of some kind between the Father and the Son, a real sense in which "the Father is greater than I", as Jesus said. How do you describe that difference? Why is it like that?". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.


Okay, I guess we agree on those things then. (I'll leave my ideas on "conditional love" apart, since it's off-topic.)Yes, and another issue (Psalm 5:5).



Okay, let's check John 1:1.
Usually, when talking about YHWH (the LORD God) we mean "God", deity, Creator, Lord, the Trinity as a whole, the One who is to be worshipped. Correct?Yes. The three Persons are the One YHWH. YHWH is the Name and identity of God. The three Persons are not parts pf Gpd but are each the whole God without division. Not to conflate persons with deity. There is only One God.


Consequently, any of the three Persons of the Trinity can be properly called YHWH (the LORD), God, deity, Creator, Lord, and be rightly worshipped as such. The three Persons are all fully divine. Correct?Absolutely.


So if we distinguish between the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and God as a whole (the "essence"), do you read John 1:1 as follows, or not?:
In the beginning was the Word (the Son), and the Word (the Son) was with God (the Father), and the Word (the Son) was God (deity, divine, a member of the Godhead, one in the Trinity, etc.).One can. But note the text uses deity "with God" not the person "with the Father." As Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are the one YHWH. What is important in John 1:1 is that the Word was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and "was God" (v.1). Being both someone other than God and God too. The Word being both eternal being God and having a temporal relationship with God the Father. The relationship is both eternal and temporal. And it is the preincarnate Word, the Logos, identified as the Son (John 1:14, 18) who acted and appears for God in temporal ways. The Son as YHWH is God the uncaused cause (Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-15). Uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. Uncaused is being eternal without beginning. All causes cause temporal effects. Hence all causes are temporal.


Another thing: can you defend your rejection of Jesus being God's Wisdom? Chrawnus provided some very strong data in favor of it. How do you explain it? He is the LORD God of Proverbs 8:22. And wisdom and understanding are two (Proverbs 7:4) of the 7 spirits of God. The first being the Holy Spirit and the other 6 being wisdom and understanding, council and might, along with spirt of knowledge and fear of the LORD (Isaiah 11:2; Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 5:6).



You say that since in a very real sense Jesus is YHWH (true), then YHWH's Wisdom must be Jesus's wisdom, as opposed to the Father's Wisdom. Your point about Wisdom's gender has already been shown to be a non-issue in context.The Hebrew for spirit is feminine. And that is the reason of that.



As for the rest, you would have that:


Jesus used a mediator to create, that is, Wisdom, who helped Him (and the Father, and the Spirit) during creation (and one who must himself/herself somehow count as being a "part" of God, since elsewhere YHWH says he used no outside help to create),[list]The Logos is the mediator who as YHWH is the Creator. Who possesses those 7 spirits. One of which is His Holy Spirit.


[list] the same one who was begotten from YHWH (the Son here) before creation, Not true. There is no place in the word of God which teaches that false dogma. The Creator is YHWH (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17). See Isaiah 6:5 and John 12:41 for example. See Acts 10:43, what Name do all the prophets use?

the same one who served as mediator to man who dispenses life and favor from YHWH(Son),He has always been the mediator before His incarnation (John 1:18; Ephesians 3:9).

the same one who claimed to be the owner and dispenser of power, and appointer of rulers,The Son is YHWH of the OT on behalf if the Father.

the same one who inter-testamental Jews understood to be the radiance of YHWH(Son), and the perfect expression of His character, and one who ministers at a heavenly tabernacle in a priestly role,
the same one who was equated with the Memra/Word/Logos of God/YHWH(Son), etc...
and finally, the same one who the NT writers, even Jesus Himself, confusingly seemed to equate with Jesus (the Word/Logos of God). Many of Wisdom's OT roles are attributed to Him in the NT.
Cite them.


While the alternative, which you reject, is that Wisdom is another "title" for the Son Himself, who is the Wisdom of YHWH(Father). He performed all these things, as is said of Him in the OT, inter-testamental literature, and NT, a role he consciously fulfilled while He walked the earth, and which NT writers understood and acknowledged in no uncertain terms.This needs to be dealt with, refer by reference. I believe I proved the correct answers. The preincarnate Son of God is YHWH of the OT (Proverbs 8:22). This is a separate issue too.



Doesn't it seem odd to you to reject the latter and accept the former? If you don't see it this way, then how do you explain the data?Please see above. We can readdresses points separately as needed. There are more than just two issues here.

Bisto
04-28-2016, 09:17 PM
". . . For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6 (9:5} Jewish Publication Society 1917.


. . . For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.". . .
OK.
I like both :smile: but I'll skip it. After all, you do believe in the Father's Fatherhood and the Son's Sonship being eternal/everlasting.


The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end...
Why is it like that then? Why did Jesus always treat the Father as his Father? Because he finds his Source in the Father? And why did the Father always treat the Word as his Son? Because he "flows forth" from Him? Isn't this what one means when talking of Jesus' eternal generation or "birth", so to call it?


He is the Uniquely Existant (translated as "Only-Begotten" John 1:14, 18 etc.)
I don't really think this translation bit is quite clear. From what I saw, NT usage of "monogenes" can be classified into two groups: (1) in John's writings it's used to speak about Jesus, and (2) outside of John's material (Luke and Hebrews), it's used of children who seem to be their parents' only children. (http://www.biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3439.htm)

With this, I don't think one could show that John wants "only begotten" to be understood differently when applied to Jesus from its use elsewhere. You could argue that, sure, but I don't see how you could prove it. For example, I'm not sure whether this might relate (if at all) to the fact that John uses "huios" (son) only of Jesus and never of believers.


Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.
Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.
Do you not think that is what one MEANS when talking about the Son finding His "beginning" in the Father -- that the Father is His source?


". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.
Why him and not the other way around? Why does the Son loyally submit to the Father?

As an aside, I've always thought that those theologians who see Jesus' "functional subordination" to the Father as some deterrent to His full deity and as something exclusive to His incarnation are making an argument a little, I don't know, odd. It's as if loyal submission like that of Jesus to the Father wasn't something good and honorable in itself, something divine, etc.


Yes, and another issue (Psalm 5:5).
All I can say is, great quote.


Yes. The three Persons are the One YHWH. YHWH is the Name and identity of God. The three Persons are not parts pf Gpd but are each the whole God without division. Not to conflate persons with deity. There is only One God.
Absolutely.
Okay.


One can. But note the text uses deity "with God" not the person "with the Father." As Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are the one YHWH. What is important in John 1:1 is that the Word was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and "was God" (v.1). Being both someone other than God and God too. The Word being both eternal being God and having a temporal relationship with God the Father. The relationship is both eternal and temporal. And it is the preincarnate Word, the Logos, identified as the Son (John 1:14, 18) who acted and appears for God in temporal ways. The Son as YHWH is God the uncaused cause (Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-15). Uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. Uncaused is being eternal without beginning. All causes cause temporal effects. Hence all causes are temporal.
I agree that theologically it would be the Son's role to do theophanic duties in the OT. But like others said in this thread before, the assumption that every time YHWH is mentioned we must read the Son is itself unwarranted. In that model, is the Father uniquely referenced at all in the Bible apart from those times he is explicitly called "Father" in the NT? What do you make of OT texts where YHWH speaks to/about someone else who happens to be Jesus in the end?


He is the LORD God of Proverbs 8:22. And wisdom and understanding are two (Proverbs 7:4) of the 7 spirits of God. The first being the Holy Spirit and the other 6 being wisdom and understanding, council and might, along with spirt of knowledge and fear of the LORD (Isaiah 11:2; Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 5:6).
The Hebrew for spirit is feminine. And that is the reason of that.
Okay. Is that it? Because I don't really think any of this proves your position against the Jesus=Wisdom one.


The Logos is the mediator who as YHWH is the Creator. Who possesses those 7 spirits. One of which is His Holy Spirit.

Not true. There is no place in the word of God which teaches that false dogma. The Creator is YHWH (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17). See Isaiah 6:5 and John 12:41 for example. See Acts 10:43, what Name do all the prophets use?
He has always been the mediator before His incarnation (John 1:18; Ephesians 3:9).
The Son is YHWH of the OT on behalf if the Father.
Cite them.
This needs to be dealt with, refer by reference. I believe I proved the correct answers. The preincarnate Son of God is YHWH of the OT (Proverbs 8:22). This is a separate issue too.
Please see above. We can readdresses points separately as needed. There are more than just two issues here.
I believe you misunderstood what I meant with those points. I wasn't talking about the Son there. I was talking about Wisdom, as I said "the same one who...".

Wisdom serves as YHWH's agent of creation in the OT.
Wisdom is spoken of as "begotten" from YHWH before creation.
Wisdom claims to dispense/own power and rulership.
Wisdom claims to give life and favor from YHWH to man.
Wisdom was understood by inter-testamental Jews to be a radiance from YHWH, and the expression of YHWH, and one who ministers as a priest before YHWH, and the firstborn of YHWH.
Wisdom was pretty much equated with the Memra, or Word, of YHWH (or in Greek, the Logos of God). Perhaps we should add that the Word of God itself is personified here and there in the OT and displays similar functions to those of Wisdom.
Now that I remember, Wisdom also said she would pour out her spirit (Spirit?) from above.

Moving on to the NT:

Jesus is said to be the Father's agent of creation, the Father's "only begotten" Son, the giver/appointer of all power and rulership, the giver of life and favor from the Father, the radiance of the Father, the expression of His character, our High Priest before the Father, the Firstborn of the Father, and the Word (Logos) of God. He also sends the Holy Spirit with the Father (and the Spirit also gets called the Spirit of Jesus/Christ/the Son).
Jesus hangs out with the social outcasts and those lacking in wisdom, eating with them, etc., those same people whom Wisdom reached out to and claimed to have prepared meals for.
Jesus speaks at times of having no place for Himself on earth, like Wisdom claimed when she came to Earth in wisdom literature.
Among other things, Jesus claims to be greater than the wisest king ever. The connection there is simple.
The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?
Jesus gets called "Wisdom of God and Power of God" by Paul in 1 Cor. 1.
Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.
I think more points could be added. Chrawnus posted some links to Tektonics with these and more. Perhaps the least of which, for this particular topic, is that Jesus is commonly understood as being "begotten" of the Father.

So, how do you explain this data? Why should one give more weight to your case (Wisdom is NOT Jesus), rather than the opposite (Wisdom is Jesus)?

37818
04-29-2016, 09:50 PM
The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end...
Why is it like that then? ". . . Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God." -- Psalm 90:2.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what his name, and what his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

"For I [am] the LORD, I change not; . . . " -- Malachi 3:6.


Why did Jesus always treat the Father as his Father? Because he finds his Source in the Father?". . . I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. . . ." -- John 5:20.




And why did the Father always treat the Word as his Son?Because it was always what was true. See above references. ". . . I and [my] Father are one. . . ." -- John 10:30. ". . . no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. . . ." -- John 14:6.




Because he "flows forth" from Him?That concept is alien in the word of God regarding the Son of God.


Isn't this what one means when talking of Jesus' eternal generation or "birth", so to call it?That is alien to God's word regarding the preincarnate Word (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9). The Greek translated "only-begotten" does not have that meaning.



I don't really think this translation bit is quite clear. From what I saw, NT usage of "monogenes" can be classified into two groups: (1) in John's writings it's used to speak about Jesus, and (2) outside of John's material (Luke and Hebrews), it's used of children who seem to be their parents' only children. (http://www.biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3439.htm)The rendering in the sense of "only-begotten" in the Latin Vulgate "unigenitum" and English translation. Most other translations it is translated with the meaning of "unique."



With this, I [I]don't think one could show that John wants "only begotten" to be understood differently when applied to Jesus from its use elsewhere. You could argue that, sure, but I don't see how you could prove it. For example, I'm not sure whether this might relate (if at all) to the fact that John uses "huios" (son) only of Jesus and never of believers. The Greek John used is not at issue. The misinterpretation derived from it is. That Greek translated "only-begotten" does not mean "born."



Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.
Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.
Do you not think that is what one MEANS when talking about the Son finding His "beginning" in the Father -- that the Father is His source?There is no "beginning" with God and the Son of God. Creation has a beginning (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1).



". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.
Why him and not the other way around? Why does the Son loyally submit to the Father?Being "with God" is being some one other than God. And being another entity. Now God as an entity is only one, without parts or division. God would have to have changed. The Word always could change and He the Word was also God, ". . . was God." He/the Word/the Son was the one who walked in the garden. ". . . they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden . . ." -- Genesis 3:8. The Father acts through and by reason of the Son. So this has always been. ". . . a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." -- Matthew 17:5. And later, ". . . Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" -- John 14:9.



As an aside, I've always thought that those theologians who see Jesus' "functional subordination" to the Father as some deterrent to His full deity and as something exclusive to His incarnation are making an argument a little, I don't know, odd. It's as if loyal submission like that of Jesus to the Father wasn't something good and honorable in itself, something divine, etc. As persons there is subordination. As God they are the one and the same God. Co-equal and co-eternal. Note this, ". . . but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.. . ." -- John 5:18. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus' day understood that much.




I agree that theologically it would be the Son's role to do theophanic duties in the OT. But like others said in this thread before, the assumption that every time YHWH is mentioned we must read the Son is itself unwarranted. In that model, is the Father uniquely referenced at all in the Bible apart from those times he is explicitly called "Father" in the NT?Also in the OT, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." -- Malachi 2:10.



What do you make of OT texts where YHWH speaks to/about someone else who happens to be Jesus in the end? The Son of God is God's temporal agent. ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." -- John 1:3 (Provebs 30:4; Colossians 1:16-17). If there was no Son of God then there would be no creation, but then there would be only God and God would not be the Father. But they always were.




Okay. Is that it? Because I don't really think any of this proves your position against the Jesus=Wisdom one.You do not understand this do you? If the eyes of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6; Zechariah 4:10) and two of those spirits of God are wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 7 & 8). Is the Lamb His eye the spirit of wisdom? (Matthew 2:23 - Isaiah 11:1-2). The Lamb also being the LORD (Zechariah 4:10).






I believe you misunderstood what I meant with those points. I wasn't talking about the Son there. I was talking about Wisdom, as I said "the same one who...".

Wisdom serves as YHWH's agent of creation in the OT.
Wisdom is spoken of as "begotten" from YHWH before creation.
Wisdom claims to dispense/own power and rulership.
Wisdom claims to give life and favor from YHWH to man.
Wisdom was understood by inter-testamental Jews to be a radiance from YHWH, and the expression of YHWH, and one who ministers as a priest before YHWH, and the firstborn of YHWH.
Wisdom was pretty much equated with the Memra, or Word, of YHWH (or in Greek, the Logos of God). Perhaps we should add that the Word of God itself is personified here and there in the OT and displays similar functions to those of Wisdom.
Now that I remember, Wisdom also said she would pour out her spirit (Spirit?) from above.
Please give each supporting scripture reference. There is a difference between interpretation and explicit teaching of the word of God.


Moving on to the NT:

Jesus is said to be the Father's agent of creation, the Father's "only begotten" Son, the giver/appointer of all power and rulership, the giver of life and favor from the Father, the radiance of the Father, the expression of His character, our High Priest before the Father, the Firstborn of the Father, and the Word (Logos) of God. He also sends the Holy Spirit with the Father (and the Spirit also gets called the Spirit of Jesus/Christ/the Son).
Jesus hangs out with the social outcasts and those lacking in wisdom, eating with them, etc., those same people whom Wisdom reached out to and claimed to have prepared meals for.
Jesus speaks at times of having no place for Himself on earth, like Wisdom claimed when she came to Earth in wisdom literature.
Among other things, Jesus claims to be greater than the wisest king ever. The connection there is simple.
The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?
Jesus gets called "Wisdom of God and Power of God" by Paul in 1 Cor. 1.
Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.
I think more points could be added. Chrawnus posted some links to Tektonics with these and more. Perhaps the least of which, for this particular topic, is that Jesus is commonly understood as being "begotten" of the Father.

So, how do you explain this data? Why should one give more weight to your case (Wisdom is NOT Jesus), rather than the opposite (Wisdom is Jesus)?

I'm going to pick this this one:

The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?Well Jesus told that at two different times. The Luke account is earlier than that of the Matthew account in Jesus' ministry. So did not the LORD possesses the spirit of wisdom? (Proverbs 8:22}. This argument you presented is good. And corresponds with 1 Corinthians 1:24. Wisdom spoke, and later Jesus speaks this of Himself (Matthew 2:23; Isaiah 11:1-2). Jesus being a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

And this one:

Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.

Revelation 3:14, ". . . saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." Jesus in His incarnation and resurrection is the beginning of the new heaven and earth to come. ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:18. ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . . . . of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ." -- Romans 8:22, 28.
This is how I understand this. Colossions 1:15 is regarding Christ's resurrection ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." Which in His preexistence created. That ". . . that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." (v.18). Both as Creator and creature. [I]i.e. incarnation and resurrection.

Now if you want me to comment on the rest. Please one thing at a time.

Bisto
04-30-2016, 01:25 PM
". . . Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God." -- Psalm 90:2.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

"For I [am] the LORD, I change not; . . . " -- Malachi 3:6.
All these quotes show that God is eternal.


". . . I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. . . ." -- John 5:20.
Because it was always what was true. See above references. ". . . I and [my] Father are one. . . ." -- John 10:30. ". . . no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. . . ." -- John 14:6.
Yes, the Father sent the Son. I ask why are they Father and Son in your view? What I am getting at is, in your model, why/how do both share their Godhood? In what sense are they One? Why/how do they share their divine "essence"?


That concept is alien in the word of God regarding the Son of God.
That is alien to God's word regarding the preincarnate Word (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9). The Greek translated "only-begotten" does not have that meaning.
But Jesus gets called the radiance of the Father's glory. Doesn't light "flow forth" from a light source? If the light-source has been always on, then it follows that its Light has always been flowing forth from it, and this Light perfectly shows how the light-source is. Just like Jesus gets called the exact imprint of the Father's character, He says to see Him is to see the Father, He gets called the Light unto men and the world, etc. Why is this model wrong?


The rendering in the sense of "only-begotten" in the Latin Vulgate "unigenitum" and English translation. Most other translations it is translated with the meaning of "unique."
No need to home in on "only begotten" there. The concept being expressed is present elsewhere, like the Heb.1 words already brought up.


The Greek John used is not at issue. The misinterpretation derived from it is. That Greek translated "only-begotten" does not mean "born."
Indeed, most translations don't use "only begotten" for this word. But the word is used of "unique" children of their parents, apparently their only children, or if we go with Isaac's case, the one special child. Not just anything unique, but specifically children related to their parents.


There is no "beginning" with God and the Son of God. Creation has a beginning (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1).
Put aside the chronological understanding of "beginning". You already know nobody is arguing the Son "began" in that sense. Does the Son find the source of His being in the Father? Is the Father the ontological source of the Son? Why do we say that the Son is the perfect expression of the Father's character and not the other way around?


Being "with God" is being some one other than God. And being another entity. Now God as an entity is only one, without parts or division. God would have to have changed. The Word always could change and He the Word was also God, ". . . was God." He/the Word/the Son was the one who walked in the garden. ". . . they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden . . ." -- Genesis 3:8. The Father acts through and by reason of the Son. So this has always been. ". . . a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." -- Matthew 17:5. And later, ". . . Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" -- John 14:9.
Are you saying that the "God" in "the Word was with God" is not only the Father, but instead the Godhead to the exclusion of the Word?


As persons there is subordination. As God they are the one and the same God. Co-equal and co-eternal. Note this, ". . . but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.. . ." -- John 5:18. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus' day understood that much.
Yes.


Also in the OT, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." -- Malachi 2:10.
Is that it? The Father did not uniquely reveal Himself until the time of Malachi?


The Son of God is God's temporal agent. ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." -- John 1:3 (Provebs 30:4; Colossians 1:16-17). If there was no Son of God then there would be no creation, but then there would be only God and God would not be the Father. But they always were.
I was talking about passages where YHWH relates to someone, and those passages are later understood as the Father relating to Jesus. YHWH and Eve's offspring, YHWH and the Angel of YHWH, YHWH and the Prophet like unto Moses He would send, YHWH and His suffering servant, YHWH and the Messiah He "begets", YHWH and the Lord to whom He gives rulership and priesthood, etc. All these, in light of Jesus, are understood as the Father talking about Jesus in different roles, and with YHWH being the Father in such instances. I and many others simply acknowledge YHWH and His Wisdom to be also in that list.


You do not understand this do you? If the eyes of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6; Zechariah 4:10) and two of those spirits of God are wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 7 & 8). Is the Lamb His eye the spirit of wisdom? (Matthew 2:23 - Isaiah 11:1-2). The Lamb also being the LORD (Zechariah 4:10).
There is no need, purpose or use for personal attacks, friend.

This is what I undestand is your theory. You hold that the "seven spirits of God" in Zech. and Rev. are those that appear in Is. 11 (MT reading), making the Holy Spirit (Spirit of YHWH) one of seven spirits. (Btw, the LXX reading has the Spirit of YHWH and seven other spirits, but for the sake of argument I'll stick to the MT reading you implicitly favor.) You then link Wisdom and Understanding as the second and third "spirits of God", and then classify every reference to God's Wisdom as this spirit of God. Is that correct?

To me, in light of the Trinity, the idea of putting the Holy Spirit as simply the first in a list of spirits seems unnatural; I feel the same with putting the Wisdom of God, whom Jewish thought understood to be a prominent character in God's relationship with His Creation, as another spirit in a list. Most commentators I've seen read this verse as talking about the Spirit of YHWH and the manifold ways in which He would empower the Messiah, with those being more like descriptions of what the Spirit would be to Him. I don't think that is the only possible way to read it either.


Now, I am trying to compare the evidence for your position on the identity of Wisdom, which would be what I just tried to summarize, with the evidence for the position I've been talking about on the identity of Wisdom, which is in line with Orthodoxy and from what I've seen is held by most of mainstream Christianity. And I believe that, comparing the two, I have little reason to believe your case is strong, while I see the alternative is much stronger.


Please give each supporting scripture reference. There is a difference between interpretation and explicit teaching of the word of God.

I'm going to pick this this one:
Well Jesus told that at two different times. The Luke account is earlier than that of the Matthew account in Jesus' ministry. So did not the LORD possesses the spirit of wisdom? (Proverbs 8:22}. This argument you presented is good. And corresponds with 1 Corinthians 1:24. Wisdom spoke, and later Jesus speaks this of Himself (Matthew 2:23; Isaiah 11:1-2). Jesus being a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.
Is "two different speeches" how you harmonize every difference in the overall point at which different evangelists report what are arguably the same speech, or two versions with stylistic differences? Or is it how you view these two only?

Anyway, you do acknowledge that it is mostly understood that the evangelists report Jesus' life and deeds with enough freedom to structure the timing of some events, or the wording of speeches, etc. according to their literary purposes, right? Do you view the Gospels this way or not?

If you do, then do you acknowledge that this is one piece of evidence for the Wisdom=Jesus view?


And this one:

Revelation 3:14, ". . . saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." Jesus in His incarnation and resurrection is the beginning of the new heaven and earth to come. ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:18. ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . . . . of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ." -- Romans 8:22, 28.
Okay, agreed.


This is how I understand this. Colossions 1:15 is regarding Christ's resurrection ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." Which in His preexistence created. That ". . . that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." (v.18). Both as Creator and creature. [I]i.e. incarnation and resurrection.
OK.


Now if you want me to comment on the rest. Please one thing at a time.

Okay. Give me time and I'll list them, perhaps quoting from JPH's site some parts (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php), I believe that may be faster.

First off, this might be easier if you would just go read Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon to see what Jews of Jesus' time were reading about Wisdom. I don't intend to say we should regard these books as Holy Scripture; rather, we ought to simply acknowledge that these books reflect some Jewish thought of the time on this topic.

Scholars quoted by JPH agree that characterization/personification of some of God's attributes (like His Wisdom or His Memra/Word) in Jesus' time was a way of speaking of the transcendent God's actions within the created order. It's more or less what you intend to describe as the Son's "temporal" role. I remember reading the same in Bauckham's "God Crucified". So for example, the Targums would say the people went out to meet the Memra of God at mount Sinai in Ex. 19.

So, as seen in books like Ben Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon (and a few other sources), they thought big of Wisdom's role at the time, and their description of it is very similar to the NT's description of the Son's role, down to the vocabulary used for both. It's not a big leap to conclude that Paul and the others chose their vocabulary based on what Jews thought of Wisdom at the time.

With that in mind, we can look at both OT references to Wisdom and Memra (and regard them as Scripture), and look at inter-testamental writings as references that NT writers were free to make for the sake of their (contemporary) readers, and compare both to NT descriptions of Jesus. Yes?

37818
04-30-2016, 02:18 PM
You do not understand this do you? . . .
There is no need, purpose or use for personal attacks, friend.Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.

Bisto
04-30-2016, 04:29 PM
Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.

:thumb: It's okay. I said it in case they were. Apology accepted for all intents and purposes :smile: