Does Jehovah die? [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

John from Ebla

September 28th 2005, 03:12 AM

Hi Crusader,

You seem to be confusing the messenger with the one who gave him the message. Alam puts it best:

"An answer may be found in the principle of delegation or shlichut, summed up by the Rabbinic saying שלוּחוֹ של אדם כמוֹתוֹ, "a man's messenger is as himself" (Berachoth 5:5) cited about nine times in the Talmud. The messenger or agent is empowered to act and to be received as the one who sent him.

We see this at work in the Bible in the parallel accounts of the healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. According to Luke, the officer sent out messengers to find Christ and present Him with his request. Matthew, writing from a Jewish perspective, simply did not think it necessary to mention the messengers, and wrote as though he had sought out Christ in person...."

For example the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1)

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that-

Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14)

and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12)

best wishes,

Hi Pythagoras. Is it possible that 1st CT Jewish Monotheism had a problem with understanding their God- because l seem to see more plurality in the O/T and Jewish writing than anywhere else. Could it be that for not understanding their own Jewish scriptures they rejected Jesus “We have no king but Cesar”

Here is my point. Thy shall have no other God- with this is mind, how does one vindicate Moses and the patriarch on the charge of idolatry?

"And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..........." (Exodus 3:2-14) To put the bluntest point on the issue, when the "Malak of the LORD" says to Moses, "I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" -- is He fibbing, or is He telling the truth? How do we perceive the above verse? The Messenger would have to be God and not some masquerading puppet as the Jewish law of agency implies.

How can the New Testament be so consistent with the Jewish tanankh? John 1.1-2- "The word was God and the word was with God" The word is not another God and yet it is with God.

Did the word, that was God, cease be God because it became flesh?

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

September 28th 2005, 05:49 AM

Hi Crusader,

Full Deity would include the possession of self-existence as Deity. An honest reading of the Bible will bear out that Christ does not self-exist as Deity. Instead, the Father has made Christ what he is. Matthew 9:6-8; 11:27; 28:18; John 5:19-20,26,30; 6:57; 8:42; 8:54; 17:24; Acts 2:36; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:19; Revelation 2:26-27.

Jesus said he was the Alpha and the Omega, titles reserved for God. See the Book of Revelation.

How do you know that these titles are reserved for God? If Jesus was not God, I think we would have to conclude that they are not reserved for God.

If Christ was not God, His atonement was not infinite, and we are lost in our sins and there is no redemption.

Christ's ransom or antilutron is exactly sufficient and efficacious for what it is needed to do. If it is not an infinite atonement because Christ is not God according to the Scriptures, then it follows that an infinite atonement was not needed.

Jesus said, "unless you come to believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

What I wrote last (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1195100&postcount=68) to you on this was not answered.

The Jews knew exactly what he was saying - claiming equality with God.

The equality of Christ to the Father according to the Scriptures is one of activity (John 5:17-19).

Remember Paul's words, "in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form." Was Paul blaspheming when he said that?

No, it is a matter of understanding what the passage says. If this is supposed to quantify the essence of God, then it should be possible to have God's essence but not in "all" fullness, otherwise the expression is 2X redundant! But if it is untrue to speak of God's own essence in this way, as though someone could have "all" its fulness, and by implication someone else only part, then we should not understand "pleroma" as quantifying the "theotetos," but as something belonging to the theotetos or Godhead. Compare what Paul wrote in Ephesians,

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him [be] glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

The pleroma of God or the Godhead probably refers to God's power and activity, in which it is possible to have a greater or lesser share.

alam

September 28th 2005, 06:27 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Since Pythagoras quoted one of my posts in part of what you responded to, here are my two cents...

Here is my point. Thy shall have no other God- with this is mind, how does one vindicate Moses and the patriarch on the charge of idolatry?

Exodus 23:13 suggests that other gods have other names with all that implies. But the mal'akh always operated in the name of God, having His name placed within him, even bearing His name. Thus the mal'akh YHWH is acting as an extension of YHWH's own Godhead and authority. This is what the principle of agency does and we have to accept it (or not) on its own terms. The messenger can and does legitimately act as the person that sent him without being that person. There is no fib or deception there if you are part of the culture where this is accepted and understand what is going on.

"And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob..........." (Exodus 3:2-14) To put the bluntest point on the issue, when the "Malak of the LORD" says to Moses, "I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" -- is He fibbing, or is He telling the truth?

When Moses said, "And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot, ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I [am] the LORD your God" (Deut. 29:5-8), how are we supposed to understand this? Was Moses claiming to be God? Or was God speaking through him? Was Moses prophetically impersonating God? When Moses said, "I will give [you] the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, and I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full" (Deut. 11:14-15) its a similar case. We thought it was Moses here, but somehow the speaker turns out to be God.

How do we perceive the above verse? The Messenger would have to be God and not some masquerading puppet as the Jewish law of agency implies.

You are right that a masquearading puppet does not sound so great, but AFAIK this is not what the Jewish principle of agency means :

The shaliach [agent] does not abnegate his intellect, will, desires, feelings, talents and personal "style" to that of the one whom he represents; rather, he enlists them in the fulfillment of his mission. The result of this is not a lesser bond between the two, but the contrary: the meshaleiach [sender] is acting through the whole of the shaliach -- not only through the shaliach's physical actions, but also through the shaliach's personality, which has become an extension of the meshaleiach's personality.

How can the New Testament be so consistent with the Jewish tanankh? John 1.1-2- "The word was God and the word was with God" The word is not another God and yet it is with God.

Did the word, that was God, cease be God because it became flesh?

He did not cease to be Theos. However, Origen (Commentary on John, 2.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm)) makes a distinction between Theos with and without the article that is worth bearing in mind.

God bless

Pythagoras

September 29th 2005, 06:34 PM

Hi Ebla,

Please read alam's latest post, you will learn alot from it.

On another note,

Hi Pythagoras. Is it possible that 1st CT Jewish Monotheism had a problem with understanding their God- because l seem to see more plurality in the O/T and Jewish writing than anywhere else. Could it be that for not understanding their own Jewish scriptures they rejected Jesus “We have no king but Cesar”

It was not because the Jews "had a problem understanding their God " that they rejected Messiah.

There were a few reasons why the Jews rejected Messiah, but none because of a lack of understanding of Yahwah. For instance, one of the reasons they rejected Jesus was because they believed when Messiah came no one will know where he is from, yet they (thought they) knew where Jesus was from.

John 7:27, "But we know where this man is from: when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from."

John 6:42,"They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

Mark 6:3, "Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? And they took offense at him."

best wishes,

Darth Executor

September 29th 2005, 07:35 PM

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

So is Jesus here speaking for God or speaking for himself? If he is speaking for himself he is the first, therefore he has either always existed like God has or he has existed before God has. If he is speaking for God then God died. Or does the perspective from which Jesus speaks change in mid paragraph with no warning to fit arian doctrine?

Pythagoras

September 29th 2005, 09:38 PM

Hi Darth,

So is Jesus here speaking for God or speaking for himself? If he is speaking for himself he is the first, therefore he has either always existed like God has or he has existed before God has. If he is speaking for God then God died.Or does the perspective from which Jesus speaks change in mid paragraph with no warning to fit arian doctrine?

Didn't you learn anything from alam's post. Rev. 1:17 is the same kind of speech as Deut 29:5-8.

Moses said, "And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot, ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I [am] the LORD your God" (Deut. 29:5-8),

Moses was speaking for both God and for himself.

Pythagoras

September 29th 2005, 09:44 PM

P.S.,

If he is speaking for God then God died.

You do believe God died, don't you ?-- since Jesus did die on the cross and he is "fully God" and "fully man" in one being .

Or do you not mean what you say and say what you not mean?

best wishes,

Darth Executor

September 29th 2005, 10:10 PM

Didn't you learn anything from alam's post. Rev. 1:17 is the same kind of speech as Deut 29:5-8.

Moses said, "And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot, ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I [am] the LORD your God" (Deut. 29:5-8),

Moses was speaking for both God and for himself.

I did read alam's post and it doesn't seem to change much. Is Moses the LORD their God? If he is not, then he was not speaking for both of them, he was speaking for God (which seems to be the case, as that is the whole point of Deut. 29, read Deut. 29 1-2). I guess I was right, the perspective Jesus is talking from does change depending on what you believe in.

P.S.,
You do believe God died, don't you ?-- since Jesus did die on the cross and he is "fully God" and "fully man" in one being .

Or do you not mean what you say and say what you not mean?

best wishes,

Yes I do. What you probably don't get and is futile to explain is that a physical death is not the end and that when God "died" his human component died, not ALL of God. Seeing how you understand the hypostatic union about as much as I understand quantum mechanics there's no point in explaining this further.

Pythagoras

September 30th 2005, 01:58 AM

Hi Darth,

Seeing how you understand the hypostatic union about as much as I understand quantum mechanics there's no point in explaining this further.

Are you saying you understand, and can logically explain the hyposttic union? If yes please indulge us.

Darth Executor

October 1st 2005, 03:49 PM

Hi Darth,

Are you saying you understand, and can logically explain the hyposttic union? If yes please indulge us.

Why bother Pythagoras? You don't want to learn, you don't want to understand. You've already made up your mind.

Pythagoras

October 1st 2005, 07:02 PM

Why bother Pythagoras? You don't want to learn, you don't want to understand. You've already made up your mind.

You're all talk and no action Darthy....

If and when you find the guts to "logically" explain the "hypostatic union" to me, something you promised earlier , I'll be here to dissect it point by point.

Lol.....

Trout

October 1st 2005, 07:09 PM

Darth Executor:
Why bother Pythagoras? You don't want to learn, you don't want to understand. You've already made up your mind.

Pythag:
If and when you find the guts to "logically" explain the "hypostatic union" to me, something you promised earlier , I'll be here to dissect it point by point.

Lol.....

Wow, talk about proving Darth's point.

Hypostatic Union = Jesus was God and man at the same time.

Darth Executor

October 1st 2005, 08:09 PM

You're all talk and no action Darthy....

If and when you find the guts to "logically" explain the "hypostatic union" to me, something you promised earlier , I'll be here to dissect it point by point.

Lol.....

Seeing how you understand the hypostatic union about as much as I understand quantum mechanics there's no point in explaining this further.

Yep, I promised that. Moron.

Pythagoras

October 2nd 2005, 04:08 PM

Yep, I promised that. Moron.

Stop giving lame excuses.

Just explain the "hypostatic union" for us, and let us logically dissect it's premises..

All talk and no action.

Darth Executor

October 2nd 2005, 04:24 PM

Stop giving lame excuses.

Just explain the "hypostatic union" for us, and let us logically dissect it's premises..

All talk and no action.

Sorry, been there, done that. You're either too stupid to understand or too stubborn to WANT to understand. Why in the world would I waste my time to try again when I know exactly what you're going to do? You're so predictable you've managed to make me consider Calvinism!

Pythagoras

October 2nd 2005, 07:15 PM

Hi Darth,

Sorry, been there, done that.

Excuses.

You're either too stupid to understand or too stubborn to WANT to understand

Excuses.

Why in the world would I waste my time to try again when I know exactly what you're going to do?

Excuses.

You're so predictable you've managed to make me consider Calvinism!

Excuses.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Darth Executor

October 2nd 2005, 08:10 PM

Funny you should speak of excuses, you never actually addressed my complaints in this topic to begin with and are now throwing red herrings around for the sole purpose of hiding your ineptitude.

Pythagoras

October 2nd 2005, 09:01 PM

Hi Darth,

This is my 10th request:

Please "intelligently" explain the "hypostatic union" , ...with a straight face.

best wishes, :lol:

Darth Executor

October 2nd 2005, 10:30 PM

Hi Darth,

This is my 10th request:

Please "intelligently" explain the "hypostatic union" , ...with a straight face.

best wishes, :lol:

I already told you I would not before you even asked. Are you dumb? Or illiterate? Or maybe both?

Pythagoras

October 2nd 2005, 11:34 PM

Darth,

11th request-- Expalin the "hypostatic union" .

Don't be ashamed of it.

Darth Executor

October 2nd 2005, 11:56 PM

Darth,

11th request-- Expalin the "hypostatic union" .

Don't be ashamed of it.

No.

Patroclus

October 3rd 2005, 12:05 AM

Darth,

11th request-- Expalin the "hypostatic union" .

Don't be ashamed of it.
Dude, chill. He isn't going to do that. Don't make me move this thread to the locker room.

:pat:

John from Ebla

October 3rd 2005, 09:34 AM

Who is the First and the Last? Jesus, because the Father did not die Jesus died and Yes Jesus is God, but not the Father. :smile:

In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and my father are one." Yet, according to Matt 27:46 Jesus cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" That hardly sounds like they are one.

How does the Bible explian this?

John 10:30 is in a "hen" neuter form. This means that Jesus was - but not that they are one and the same person.

To understand this we can look at Gen2:7 and 2:21-24

God created Adam out of the dust of the earth. Did he create Eve out of the dust of the earth? No he did not. Eve was brought forth out of a part of Adam and was made "woman" Eve was not Adam, but was she any less human? No! Were they ever apart? No? As long as Adam existed Eve was part of him (His rib) and then as a woman, and she was just as human as Adam. God called them Echad (One) Full unity of nature ( Human) Man and woman but not the same person.

(Proverbs 8:1-31) Did God ever exist without wisdom? No! Did God create his own wisdom? No! God wisdom was always with him. Wisdom has a famine gender when presented as a concept, but not when it is personified. God's own wisdom, word or thought is not a female- God is "Spirit" and in Greek spirit is neuter, if God (spirit) personified his own wisdom or word, then this spiritual being is the word of God that was with God and became flesh. It is the very essence of God, as Paul say in Phil 2:9-11 " in the form of God that makes God, God " and as John 1.1-3 was with God and was God." that became flesh. Read Micah 5:2.......whose going forth has been from old, ancient of days.

This personified word of God has be going around in the Old testament " his going forth has been of old (Micah5:2) He spoke to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, and others, asserting full unity of nature and action with God

Jesus was God in every sense of the word just like Adam and Eve were Human in every sense of the word. But He was Not God the Father, he was God the Son- Son of God. Just as Adam was male, Eve was Female so the Father and the Son and different, but not a different form of God. The same one God, just as Eve was not a different form of human... :smile:

KInd Regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 01:06 PM

Hi John,

God created Adam out of the dust of the earth. Did he create Eve out of the dust of the earth? No he did not. Eve was brought forth out of a part of Adam and was made "woman" Eve was not Adam, but was she any less human? No! Were they ever apart? No? As long as Adam existed Eve was part of him (His rib) and then as a woman, and she was just as human as Adam. God called them Echad (One) Full unity of nature ( Human) Man and woman but not the same person....
Jesus was God in every sense of the word just like Adam and Eve were Human in every sense of the word. But He was Not God the Father, he was God the Son- Son of God. Just as Adam was male, Eve was Female so the Father and the Son and different, but not a different form of God. The same one God, just as Eve was not a different form of human... :smile:

Adam and Eve were two beings. You're worshipping more than one being.

(Proverbs 8:1-31) Did God ever exist without wisdom? No! Did God create his own wisdom? No! God wisdom was always with him.

Did you ever exist without your heart ? Did you create your own heart? Your heart has always been with you. Is your heart "one in essence" with you,and you?

Who is the First and the Last? Jesus, because the Father did not die Jesus died and Yes Jesus is God, but not the Father. :smile:

How can two persons of the "holy trinity" be alive when the third is dead?

best wishes,

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 01:12 PM

How can two persons of the "holy trinity" be alive when the third is dead?

best wishes,

Because death means your physical body is disabled. It does not mean you are utterly destroyed. The father and the spirit don't have a body yet they still exist. Why would the son need a body to still exist?

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 01:52 PM

Hi darth,

Because death means your physical body is disabled.

Are you saying when people die only their physical bodies are "disabled"(die), that their souls die not?

It does not mean you are utterly destroyed.

I agree 100%, death never means annihilation.

Why would the son need a body to still exist?

Did the son's soul die when he died, or only his outer shell-casing (i.e. body ) was "disabled"?

best wishes,

Shadow Phoenix

October 3rd 2005, 02:05 PM

Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 22:13

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Revelation 1:17-18

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

Two questions need to be asked.

What is meant by "Jehovah" in the question?
What is meant by "dead"?

The question seems to mistakenly make the following mistake.

Jesus is God.
Jesus died.
God died.

The problem is, when Christians say Jesus is God, if they have any clue on Trinitarian doctrines, they do not mean that Jesus is the Godhead. They mean that he possesses all the attributes of deity fully. In fact, the church made it clear that the Father didn't suffer on the cross. This was called "Patripassianism."

Now what is meant by death? It does not mean the cessation of existence. It means the separation of the soul from the body. We know that Jesus died, but we also know that he went to the great altar in Heaven as Hebrews said after he died and that he said the thief on the cross would be with him in Paradise that day.

Ultimately what is being said is that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, tasted our death on our behalf and overcame it.

Hope this helps!

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 02:16 PM

Are you saying when people die only their physical bodies are "disabled"(die), that their souls die not?

I'm saying that's what happened to Jesus. His soul was not a human one, it was a divine one. I haven't looked into what happens to human souls when they die.

Did the son's soul die when he died, or only his outer shell-casing (i.e. body ) was "disabled"?

The latter.

Krusader

October 3rd 2005, 02:26 PM

I'm saying that's what happened to Jesus. His soul was not a human one, it was a divine one. I haven't looked into what happens to human souls when they die.

The latter.

Darth, according to the traditional teaching of the Church as outlined in the doctrine of the hypostatic union, Jesus was not just some human body filled by a divine spirit. Jesus was fully man, body, soul and spirit. In other words, He had a human soul/spirit.

Christ took His human nature, in addition to His divine nature - however, the two were not mingled. In other words, He was not some type of hybrid God-man mix. He had two separate natures united in One Person.

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 03:42 PM

Hi darth,

I'm saying that's what happened to Jesus.

I get you, you're saying only Christ's body died, his soul didn't.

His soul was not a human one, it was a divine one.

You're saying Christ's soul didn't die on the cross.

I haven't looked into what happens to human souls when they die.

Then maybe you should look into what the bible teaches . Read Ezekiel. He says "the soul that sins shall die."

The latter.

Thus I know you worship a different Christ , a Christ contrary to the bible.

(A)The bible says Christ "tasted death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) and that "all men have sinned".

(B)The bile also says "the soul that sins will die". Therefore the souls of all men surely die,for we all have sinned.

(C)If Christ "tasted death for all men", and the souls of all men die, then christ's soul must also have died , otherwise if only his body died on the cross, he did not taste death like all men. If what you say is correct, Christ did not taste death as we do.

Like that silly woman in the garden, you have fallen for the lie of the Evil One.

Gen. 3:4,"You will not surely die", the serpent said to the woman."

good luck,

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 03:53 PM

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:02 PM

Darth, according to the traditional teaching of the Church as outlined in the doctrine of the hypostatic union, Jesus was not just some human body filled by a divine spirit. Jesus was fully man, body, soul and spirit. In other words, He had a human soul/spirit.

Christ took His human nature, in addition to His divine nature - however, the two were not mingled. In other words, He was not some type of hybrid God-man mix. He had two separate natures united in One Person.

Yep, you're right. Doesn't really change my case though. Now back to the idiot.

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:08 PM

Hi darth,

I get you, you're saying only Christ's body died, his soul didn't.

I was wrong actually. His human nature died on the cross. But it doesn't matter because you are wrong regardless.

You're saying Christ's soul didn't die on the cross.

Then maybe you should look into what the bible teaches . Read Ezekiel. He says "the soul that sins shall die."

(A)The bible says Christ "tasted death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) and that "all men have sinned".

(B)The bile also says "the soul that sins will die". Therefore the souls of all men surely die,for we all have sinned.

(C)If Christ "tasted death for all men", and the souls of all men die, then christ's soul must also have died , otherwise if only his body died on the cross, he did not taste death like all men. If what you say is correct, Christ did not taste death as we do.

The first part of B is correct. The second one is not because God can forgive sin. All men die a physical death, not all men die a spiritual death. Go read the NT.

alam

October 3rd 2005, 04:15 PM

(Proverbs 8:1-31) Did God ever exist without wisdom? No! Did God create his own wisdom? No! God wisdom was always with him.

Hi John from Ebla.

I agreed with much of your latest post. However, to my understanding, the Wisdom tradition did conceive of the personified Wisdom as a creation of God, as His first and most excellent creation. The Septuagint translates the verb קָנָה in Proverbs 8:22 with ektisen (ktizō), and בָּרָא (create) and יָצַר (form) are used in the parallel statements in Ben Sira.

It is the very essence of God, as Paul say in Phil 2:9-11 " in the form of God that makes God, God " and as John 1.1-3 was with God and was God." that became flesh. Read Micah 5:2.......whose going forth has been from old, ancient of days.

What is created certainly does not make God God, or the creation is higher than the Creator! God in His essence transcends all that we can speak or comprehend or experience. The divine attributes that we know, which reside in the Logos, are like God, but they are not Him.

Best regards

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 04:23 PM

Hi Darth,

I was wrong actually. His human nature died on the cross. But it doesn't matter because you are wrong regardless.

Lol. Back to the drawing board.

What do you mean when you say his "human nature" died on the cross?

The second one is not because God can forgive sin. All men die a physical death, not all men die a spiritual death. Go read the NT

Obviously you haven't read the NT carefully enough, silly one. Read Rev. Ch. 6:9 for starters. Those whose sins are forgiven by God, their souls die too., waiting to be resurrected.

Please do not let me humiliate you any further.

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:28 PM

Hi Darth,

Lol. Back to the drawing board.

What do you mean when you say his "human nature" died on the cross?

If you understood the hypostatic union you'd know.

Obviously you haven't read the NT carefully enough, silly one. Read Rev. Ch. 6:9 for starters. Those whose sins are forgiven by God, their souls die too., waiting to be resurrected.

Please do not let me humiliate you any further.

Specific verses please?

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:29 PM

Hi John from Ebla.

I agreed with much of your latest post. However, to my understanding, the Wisdom tradition did conceive of the personified Wisdom as a creation of God, as His first and most excellent creation.

John 1:3 says Jesus was not created.

alam

October 3rd 2005, 04:31 PM

John 1:3 says Jesus was not created.

Please explain.

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:35 PM

Specific verses please?

Meanwhile you can choke on this:

Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 04:37 PM

Please explain.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If all things were made through him, and without him there was not anything made that was made then Jesus could not have been made unless you wish to propose something ridiculous like "Jesus made himself".

alam

October 3rd 2005, 04:56 PM

If all things were made through him, and without him there was not anything made that was made

This premise is incorrect; ho gegonen goes with verse 4. Its placement in verse three is a fourth century corruption, according to the footnote in the NAB:

What came to be: while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer Papyrus P75, some manuscripts, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with John 1:3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX9.HTM

then Jesus could not have been made unless you wish to propose something ridiculous like "Jesus made himself".

Here is the true statement:

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

Does this mean that God the Father came to be through him as well? Or might the word "all" here have built-in limitations?

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 05:04 PM

Hi Darth,

If you understood the hypostatic union you'd know.

Just answer my question. And this time make sure you know what you're talknig about.

Specific verses please?

Rev. 6:9, "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under he alter the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had mantained."

best wishes,

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 05:23 PM

This premise is incorrect; ho gegonen goes with verse 4. Its placement in verse three is a fourth century corruption, according to the footnote in the NAB:

What came to be: while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer Papyrus P75, some manuscripts, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with John 1:3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX9.HTM

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

I PMed Jaltus to double check. However, staircase parallelism states that the last word of a paragraph is used as the first of the next which would make 'ho geonon' a part of both verses and still leave you with a problem. I'm not a greek expert though so I'd rather hear from Jaltus first before I continue discussing this.

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 05:27 PM

Rev. 6:9, "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under he alter the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had mantained."
Best wishes,

Where does it say the SOULS were slain? It says he saw under "he alter" the souls of those that were slain, it does not say the souls themselves were slain.

Now please explain this:

50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Obviously Christians still die physically so it can only refer to spiritual death. Have a good day.

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 06:44 PM

Hi Darth,

This is my third request. Please tell us what you mean when you say "the human nature of Christ died".

Where does it say the SOULS were slain? It says he saw under "he alter" the souls of those that were slain, it does not say the souls themselves were slain.

Your problem is that you don't know the basics. If you read Rev. 20:4, it clearly says the souls who had been beheaded for Christ come back to to life.

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus...They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Remember, this is the first resurrection. Unless ofcourse by "coming to life" you mean being furnished with a physical, flesh and blood human body only, which is silly. Do you not remember the words of Christ John chapter 6:62, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life."

50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

It simply means the souls of those who trust in Jesus will not be eternally spearated from God, since separation from God is spiritual death. Those souls who trust in Jesus will have eternal life, though they migh temporarily be separated(dead) from God. The scriptures teach sin culminates in death(Rom. 6:16, 21-23, 7:9, James 1:15). The death spoken of is spiritual death, or seperation from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Eph. 2:1-3, 12-14). The new birth is equated with having received eternal life (John 3:15-16, 36; 1 John 5:11-13).

Remember the Devil convinced Adam and Eve that "they shall not surely die" by distorting God's words. Similarily you're deluding yourself and others by distorting Christ's words to mean we shall never really die.

Obviously Christians still die physically so it can only refer to spiritual death.

2 Cor. 5:21 says:

"For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Jesus became this curse for us as is clearly stated in the Scriptures:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:13-14)"

The bible says "the soul that sins will die". Christ was literally made sin for us. Therefore his soul died. And since Christ is the "firstfruits" of many brethen, we taste death the same way he tasted death . Even Luther the trinitarian is with me on this one:

"And this, no doubt, all the prophets did forsee in spirit, that Christ should be accounted the greatest transgressor that could be, having all sins imputed to Him. For He being made a sacrifice for sin, yea for the sins of the whole world, is not now the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, but a sinner who hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a balsphemer and a persecutor; of Peter who denied Him; of David who was an adulterer and a murderer; and briefly, who hath and beareth all the sins of all men in His body; not that He is Himself guilty of any, but that He received them, being committed or done by us, and laid upon His own body, that He might make satisfaction for them with His own blood (Isa. 53:5)'

Have a good day

Before you say "good day', tell us what you mean when you say "the human nature of Christ died on the cross". This is my fourth request. Why are you so afraid to answer this simple question?

best wishes,

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 07:18 PM

Hi Darth,

Before you say "Hi Darth," please remember to stop changing the font size, it makes your red herrings hard to read.

Your problem is that you don't know the basics. If you read Rev. 20:4, it clearly says the souls who had been beheaded for Christ come back to to life.

My translation says the souls OF THOSE who have been beheaded. How do you behead a soul Pythagoras? It is talking about those who were beheaded for Christ's testimony. How can somebody behead a spirit for Christ's testimony? Did the heathes somehow manage to break into the afterworld, chase down spirits and then behead them? I don't know, maybe you have spirits with physical bodies living in your house. Oh wait, you do have spirits with physical bodies living in your house. Thye're called "people". :lol:

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus...They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Remember, this is the first resurrection. Unless ofcourse by "coming to life" you mean being furnished with a physical, flesh and blood human body only, which is silly.

Depends what you mean by "physical, flesh and blood human body only". If you mean bodies like ours, then no. We will be given immortal bodies.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Do you not remember the words of Christ John chapter 6:62, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life."

Your point being what, exactly?

It simply means the souls of those who trust in Jesus will not be eternally spearated from God, since separation from God is spiritual death. Those souls who trust in Jesus will have eternal life, though they migh temporarily be separated(dead) from God.

I'm sorry, that verse makes it crystal clear that WE WILL NOT DIE. If "temporary death" is not really death then Christ's "temporary death" was not really death either.

The scriptures teach sin culminates in death(Rom. 6:16, 21-23, 7:9, James 1:15).

:rofl: All those verses talk about how sin kills us but God's salvation saves us from that very death. Got anything that isn't taken out of context?

The death spoken of is spiritual death, or seperation from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Eph. 2:1-3, 12-14).

I'm sure Isaiah is a good guide for what the death spoken of means, especially since it was written before. Not that it matters because I don't see the word "death" in that verse at all. In addition, what does spiritual death have to do with whether the ressurection in Revelation is physical or spiritual?

The new birth is equated with having received eternal life (John 3:15-16, 36; 1 John 5:11-13).

Remember the Devil convinced Adam and Eve that "they shall not surely die" by distorting God's words. Similarily you're deluding yourself and others by distorting Christ's words to mean we shall never really die.

Who is "we" pythagoras? We are all judged individually. You may end up dying and I might end up living. I might end up dying and you might end up living. I'm not distorting anything, Christ promised those who come to him that they shall never really die. It's written in the bible. You're the one doing the distortions.

2 Cor. 5:21 says:

"For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Jesus became this curse for us as is clearly stated in the Scriptures:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:13-14)"

[size=1]

The bible says "the soul that sins will die". Christ was literally made sin for us. Therefore his soul died. And since Christ is the "firstfruits" of many brethen, we taste death the same way he tasted death . Even Luther

Don't care what Luther says. Those verses are taken out of context (big surprise). They are talking about being justified through law (the curse) rather than faith in Christ. Sin is not mentioned anywhere in those sentences, let alone Christ being TURNED INTO SIN. This is blasphemy you made up and you will be held accountable for.

Before you say "good day', tell us what you mean when you say "the human nature of Christ died on the cross". This is my fourth request. Why are you so afraid to answer this simple question?

best wishes,

Jesus is fully human and fully divine. His human nature died on the cross. I'm not sure what you want me to explain, it's as simple as it can get.

Pythagoras, you have done nothing in this post other than rehash your previous argument and decontextualize scripture to make it look like you have a point when you don't. You're wasting my time and if your next post contains the same display of dishonesty I'll simply ignore it. Have a good day.

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 08:23 PM

Hi Darth Executor,

Before you say "Hi Darth," please remember to stop changing the font size, it makes your red herrings hard to read.

Those who reject Christ, are their souls annihilated or killed?

Depends what you mean by "physical, flesh and blood human body only". If you mean bodies like ours, then no. We will be given immortal bodies.

You're missing the point. Do their bodies come to life or do their souls come to life in Rev. 20, verse 4?

Your point being what, exactly?

That flesh cannot give life, or come alive. It's like saying the immortal shell of the Tortotise that died came back to life. Same thing here in Rev. 20 verse 4 genius. Their souls came alive, not the bodies by themselves.

Read Jesus's words carefully, John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."

I'm sorry, that verse makes it crystal clear that WE WILL NOT DIE. If "temporary death" is not really death then Christ's "temporary death" was not really death either.

Christ is talking about things eternal ,silly,-- eternal life and eternal death. Temporary death is death indeed, a temporary separation from God, but it is to be contrasted with eternal death, which is eternal separation from God, or forever.

Question:

(1)Did Adam die on the day he ate of the apple ? Yes or No?

All those verse:rofl:s talk about how sin kills us but God's salvation saves us from that very death. Got anything that isn't taken out of context?

All these verse talk of how sin separates us from God. Spearation from God is the death of the soul, Einstein.

Who is "we" pythagoras? We are all judged individually. You may end up dying and I might end up living.

Ofcourse.

I'm not distorting anything, Christ promised those who come to him that they shall never really die.

If taken literally, this verse says those who believe in Christ will not die. But we all die. So obviously a literal interpretation won't do here. What Christ is saying is that death will not eternally hold those who believe in Jesus. However, that those who believe in Christ will indeed die is proved in verse 53, for these Saints will have to be raised, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." That the death spoken of here is not limited to the physical body is proved in v.63, " The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" and in V.62, "The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."

Don't care what Luther says.

Luther the trinitarian agrees with me on this one!

Those verses are taken out of context (big surprise).

Tell us how those verses are taken out of context?

They are talking about being justified through law (the curse) rather than faith in Christ.

Read those verses again..

Sin is not mentioned anywhere in those sentences,

Are you serious ? I'll quote the trinitarian NIV bible for you this time, Einstein:

2 Cor. 5:21,

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become righteousness of God."

let alone Christ being TURNED INTO SIN. This is blasphemy you made up and you will be held accountable for.

Are you calling the trinitarian Luther a blasphemer?

Jesus is fully human and fully divine. His human nature died on the cross.

What did the "human nature of Christ" consist of?-- only his human body, or his human body and his soul?

You're wasting my time and if your next post contains the same display of dishonesty I'll simply ignore it.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."-- a certain President of these United States of America once remarked ,and quite correctly.
In other words, either put up or shut up.

best wishes,

Darth Executor

October 3rd 2005, 09:15 PM

*insert rehash of arguments here*

Remember what I said I'd do if you keep up your dishonest deceit? This shall be my last post to you here. This is why:

Are you serious ? I'll quote the trinitarian NIV bible for you this time, Einstein:

2 Cor. 5:21,

:rofl: I was talking about Galatians, not Corinthians, I missed your Corinthians reference. Not that it matters because you're so off it's not even funny.

You said "Christ was literally made sin for us."

How do you make a being LITERALLY turn into an immaterial concept like sin? You might as well turn Jesus into jumping. In fact, the verse is talking about Jesus being made a sin offering (sacrificial lamb, bla bla bla). Read a bible commentary before you start talking crap. For starters, you could read that Luther comment you gave me. Maybe next time you'll know better than to quote bible comments that support me. :lmbo:

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."-- a certain President of these United States of America once remarked ,and quite correctly.
In other words, either put up or shut up.

best wishes,

Here's what I say: If you can't cook, don't try to teach the chef how to make soup.

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 10:28 PM

Hi Darth Executor,

Remember what I said I'd do if you keep up your dishonest deceit?

You seem to be doing a great job deceiving yourself, Einstein.

You said "Christ was literally made sin for us."

How do you make a being LITERALLY turn into an immaterial concept like sin? You might as well turn Jesus into jumping.
In fact, the verse is talking about Jesus being made a sin offering (sacrificial lamb, bla bla bla).

Get with the programme, genius, and understand what that passage of scripture is saying. Being made a sin offering, Jesus became an cursed sinner (as per Luther) in God's sight. That's why God turned away from him and forsoke him; "My God, my God why have Thou forsaken me." Get it?

Read a bible commentary before you start talking crap. For starters, you could read that Luther comment you gave me. Maybe next time you'll know better than to quote bible comments that support me. :lmbo:

How on earth does Luther "support you", Einstein?

Following is some more of what Luther said:

"But some men will say, it is absurd and slanderous to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer, if thou be wilt deny Him to be a sinner and accursed, deny also that He was crucified and dead. For it is no less absurd to say that the Son of God (as our faith professesth and believeth) was crucified and suffered the pains of sin and death, than to say that He is a sinner and accursed. But if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest."

Genius, do you believe (as Luther did ) that "Jesus was a sinner and accursed" ? Yes or No?

Plus answer these two questions; second request:

(1)Did Adam die on the very day he ate of the apple ? Yes or No?

(2)What did the "human nature of Christ" consist of? -- only his human body, or his human body and his soul?

best wishes Rocket Scientist,

John from Ebla

October 3rd 2005, 10:33 PM

Hi John,

Adam and Eve were two beings. You're worshipping more than one being.

Did you ever exist without your heart ? Did you create your own heart? Your heart has always been with you. Is your heart "one in essence" with you,and you?

How can two persons of the "holy trinity" be alive when the third is dead?

best wishes,

Hi Pythagoras,

Adam was a living Soul. Jesus was a live giving Spirit that took up a human body. ( The soul is what you are- your make up embodied in the flesh. The spirit is not the soul.

Jesus God is Spirit and a spirit cannot die- only the body dies as know in the Hebraic scriptures, and death is as in the writing of Paul "Fallen asleep." So what happens to the spirit that is in man if it cannot die? Those that died in Jesus are awaiting the promise of a bodily resurrection to immortality. Exmaple: Fallen angles (spirit) are locked in chains awaiting their eternal damnation, separated from God.

PS. l never said anyting about three Gods. There is only one God (form of God) and Jesus is in that form. There is only one form of Human. Humans are created being and all humans are in the same form. Jesus was not. He was man and God. Are you saying 'Sonhip' and 'Fatherhood' are not just exactly for God as what they are for the creaturely imitators who borrow the name 'Father' from the original title-holder? "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named..." (Ephesians 3:14-15).

My questions is. Can it be that God the Father, who according to Paul holds the patent on 'Fatherhood', does not perform the task as well as His most humble barn-yard creations? Pigs beget pigs, sheep beget sheep and human beget humans; yet you seem to think A God(Spirit) brings forth a temporal created being that dies! How could this be? "He going has been of Old" Micah 5:2

Musn't an offspring be of the same nature as the Father, unless you speaks of 'Fatherhood' in metaphor. So the Son is of the same nature as the father- God but not the Father.

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 11:05 PM

Hi John,

The soul is what you are- your make up embodied in the flesh. The spirit is not the soul.

I'm not averse to this point of view. Did Christ's soul die on the cross?
Do all me have a spirit, or only the saved?

Jesus God is Spirit and a spirit cannot die- only the body dies as know in the Hebraic scriptures, and death is as in the writing of Paul "Fallen asleep."

When you say "only the body dies", do you mean body + soul?

There is only one God (form of God) and Jesus is in that form.There is only one form of Human. Humans are created being and all humans are in the same form.

Don't you see? There are many humans though there is only one form of human. There are three gods in trinitarianism, though there is only one form of god.

He was man and God.

According to trinitarianism, Jesus is man + God. But God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are only God, not man+ God. Don't you see a problem right there?

yet you seem to think A God(Spirit) brings forth a temporal created being that dies! How could this be? "He going has been of Old" Micah 5:2

The bible says there is only One God. If God begets Himself, then there are two gods in the Universe.

Musn't an offspring be of the same nature as the Father, unless you speaks of 'Fatherhood' in metaphor.

Jesus is not literally God's Son.

So the Son is of the same nature as the father- God but not the Father.

If God begat the Son, and the Son is equal to the Father in every way shape and form, and is God,then there are two Gods in this Universe . Unless you want to say God manifests Himself in different modes? Besides the very term "beget" implies a beginning.

Topherlee

October 3rd 2005, 11:16 PM

Pythagoras

October 3rd 2005, 11:35 PM

Hi Darth Executor,

I PMed Jaltus to double check. However, staircase parallelism states that the last word of a paragraph is used as the first of the next which would make 'ho geonon' a part of both verses and still leave you with a problem. I'm not a greek expert though so I'd rather hear from Jaltus first before I continue discussing this.

You mean Jaltus the trinitarian? How "objective" is this "expert" going to be?
Maybe Arians should enquire of an Arian "Greek expert", just to put things in perspective.

God bless,

alam

October 3rd 2005, 11:48 PM

Staircase parallelism comes in different forms, but I haven't heard that it means two expressions literally share a single term. Why would the footnote say it belongs with verse 4 rather than 3 if it belongs to both?

If ho gegonen can be read with verse 4, then the Light and Life it describes, which verse 9 identifies with Christ incarnate, are among the generated things. That bears out what I said in the other post, about the attributes that reside in the Logos not being God.

John from Ebla

October 4th 2005, 01:38 AM

I do not see how say that God created another God. I do not see this in the bible anywhere. Deut 6:4 clearly states that there is only one God. The Father created the Son. We are also sons of God, as the angels are as well. Does this make us God? The concept of the the Trinity continues to change - not that you are arguing a Trinitarian standpoint.

The bible say's the Adam and Eve are One. They are two people l agree, but the are one flesh and blood. There is only of kind of Human. and all people are humans.

Son of God, God the son of the Eternal Father l agree they are two (Father and Son) but One God as Paul said. ' In the Form of God that makes God, God if he was a different form of God it would be another God- ldolatry. Jesus is not another form of God.

KInd Regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 4th 2005, 02:02 PM

Hi John,

The bible say's the Adam and Eve are One. They are two people l agree, but the are one flesh and blood. There is only of kind of Human. and all people are humans.

Son of God, God the son of the Eternal Father l agree they are two (Father and Son) but One God as Paul said. ' In the Form of God that makes God, God if he was a different form of God it would be another God- ldolatry. Jesus is not another form of God.

KInd Regards
John From Ebla

Dont' you see ?

Adam and Eve are two people ; the Father and the Son are two 'persons'. No matter how you slice it, this is polytheism.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 4th 2005, 10:55 PM

Hi John,

Dont' you see ?

Adam and Eve are two people ; the Father and the Son are two 'persons'. No matter how you slice it, this is polytheism.

best wishes,

Have a look at what l wrote "They are two people l agree"
So how could l not see? I think your no seeing what is written.

God says that two are one flesh Gen 2:23- because she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh v22. They are the same one flesh and bone. Not another form or type of flesh and bone.

This is the same echad (one) that is written for one Lord God. Jesus was ' NOT " another "Spirit" but the very one spirit, form of the Father not another- eg: if you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full. Nothing to be discussed- it the same glass of water. What did Jesus said to Philip " if you see me , you see the father" Nothing to be discussed. why do you percieve two, the father - the Son, half empty- half full- it is the same glass of water, Adam and Eve are the same flesh and bone, the father and Son are the same spirit. Hebrews 9:14 "by vertue of his eternal spirit" His spirit was eternal, the same eternal spirit not another.

There are many forms of gods that people worship. Wooden idols, celestial bodies, aninals ext.- non are in the form of what God, God. Jesus is said to be in the form of what makes God God."

He is God the Son- Son of God, the same One Spirit as the Father in the form of the Father.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Topherlee

October 4th 2005, 11:08 PM

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 12:01 AM

Hi John,

Have a look at what l wrote "They are two people l agree"

I know you agree.

God says that two are one flesh Gen 2:23- because she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh v22. They are the same one flesh and bone. Not another form or type of flesh and bone.

But they are still two distinct persons.

This is the same echad (one) that is written for one Lord God.

So?
The Hebrew for the number "one": echad is one,(!!) shenayim is two, shalosh is three, arba is four, etc. Any Hebrew grammar book, whether of Biblical or modern Hebrew, would demonstrate that echad, not yachid, is the everyday Hebrew word for the numeral "one".

You're clutching at straws.

Jesus was ' NOT " another "Spirit" but the very one spirit, form of the Father not another- eg: if you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full.

What is this nonsense?

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 01:35 AM

John from Ebla

October 5th 2005, 01:40 AM

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: People fail to realize that Jesus was the first creature created. In the IMAGE of the invisible, but not God himself - but of his glory (anointed - Christ). People try to use the word firstborn as firstborn (chosen) of the Godhead, but, this is clearly not what the verse is referring to. He is God's Son, as the angels are also called sons of God (Job 38:7) and as mankind, God's children. The difference being, Jesus is the foremost, chosen Son of God. This does not make him another God. Time and time again Jesus says; "The Father is greater than I", "What I do is not of my own, but of he has sent me", an so on...
God YHWH says he is a spirit - those that worship him must do so in spirit. Your body is Gods temple - God is the essence of life. If the fullness of God is within Jesus, then Gods spirit is WITH him fully. We all contain a portion of Gods spirit; up to what God allows.

Correct, you are starting to see the truth. God spirit was in him fully. Was Isaac first born, No! then why is Isaac said to be firstborn? You seem to think God created his own wisdom.

An eternal spirit is eternal. The one eternal spirit was is the Flesh of Jesus, not another By virtue of this eternal spirit that was in Jesus we have forgiveness. If every man from Adam to now had this eternal spirit, or various % off it the way you imply, we would not need Jesus.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 02:54 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Are you by any chance a Catholic?.. Do you pay special homage to Mary "Mother of God"?... Did you know the kings of Ebla were dedicated to the goddess Ishtar?

best,

alam

October 5th 2005, 03:02 AM

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Looks like the elect themselves must be consubstantial with God, considering that "God is Spirit" (John 4:24).

Even Adam may have been consubstantial with God, since Luke's genealogy does not end with Adam, but with God (Luke 3:38). According to Genesis, Adam imparted his image and likeness to Seth much as God did to Adam (Gen. 1:26; 5:3).

The apostles receive the divine prerogative of forgiving sins (John 20:23). People will worship at the feet of the saints (Rev. 3:9). They are filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19).

They are begotten of the spiritual seed of God (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9). If that doesn't make God-kind, what does?

They are partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and are called gods (John 10:34-35). If they are not the same kind of god as God would this not be polytheism?

And let no one say that this is impossible, just because the elect are finite humans and guilty of sin, because if God was 100% man and 100% God at the same time, well....let us just agree that all things are possible for God (Matt. 19:26).

No one will believe this argument if they have any sense, because we know that we are not God, despite statements from scripture that might be construed otherwise. We know this not only because of our creaturely limitations, but because of our sin.

Trinitarian and Modalist arguments enjoy a little more plausibility because they have a compelling human candidate for God. Jesus was the living icon or image of God; he was what God would be like if God was a man. The LORD said in the Old Testament, "you shall be holy, because I am holy," and alone among the children of Adam, Jesus fulfilled this command.

But to be a creature in the first place is incompatible with being the true God. Being Absolute Deity and at the same time anything less than Absolute Deity is a contradiction in terms. An absolutely flat surface is not relatively flat, let alone rough or curved.

However, we cannot overestimate how much like God, relatively speaking--how much in participation in God's powers--a creature that is in union with God's will might become. There is no limit to how greatly God Almighty will glorify those who glorify Him and seek not their own.

John from Ebla

October 5th 2005, 03:29 AM

Three problems for my trinitarian friends:

(A) Trinitarian Problem With Father Of Jesus.

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:20
Who's the Father? The Father or the Ruach (Holy Spirit)? Are there two Fathers in the Trinity?

(B) Who Is The Ruach (Spirit)?

Ruach (Strongs 7307) is the Hebrew word for 'spirit,' it is defined as 'breath' 'air' 'strength' 'wind' 'breeze.' It's Greek equivalent (new testament) is pneuma also meaning 'the wind' 'to breathe' or 'blow.' (Strongs 4151) Clearly the Ruach is the breath of God and can not be a separate person within the godhead. Let's look at its use:

"Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Cor 3:17

"For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus" Philippians 1:19

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Cor 15:45

In the above passages we see the 'spirit' is easily applied to either the "Father" and the "Son." It's not a person in its own right within the "godhead "-- it is the outward breath and strength of Yahveh.

(C)Is Jesus The Father Or The Son?

Let's look in Scripture, starting with the most famous messianic prophecy:

"For unto us a child is born .., and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty Almighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
Where is the trinity? Did God forget that Jesus was to be only the Son, not the Father?

What say?

best wishes,

A) Well, God is Spirit and as written in the tanankh the heaven of heavans cannot contain him. So are there two eternal spirit around? There is only God , One Lord, One Spirit and one body Eph 4:4-6. If there is only One spirit then which Spirit is the holy Spirit. What kind of Spirit is God?

If the Lord is not God because there is only one God, then God caanot be Lord of all because there is only one Lord.

B)In your above passages you can see 'spirit' is easily applied to either the "Father" and the "Son." because they are of the same form.(eternal Spirit) There is only one eternal spirit

The singular personal pronoun of Him or He 'ekeinos' in ( John 16:13, 1 Cor 12:11, Acts 13:2-3 ) cannot be God the father because ' spirit ' a singular personal pronoun " He " is said to be making intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Romans 8:27). Who is this He that is making intercession?

c) Where is the trinity? The eternal spirit is everlasting, the flesh and bones of Jesus died- how could they be everlasting if they died? The eternal spirit did not die.
Father and Son are of the same form.

There is only One Spirit that is eternal- the form of the One Father and One Lord Jesus- One body Eph 4:4-6 (One form of flesh and bone that the eternal spirit ebodied in, That man Jesus)

Kind regards
John from Embla

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 04:53 AM

Greetings alam,

Even Adam may have been consubstantial with God, since Luke's genealogy does not end with Adam, but with God (Luke 3:38).

Yes, two can play this game!

On another note, I was meditating on this very scripture this afternoon. Christ , the second Adam, is the "son of God" the same way Adam was the "son of God". "Son of God" does not mean "second person of the holy trinity", "a hypostatic union", or what not as the trinitarians mantain:

Luke 3:38,

"..the son of seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Even the high priest understood the definition of "son of God"; to mean the only begotten, pre-existent , Messiah of God, and not God Himself:

Matt. 26:63,

"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God."

Jesus was the living icon or image of God; he was what God would be like if God was a man.

Exactly. Therein lies the power of the trinitarian argument to contort God's nature.

Trinitarian and Modalist arguments enjoy a little more plausibility because they have a compelling human candidate for God. The LORD said in the Old Testament, "you shall be holy, because I am holy," and alone among the children of Adam, Jesus fulfilled this command.

Indeed.

However, we cannot overestimate how much like God, relatively speaking--how much in participation in God's powers--a creature that is in union with God's will might become. There is no limit to how greatly God Almighty will glorify those who glorify Him and seek not their own.

It's beyond comprehension what we shall become, for we shall be like him , Christ "the firstborn among many brethen". (Rom. 8:29). Jesus himself told us that we could/would be like him ."A student is not above his teacher; nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master."(Matt. 10:24-25)

God bless,

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 05:05 AM

Hi John,

B)In your above passages you can see 'spirit' is easily applied to either the "Father" and the "Son." because they are of the same form.(eternal Spirit) There is only one eternal spirit

But the trinitarian position is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct "persons".

c) Where is the trinity? The eternal spirit is everlasting, the flesh and bones of Jesus died- how could they be everlasting if they died? The eternal spirit did not die.
Father and Son are of the same form.

The trinitarian position is that the holy spirit is a distinct person of the trinity. What you're espousing now is modalism.

best wishes,

alam

October 5th 2005, 05:21 AM

Adam and Eve are the same flesh and bone, the father and Son are the same spirit. Hebrews 9:14 "by vertue of his eternal spirit" His spirit was eternal, the same eternal spirit not another.

Hebrews 9:14 does not exactly say this. There is no genitive pronoun in the Greek. Judging from NA 27, a significant variant on the verse reads "holy spirit." And considering other uses of "eternal" in Hebrews (5:9; 6:2; 9:12,16), there is no need for "eternal" here to mean sempiternal.

John from Ebla

October 5th 2005, 05:56 AM

Hebrews 9:14 does not exactly say this. There is no genitive pronoun in the Greek. Judging from NA 27, a significant variant on the verse reads "holy spirit." And considering other uses of "eternal" in Hebrews (5:9; 6:2; 9:12,16), there is no need for "eternal" here to mean sempiternal.

1)Tell me if you understand greek and l can put it down for you in greek.

2) If the Holy spirit is not eternal then neither is your god. For the scriptures clearly state- there is only One Spirit that is eternal- the form of the One Father and One Lord Jesus- One body Eph 4:4-6 (One form of flesh and bone that the eternal spirit ebodied in, That man Jesus)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Topherlee

October 5th 2005, 12:34 PM

1)Tell me if you understand greek and l can put it down for you in greek.

2) If the Holy spirit is not eternal then neither is your god. For the scriptures clearly state- there is only One Spirit that is eternal- the form of the One Father and One Lord Jesus- One body Eph 4:4-6 (One form of flesh and bone that the eternal spirit ebodied in, That man Jesus)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The body is the church, the Spirit is of the Father - as YOU are called to the one hope of your calling.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism - Jesus.
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. - Jehovah God is a Spirit that is in all and through all. The Holy Spirit is of God and not another God. Py has given the definition of ruach the spirit.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - clearly states that the Spirit is of God. To make the Holy Spirit a God is to make another God, which is not so.

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 03:05 PM

Hi Topherlee,

Jehovah God is a Spirit that is in all and through all. The Holy Spirit is of God and not another God. Py has given the definition of ruach the spirit.

.

Correct Topherlee. There are so many pitfalls here for the trinitarian that it would require time to list them all.

Take for example Ac. 16:6-7, the "Holy Spirit" and the "Spirit of Jesus" are one and the same. Are the second and third "persons" of the "holy trinity" interchangeable? Rom. 8:9-10 is deadly to the trinitarian perspective. The "Spirit", "Spirit of God", the "Spirit of Christ", and "Christ" are all used interchangeably.

Verse 11 of Rom. 8 says "if the Spirit of of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies." Clearly here "God the Father" and the "Spirit of God" are used interchangeably. The Saints are given the "Spirit of God" same way Jesus was given the "Spirit of God" in full measure, and just as the "Spirit of God" descended upon Christ in John 1:32( "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as adove and remain on him"), so it descended upon the Saints in flames of fire in Acts 2:3,("They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit...")

Trinitarians cannot seem to understand that the "Spirit of God" is God's Spirit in Christ and in the Saints and is not "another (co-equal) person" of some silly "holy trinity" hocus-pocus. Infact Hindus/Sabelliasts(Modalists) will have a less difficult time tackling the above verses to fit into their philosophy than will the trinitarians, though both groups propound doctrines of demons.

May God bless you and strengthen you, keep away from the trinitarian and modalist idols.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 03:21 PM

Hi John,

Is Jesus the Father or the Son?

Since the "blessed trinity" consists of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and since in Isaiah 9:6 the prophet refers to the Son as the Father, showing Modalism to make more sense than Trinitarianism .

What say?

alam

October 5th 2005, 04:45 PM

1)Tell me if you understand greek and l can put it down for you in greek.

I can follow.

2) If the Holy spirit is not eternal then neither is your god. For the scriptures clearly state- there is only One Spirit that is eternal-the form of the One Father and One Lord Jesus- One body Eph 4:4-6 (One form of flesh and bone that the eternal spirit ebodied in, That man Jesus)

That is not what Ephesians 4:4-6 says. Paraphrasing multiple scriptures and running them together does not result in more scripture! Please use direct quotes. The connections you are seeing are not so plain to everyone.

alam

October 5th 2005, 05:26 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Greetings alam,

Yes, two can play this game!

They certainly can, and some do, like the Mormons and former WWCG. But these Trinitarians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want both absolute monotheism and to divide ultimate worship among three individuals, and in practice how could that ever work. Somewhere recently, I was reading that the main reason Augustine's theology is not considered modalistic is simply because he said it was not. On the other hand, the main reason the Eastern type Trinitarianism is not called Tritheism is because they have agreed not to call it that.. Gregory of Nyssa argued that it was really an abuse of language to call three men three "three men", and not three hypostases of Man (On Not Three Gods (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm)).

If it looks like a duck...

On another note, I was meditating on this very scripture this afternoon. Christ , the second Adam, is the "son of God" the same way Adam was the "son of God". "Son of God" does not mean "second person of the holy trinity", "a hypostatic union", or what not as the trinitarians mantain:

Luke 3:38,

"..the son of seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Even the high priest understood the definition of "son of God"; to mean the only begotten, pre-existent , Messiah of God, and not God Himself:

Matt. 26:63,

"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God."

Jesus Christ is indeed the ideal and original Son of God, the standard against which all further creations are measured.

God bless,

Pythagoras

October 5th 2005, 08:36 PM

Hi Alam,

May God bless you,

They want both absolute monotheism and to divide ultimate worship among three individuals, and in practice how could that ever work.

Ofcourse.

Somewhere recently, I was reading that the main reason Augustine's theology is not considered modalistic is simply because he said it was not.

Yes indeed; when time permits I would like to dissect his theology wth your help.

On the other hand, the main reason the Eastern type Trinitarianism is not called Tritheism is because they have agreed not to call it that..

They can deny it all they want, but if it walks, talks and looks like a duck, well then, it's a Duck all right.

.Gregory of Nyssa argued that it was really an abuse of language to call three men three "three men", and not three hypostases of Man (On Not Three Gods (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm)).

Absurd isn't it? Yet people still fall for this nonsense. Our very own John of Ebla seems to be a trinitarian of this elk, though during moments of desperation he unwittingly sways towards the modalist camp.
Apparently, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in the same way that Peter, Paul, and Timothy are three men, or as John of Ebla would say, same way Adam and Eve are two people yet one. So why do we not say there are three Gods? Gregory answers that, normally, we can distinguish between different members of the same class by the fact that they have different shapes, sizes, and colours. But none of this is true of incorporeal beings like God!

The link you present "On not three Gods" is a fascinating read because it highlighted to me how Catholics and Protestants strain creduality beyond the breaking point to "prove" this trinity business.

Following are quotes of Gregory of Nyssa:

As, then, the golden staters are many, but the gold is one, so too those who are exhibited to us severally in the nature of man, as Peter, James, and John, are many, yet the man in them is one.

This is insane. It is also basically what John of Ebla has been saying with his Adam and Eve analogy. No matter how one slices it however, many gold chips from a block of gold are not one gold chip simply because it's from the same block of gold, neither are Peter, James and John one because they are all humans.

The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead.

They do not , cannot deny that there are three distinct "persons"(or Gods) in the "Godhead" but deny that they worship three Gods, and say it is wrong to refer to their three beings(Gods) in the plural on grounds that there is no difference of nature in their gods, and not because they are three in number.

Alam, if I had at my disposal there robots working as a unit , and if no difference either of "nature" or of "operation" is contemplated in that unit , do I only have one robot? This is what Gregory of Nyssa and John of Elba are asking us to believe.

For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects.

Although there are three persons in the Godhead, they are not to be called three Gods because their nature is not diverse!

And although Scripture extends the word according to the plural significance, where it says "men swear by the greater(4)," and "sons of men," and in other phrases of the like sort, we must recognize that in using the custom of the prevailing form of speech, it does not lay down a law as to the propriety of using the words in one way or another, nor does it say these things by way of giving us instruction about phrases, but uses the word according to the prevailing custom, with a view only to this, that the word may be profitable to those who receive it, taking no minute care in its manner of speech about points where no harm can result from the phrases in respect of the way they are understood.

He's saying all men are actually one man if we are to be precise about it(our language that is), since all men partake of the "same nature". "Custom" and a lack of precise care in everyday speech makes us render two men, three men, or many men in the plural!

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;-

You can tell apart one "person" of the Godhead from another only in respect to their "cause" since no difference in nature leads to a mixture and confusion of persons!

This is worse than the "water" and "egg" examples trinitarians often use.

John from Ebla

October 5th 2005, 10:39 PM

Hi Alam,

May God bless you,

Ofcourse.

Yes indeed; when time permits I would like to dissect his theology wth your help.

They can deny it all they want, but if it walks, talks and looks like a duck, well then, it's a Duck all right.

Absurd isn't it? Yet people still fall for this nonsense. Our very own John of Ebla seems to be a trinitarian of this elk, though during moments of desperation he unwittingly sways towards the modalist camp.
Apparently, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in the same way that Peter, Paul, and Timothy are three men, or as John of Ebla would say, same way Adam and Eve are two people yet one. So why do we not say there are three Gods? Gregory answers that, normally, we can distinguish between different members of the same class by the fact that they have different shapes, sizes, and colours. But none of this is true of incorporeal beings like God!

The link you present "On not three Gods" is a fascinating read because it highlighted to me how Catholics and Protestants strain creduality beyond the breaking point to "prove" this trinity business.

Following are quotes of Gregory of Nyssa:

This is insane. It is also basically what John of Ebla has been saying with his Adam and Eve analogy. No matter how one slices it however, many gold chips from a block of gold are not one gold chip simply because it's from the same block of gold, neither are Peter, James and John one because they are all humans.

They do not , cannot deny that there are three distinct "persons"(or Gods) in the "Godhead" but deny that they worship three Gods, and say it is wrong to refer to their three beings(Gods) in the plural on grounds that there is no difference of nature in their gods, and not because they are three in number.

Alam, if I had at my disposal there robots working as a unit , and if no difference either of "nature" or of "operation" is contemplated in that unit , do I only have one robot? This is what Gregory of Nyssa and John of Elba are asking us to believe.

Although there are three persons in the Godhead, they are not to be called three Gods because their nature is not diverse!

He's saying all men are actually one man if we are to be precise about it(our language that is), since all men partake of the "same nature". "Custom" and a lack of precise care in everyday speech makes us render two men, three men, or many men in the plural!

You can tell apart one "person" of the Godhead from another only in respect to their "cause" since no difference in nature leads to a mixture and confusion of persons!

This is worse than the "water" and "egg" examples trinitarians often use.

Why is Jesus the only begotten Son of God? Why is Isaac said to be the only begotten, when we know he was not the first and only son. Are you here only to mock? Give a valid response :ahem:

If you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full- nothing to be discussed- but if you perceive two bottles that is fine. Give a valid response to why you would say there are two bottles. :ahem:

Jesus said to Philip. 'If you see me you see the father" not some other form of God- lesser god, smaller god, different god, created god, half god. Off course all this is nonsense to you. Why? Give a valid response. :ahem:

Is it because you perceive many gods- and if you claim you perceive one god, it is not the God of the bible, Jehovah's Witnesses- they never give you a valid answer.

Yet for us there is only One God and One Lord. 1Cor:5-6 God and Jesus cannot both be Lord, because there is only ”One” Lord- so who is the Lord God of the old testament? Your whole augment falls apart with “One” In your eyes there can two savior, two king, two first and last, two rock. Yet the bible have them down as only one.

The One GOD that is pronounced with a singular pronoun 20,0000 " I am, HE cannot be two gods because singular pronoun is one. "For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us..." (Isaiah 33:22). Who is this Lord? If there is only One God, the God cannot be Lord, if there is only one Lord, then Lord, then the Lord cannot be God, unless they are one. “I and my father are one” What did the Jews do?

"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him"

Did Jesus say "hey guys, wait a minute, l did not mean l am God as my father" No!

Did the Jews new he clamed to be One God with the father? Well, l would have to believe what they said because they responded according to how they understood Jesus.

"blasphemy; because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" That’s how the understood it. And Jesus never corrected them as if the were wrong. It is written in the gospel of John- over and over again..

l know, you don’t believe, neithr did the Jews. :smile:

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 6th 2005, 01:51 AM

Hi John,

Why is Jesus the only begotten Son of God? Why is Isaac said to be the only begotten, when we know he was not the first and only son. Are you here only to mock? Give a valid response

Jesus as the "Only begotten Son of God" is the Achillies heel of the trinitarian argument. It proves the Son as being heteroousios (of a different substance) and anomoios (unlike) the Father. The very name “Son” implies an act of procreation. Before such an act there was not a Son, neither could God properly be called “Father”. For example, before the creation of the world God was not the Father of Israel, neither was He the Father of the sons of men. By extension this holds true for the only begotten Son of God as well. . Arius put it best, “once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.” The Son, therefore, is not co-eternal, but begotten of the will of the Father, begotten out of nothing, begotten before time. He is a creature, “created and made.” The Father is the only one without a beginning and “there was a time when the Son was not.” The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus was the firstborn of all creatures (the first to be created, Heb. 1:6), and the agent of the Father in the work of creating the world. The Son was as like God as it was possible to be, the highest of all creatures, the architect

of the universe, but not equal to God, Arius: “One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able.” Jesus Christ the Son of god was "brought forth" (Proverbs 8:25) into existence by Yahweh the only Self-Existent One we call Abba Father. Trinitarians try to get around this by coming up with all sorts of ridiculous phrases like "eternally generated" , eternally begotten" etc.

If you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full- nothing to be discussed- but if you perceive two bottles that is fine. Give a valid response to why you would say there are two bottles.

What the..?

Jesus said to Philip. 'If you see me you see the father" not some other form of God- lesser god, smaller god, different god, created god, half god. Off course all this is nonsense to you. Why? Give a valid response.

Jesus was the perfect image of the Father. God created the first humans in the image of God, in thel ikeness of God(Gen 1:26-30). Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God(2 Cor 4:4, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3). and Christians must beconformed to his likeness(2 Cor. 3:18, Gal 4:19, Eph. 4:13, Col. 3:10)

Yet for us there is only One God and One Lord. 1Cor:5-6 God and Jesus cannot both be Lord, because there is only ”One” Lord- so who is the Lord God of the old testament? Your whole augment falls apart with “One” In your eyes there can two savior, two king, two first and last, two rock. Yet the bible have them down as only one.

Unfortunately trinitarians like you believe in three Divine beings(Gods) but still manage to convince themselves that they are worshipping one God. You're fooling yourself.

“I and my father are one”

He also said the Father is Greater than me."

"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him"

They took up stones to stone him because they did not think he was the Messiah(a god), as he claimed to be. Read John ch 10 verse 24.

Did Jesus say "hey guys, wait a minute, l did not mean l am God as my father" No!

Can you show me where in the entire NT Jesus claims to be God Almighty?

Did the Jews new he clamed to be One God with the father? Well, l would have to believe what they said because they responded according to how they understood Jesus.

Such a thought would not even have entered the minds of 1st century Jews. But even if you believe the Jews accused Jesus of making himself God, Jesus's response in John10:34 kills this line of thought immediately.

In the immediate reaction to the Jewish leaders, Jesus responded: "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' " (John 10:34-36) Again, instead of claiming to God Almighty, Jesus says he was sent by God, his Father, Yahweh, and that he was the Son of God -- not God Almighty Himself.

Also Jesus' usage of the word theoi -- gods, which he applies to the "sons of God" -- men -- not God Almighty. John quotes Jesus in Greek as saying theoi -- the plural of theos. Jesus is quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures from Psalm 82:6, which, of course, was written in Hebrew. It is the Hebrew elohim. Jesus says that these "sons of God" are gods to whom the Word of God came. And if they can claim to be gods, he is justified in declaring himself Messiah, a god-like figure, of Daniel, who is able to furnish eternal life.

Jesus denied that he was God by stating over and over that he was sent by the only true God, could do nothing of his own self, everything he had was given to him by God, etc. (Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,22,23,27-30,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26)

l know, you don’t believe, neithr did the Jews.

Tell you what, if you can prove to me your are an incarnation of Elvis Prestly, then I will believe Jesus is God.-- Come to think of it, even then I won't.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 6th 2005, 01:55 AM

4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The body is the church, the Spirit is of the Father - as YOU are called to the one hope of your calling.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism - Jesus.
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. - Jehovah God is a Spirit that is in all and through all. The Holy Spirit is of God and not another God. Py has given the definition of ruach the spirit.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - clearly states that the Spirit is of God. To make the Holy Spirit a God is to make another God, which is not so.

Hi topherlee,

It’s good you can at least discuss and don't jump on just to mock. :smile:

If the body is the church, then which church is it- it's a bit like saying that Peter is the rock the church was built on- could the body be Christ and we a part of the body of Christ?

2) l don't make the Holy spirit another god, but are you saying the breath of God did not exist until God created his own breath or that God had not breath until he created it. The breath of God is eternal. Let me explain The Breath of His Mouth:

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth ... For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. (Psalm 33:6,9) These verses clearly show that the breath of God's mouth and God's word are the same. Did God ever exist without the breath of his mouth-No! So the breath of God- holy spirit is eternal. Remember Heb9:12

God is spirit so there would have to be a Spirit of God because God is Spirit. A spirit is as the air you breath- you don't see it or know where it comes or goes- it is here and there and fills up small or big places, where ever it is, it is still air, isn't it.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 6th 2005, 02:28 AM

alam

October 6th 2005, 03:04 AM

The link you present "On not three Gods" is a fascinating read because it highlighted to me how Catholics and Protestants strain creduality beyond the breaking point to "prove" this trinity business.

Blessings Pythagoras,

I thought you would find it interesting. The Cappadocians prevailed partly through synthesis, moving away from the earlier Nicene understanding that the Son is derived from the ousia of the Father and emphasizing his derivation from the Father's hypostasis. Eastern Trinitarianism continues to believe that the Father alone is the Arche of the Godhead, Autotheos (God of Himself), and the Cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit. And at least according to this site (http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/C2c.htm), by "One God" they understand primarily the Father.

The integration of this with Homoousianism does seem to lay itself open to the charge of Tritheism. Gregory Nazianzus said, "for Godhead is neither diffused beyond These, so as to introduce a mob of gods" plural (Oration 45). As you pointed out, some of the explanations in "On Not Three Gods" are very strained.

John from Ebla

October 6th 2005, 03:39 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

I have posted in brief to you several times concerning some of your key points--your critique of the principle of delegation, your assumption that God cannot create Wisdom, and your questionable use of Hebrews 9:14 and Ephesians 4:4-6.

When you find the time, I also welcome you to comment on my post 70 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222091&postcount=70) which shows that similar arguments to yours can be used to reach an unacceptable conclusion, that the elect are god.

For now, I am just curious about that Greek on Hebrews 9:14. :smile:

Divinity is an essence of God, and man through Jesus can partake of divine nature- does that make man God? No.

Immortality is another is another, and once again through Jesus we can one day partake of the same in that once we attain the promised resurrection, what ever we are or be, we would attain the realm of everlasting- does that makes us God? No! E.g. the Lord God said, man has become like one of “us” to know good and evil ….. and take form the tree of life and live for ever. Gen 4.22. Would they have been God? No! But a similarity of what God, Yes! But similar to God does not make one God.

Does this respond to the verse you gave? If not let me know. As for your curiosity about that Greek on Hebrews 9:14. It only matters if you beleive God created his own breath.

So, The Lord God said. Behold man has become a s one of “US” who is the “US” don’t say angles because they don’t have creative power. So if Lord if Lord is not God because there is one Lord, then God is not Lord because there is only one God- Unless they are One, So who is the Lord God “US”.

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 6th 2005, 03:50 AM

Hi Alam,

Blessings Pythagoras,

I And at least according to this site (http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/C2c.htm), by "One God" they understand primarily the Father.

.

Yes.

Also, they can't even agree who's trinity is the correct one.-- garbage in garbage out:

The mistake is that he searches for an analogy or a model in one single person, whereas the Cappadocian Fathers could never see the analogy of the Trinity through the observation of a single person. They always needed three persons to draw the analogy. In other words, for the Cappadocians each divine persona was a complete entity, a complete being: thus, in terms of our human experience, an exact correspondence to a trinity would be a Peter, a Kostas and a John, whereas with Augustine this is exactly the mistake he made, in that he believed the Trinity to be found only in Kostas, i.e., by observing only the one person.

John from Ebla

October 6th 2005, 11:23 AM

Hi Alam,

Yes.

Also, they can't even agree who's trinity is the correct one.-- garbage in garbage out:

The mistake is that he searches for an analogy or a model in one single person, whereas the Cappadocian Fathers could never see the analogy of the Trinity through the observation of a single person. They always needed three persons to draw the analogy. In other words, for the Cappadocians each divine persona was a complete entity, a complete being: thus, in terms of our human experience, an exact correspondence to a trinity would be a Peter, a Kostas and a John, whereas with Augustine this is exactly the mistake he made, in that he believed the Trinity to be found only in Kostas, i.e., by observing only the one person.

l was reading the other thread about who Jesus is and found things like “no man can see God and Live" That is very true-you agreed to it and so do l.

But l ask- what good is a god sitting like a puppet outside of the universe that no man can see. How does he interact with his creation? We read in the tanakh so often about Israel be told “behold your God” Did they? To see God is to die and beside he is spirit.

But as far as heaven is from earth so are my (God) thoughts from your (man) Quote from the O/T

Did you really think God is just your imagination of something outside of the universe that cannot interact? Muslims do. Anyway- the reason people did not die when they saw Jesus was because the glory of God that people cannot see was covered in Flesh. Yes my friend- this is why Israel where holding the feast of tabernacle, man sitting in a small booth, to show you that one day the your God will do the same and it will not be another god.

Isaiah 40:9…………Behold your God! Isaiah was commissioned to comfort the nation of Israel- but when it came to “behold their God’ they picked up the stones.

Kind regards.
John form Ebla

Topherlee

October 6th 2005, 11:59 AM

Hi topherlee,

It’s good you can at least discuss and don't jump on just to mock. :smile:

If the body is the church, then which church is it- it's a bit like saying that Peter is the rock the church was built on- could the body be Christ and we a part of the body of Christ?

2) l don't make the Holy spirit another god, but are you saying the breath of God did not exist until God created his own breath or that God had not breath until he created it. The breath of God is eternal. Let me explain The Breath of His Mouth:

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth ... For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. (Psalm 33:6,9) These verses clearly show that the breath of God's mouth and God's word are the same. Did God ever exist without the breath of his mouth-No! So the breath of God- holy spirit is eternal. Remember Heb9:12

God is spirit so there would have to be a Spirit of God because God is Spirit. A spirit is as the air you breath- you don't see it or know where it comes or goes- it is here and there and fills up small or big places, where ever it is, it is still air, isn't it.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

1. The church is a metaphor - we are called to the truth in Christ. Christ's body is not a physical church, but the bread of life, truth (metaphorically speaking). With the many religions of today, it is up to you to find the truth.

2. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. I do not think we a have a disagreement on this one. There are no two spirit gods...

I think there are a few verses that you should hold to:
Deut: 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Hear, O Israel; YHWH our God is one YHWH (as originally written).
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God did not create another god - he created a Son, as the angels are known as and mankind; children of God. He created his Son Jesus to be our Lord and King, our Savior - not another god. There are/were many lords and kings upon the earth, Jesus was created to be our foremost.

Do you accept Jesus as your "Lord and Savior" as God the Father has asked you to?

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: (All glory belongs to God)

Clearly spoken; God Jehovah is omniscient and omnipotent. This is what it means to be a "god". Jesus on the other hand is not omniscient and omnipotent;
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and earth. (Given to him by the one who obtains it; Jehovah, his Father and our Father).

John 20:1720:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

How many gods are there? No where in scripture does it say that Jesus was a god-man. This is interpretation.

Turn to Acts 2: Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN APPROVED OF GOD among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God (Yahweh) hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Pythagoras

October 6th 2005, 02:44 PM

Hi John of Ebla,

l was reading the other thread about who Jesus is and found things like “no man can see God and Live" That is very true-you agreed to it and so do l.

If you agree no man can see God and live then you cannot also agree Jesus Christ is God. You do not mean what you say and say what you do not mean.

But l ask- what good is a god sitting like a puppet outside of the universe that no man can see. How does he interact with his creation? We read in the tanakh so often about Israel be told “behold your God” Did they? To see God is to die and beside he is spirit.

God does not interract with humanity in a sick fashion through the agency of a mythical, pagan "God-Man"; the Hindu God Krishna(second person of the trimurthi Godhead) interracts with his devotees in this fashion.

Anyway- the reason people did not die when they saw Jesus was because the glory of God that people cannot see was covered in Flesh.

This kind of reasoning could even be possible if you were a Nestorian,but if Jesus is Fully God and Fully man in one being and at the same time then your argument is invalid. If Jesus's Godhood was hidden by his flesh then he would not be fully God at the time of his being fully man, in one being.

Also you're adding to the scripture. The bible does not say men will die if they see "the glory of God", it says men will die if they see God, period.If Jesus was truly God, everyone who looked at him would have died at the sight of him. Besides at the mount of transfiguration, the disciples saw him in his glory but yet did not die. Again you say what you do not mean and mean not what you say.

On another note, the trinity doctrine makes it impossible from another standpoint for Christ to give the ransom; because if God is a trinity the entire trinity's justice must be satisfied, not simply a part of it. Hence the Son, as a part of the trinity, would have to have his justice satisfied. Hence he could not give the ransom; He must receive it. The ransomer would have to be someone outside of the trinity. Hence this point proves that the ransom could not be received, since it could not satisfy the entire God; and it also proves that a member of the trinity could not bring it. In addition, an overpayment of the price of Adam's redemption(by God himself) would pervert the price of God's justice to salvage Adam. One of equal rank, the Second Adam, is the only qualified candidate to redeem mankind. Just as an underpayment is an injustice, so an overpayment.

Notice:

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

The worship of three gods dulls the trinitarian mind indeed.

best wishes,

alam

October 6th 2005, 09:45 PM

Divinity is an essence of God, and man through Jesus can partake of divine nature- does that make man God? No.

Immortality is another is another, and once again through Jesus we can one day partake of the same in that once we attain the promised resurrection, what ever we are or be, we would attain the realm of everlasting- does that makes us God? No! E.g. the Lord God said, man has become like one of “us” to know good and evil ….. and take form the tree of life and live for ever. Gen 4.22. Would they have been God? No! But a similarity of what God, Yes! But similar to God does not make one God.

Does this respond to the verse you gave?

If the Bible had said that Christ and the Father are "one spirit," you would probably make the most of it in conjunction with Ephesians 4:4 to prove your case. The same with 2 Pet. 1:4 and Eph. 3:19. But when these concern the elect, you do not insist on any such thing. So under what conditions do such statements signify real Deity? When they are applied to real Deity, as you response seems to indicate?

As for your curiosity about that Greek on Hebrews 9:14. It only matters if you beleive God created his own breath.

Anthropomorphic attributions are word pictures that tell us something about God's power. His "hands" refer to His power of guiding and effecting things in the world. His "breath" usually refers to His power of giving life and inspiration.

As simple powers they are eternal and co-extensive with His Godhead (Rom. 1:20). The eternal power pertains directly to God the Father, and even Christ is subject to it.

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Because God has given all authority in the universe to Christ (Matt. 28:18), Christ is also called God's power, having become God's power to us (1 Cor. 1:24), the instantiation of God's power relative to the universe. The creatio of the Logos therefore is not the creation of God's own power, but the creation of one through whom God will exercise these powers within space and time.

So, The Lord God said. Behold man has become a s one of “US” who is the “US” don’t say angles because they don’t have creative power. So if Lord if Lord is not God because there is one Lord, then God is not Lord because there is only one God- Unless they are One, So who is the Lord God “US”.

The Logos was the angel of the LORD, so we must make an exception for this angel; he is able to create. As you said

This personified word of God has be going around in the Old testament " his going forth has been of old (Micah5:2) He spoke to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, and others, asserting full unity of nature and action with God

The issue is not Genesis 3 but how you use 1 Corinthians 8 to derive these conclusions from Genesis 3:22.

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

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.

The punctuation given in the King James Version does not say that there one Lord comma Jesus Christ, but that there is one Lord Jesus Christ. If this is the correct way to read the verse then it does nothing to exclude the Father as Lord. Even if we used the same punctuation for the previous clause, so that there is one God the Father, it does not change things, because Paul already said that there is none other God but one. The one God the Father would still be Him than whom there is no other God.

But if we use the reading you assume, i.e. that there is only one God, the Father, and only one Lord, Jesus Christ, according to its plain significance you seem to be caught by your own logic because the Father is not the Son, and if Jesus Christ is the only Lord, then the Father cannot be Lord.

By using this verse in the way that you have, and please correct me if this is not so, you are expecting us to read some things between the lines. You would have us see this when we read the verse:

"But to us there is but one [essence/spirit whereby one is] God, [which belongs to] the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one [essence/spirit whereby one is] Lord, [which belongs to] Jesus Christ"

That is what the verse would have to say to necessitate that the Father and Son share a single essence enabling them both to be God and Lord. To take such a reading-into the verse seriously, we would already have to believe that Trinitarian ideas are valid and were likely in Paul's mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians.

A more conservative interpretation, even assuming the punctuation that you use, would be this:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and [under Him] one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Paul could expect the subordination of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Father, the LORD who made him Lord (Acts 2:34-36), to be a given for the Corinthian church, especially within the context of his letter, which brings it up several times (1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; 15:27-28).

But l ask- what good is a god sitting like a puppet outside of the universe that no man can see.

Why would God being outside the universe mean that He is a puppet? And why do you think that God must be "good" for something from your perspective? God is not a means to an end. Dismissing the True God who is above all we can experience is simply another way of making Man the measure of all things.

All the best.

Pythagoras

October 7th 2005, 12:38 AM

The art of the trinitarians most readily betrays their polytheism:

http://religion-cults.com/art/trinity4.html (http://religion-cults.com/art/trinity4.html)

"Andrei Rublev in 1425, shows us the three visitors to Abraham and Sarah described in Genesis 18.

Orthodox tradition identifies the three visitors with the three persons of the Trinity.

The Father would be the one on the left, to which the Son and the Spirit are bending their heads."

John from Ebla

October 7th 2005, 02:29 AM

Hi Pythagoras and alam,

l just want to make sure l understand both of you correctly.

Jesus is the divine Son of God, as such, is a god but not God- correct. Like when John 1:1-3 states the word was God and with God, that became flesh- it means God did not become flesh, but we have salvation through him because he is divine- a form of god, not God.

Correct

Kind regards
John form Ebla.

Pythagoras

October 7th 2005, 05:36 AM

Hi John,

Jesus is the divine Son of God,

Jesus is the Son of God. Son of God does not mean God but Christ. See for example Matt. 26:63, etc.

If by Divine you mean God Almighty, then no. If by Divine you mean a pre-existent being in the image of God, then yes.

as such, is a god but not God- correct.

Yes, he's a god, but not God almighty. For example in the hebrew OT (and in Jewish thought) a man like Moses was referred to as a "god". So ofcourse Jesus too can be called a god. Even Athanasius recognized this Jewish propensity to refer to certain godly men as god's:

Athanasius

"God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of
many, 'God standeth in the congregation of Gods[2]'), it is plain that He is
called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and
He before all? or how is He 'first-born of the whole creation[3],' if He has
others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those
first partakers[4] do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is
a device of our present Judaizers."

divine- a form of god,

If by this you mean the perfect, sinless image of God, then yes.

I think you should read the following from the Jewish encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P)

"...imply his(messiah's) origin and preexistence in heaven. He therefore stands higher than the ministering angels (Yalḳ. ii. 476), and he lives throughout eternity (Midr. Teh. ii.; Yalḳ. l.c.)....The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 152b,...Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of "one like the Son of man," who "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days." ....

etc. ..

I recomend a full read.

John from Ebla

October 7th 2005, 10:09 AM

Hi John,

Jesus is the Son of God. Son of God does not mean God but Christ. See for example Matt. 26:63, etc.

If by Divine you mean God Almighty, then no. If by Divine you mean a pre-existent being in the image of God, then yes.

Yes, he's a god, but not God almighty. For example in the hebrew OT (and in Jewish thought) a man like Moses was referred to as a "god". So ofcourse Jesus too can be called a god. Even Athanasius recognized this Jewish propensity to refer to certain godly men as god's:

Athanasius

"God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of
many, 'God standeth in the congregation of Gods[2]'), it is plain that He is
called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and
He before all? or how is He 'first-born of the whole creation[3],' if He has
others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those
first partakers[4] do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is
a device of our present Judaizers."

If by this you mean the perfect, sinless image of God, then yes.

I think you should read the following from the Jewish encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=504&letter=P)

"...imply his(messiah's) origin and preexistence in heaven. He therefore stands higher than the ministering angels (Yalḳ. ii. 476), and he lives throughout eternity (Midr. Teh. ii.; Yalḳ. l.c.)....The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1; comp. Pesiḳ. R. 152b,...Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2), speaking of the Bethlehemite ruler, says that his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"; Dan. vii. 13 speaks of "one like the Son of man," who "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days." ....

etc. ..

I recomend a full read.

The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah. Amen: The “Spirit of God” is not another god

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

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." Ex 20:3 Jesus is not another god. “Thy shall have no other gods”

Israel were foretold to “Behold your God” Isaiah 40:9 not another god.

Isaiah foretold the Son would be called “Immanuel” GOD WITH US (Isa7:14) not another god.

The Lord said, “l and the Father are one” not “l am another god”
The Father is in Me and l am in the Father- one with him. John10:38 not another god

“Philip, if you see me you see the father” not another god

How are you going to stand before the Throne of God – knowing you are prompting the lies of Jehovah witness- the false prophets that claim Jesus is another god.

The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is not another god.

You cannot see God-he is Spirit. One Spirit- and it was in the body of Christ. Man can never be God. But God can tabernacle in a human body. Another god cannot.

If you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full- nothing to be discussed. I don’t believe in other gods.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Topherlee

October 7th 2005, 01:12 PM

1. The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah. Amen: The “Spirit of God” is not another god

1. The spirit is of God Jehovah that moved upon the face of the waters. Jesus is the Messiah. This is not to say that Jesus was not there in the beginning. Jesus was there working alongside his Father and not as. Remember, Jesus is the Son.
It is easy to see why people refer to Jesus as a god - he is the reflection (IMAGE) of his Fathers glory. This is not that they refer to Jesus as another god. There is only one God.

2. Shema: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Deuteronomy 6:4

2. It is no secrect that the name of God has been removed from the OT an estimated 7000 times. Deut 6:4 was originally written as "Hear O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH. This is why your version is written with the LORD in all caps. You can use the Ten Commandements as a reference as well. "Thou shall not take Jehovah your God's name in vain". Most of todays version has it as LORD. But the word lord is not a name, it is a title.

3. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." Ex 20:3 Jesus is not another god. “Thy shall have no other gods”

3. Again, LORD as you see in all caps, " I am Jehovah your God"...

4. Israel were foretold to “Behold your God” Isaiah 40:9 not another god. AND Isaiah foretold the Son would be called “Immanuel” GOD WITH US (Isa7:14) not another god.

4. This is where you have to have knowledge with prophecy. Have you ever driven down a road and have seen a sign that says DIP, then about 500 feet later you hit the dip. Prophecy is not the pyhsical dip, it is the sign. Example; Immanuel is the name given to the Son of God in prophecy. But the name given by his Father is Jesus. The term "God with us" is not physical, but in spirit. This leaves only one God, Jehovah. Jehovah God is spirit.

5. The Lord said, “l and the Father are one” not “l am another god”
The Father is in Me and l am in the Father- one with him. John10:38 not another god

5. The term I and the Father are one. If you truly look at this, he in no way says he is the Father, but that they are one. The answer, if you continue to read, is provided in scripture; John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I will leave this to you to ponder John from Ebla. Just consider...

topherlee

alam

October 7th 2005, 01:21 PM

Hi John from Ebla:

My answer to your question is the same as Pythagoras'.

How are you going to stand before the Throne of God

We will be in good company since this is what the early Christians believed--not that Jesus Christ was an heteros theos, a strange god, but a deuteros theos--a secondary or subordinate god.

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them.

...

Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that he has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished him both to do and to engage himself with.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

Exodus 23:13 suggests that other gods have other names with all that implies. The Angel of the LORD always operated in the name of God, having His name placed within him, even bearing His name. Thus the Angel acted as an extension of God's own authority. He was not an "other" god from God, but neither was he God Himself.

The situation is similar with the judges, who are called "gods" (Ex. 21:6,22; 22:8,9,28) with the plural verb. If these were "other gods" then it was idolatrous to seek judgment from them. The Torah commands that judgment be sought from them, and so they cannot have been "other gods" in the vocabulary of scripture. They were extensions of God's own authority.

If you have not, you might still have a look at Origen, Commentary on John ii, 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm).

Pythagoras

October 7th 2005, 01:39 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

If you see the glass of water as half-empty, it is half-empty, if you see it as half-full, it is half-full- nothing to be discussed.

So far you have not furnished anything of substance nor answered any of my questions. You keep on repeating this nonsense about glass of water, bottles and such. I'm beginning to think maybe your brain is only half full, or half empty .

I don’t believe in other gods.

Again you are contradicting yourself. You believe in three gods. It is the Jews and Arians who do not believe in many gods, as already explained to you in my last post.

Do you have any valid point to make? I'm waiting.

Pythagoras

October 7th 2005, 04:39 PM

Hi Alam,

It is my understanding that trinitarians do not deny God is three in number. Their definition of "one God" is not numeric but compound, clusterous -- "Not one person, but one in aim, one in desires, one in purpose, one in plan, one is agreement, one in words." While this certainly is true of the Church, true of a cluster of grapes, true of fraternal things belonging to a group, is it true of God ?

http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page883.htm (http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page883.htm)

Please note this question: Can two persons, or two people beone? Listen to the prayer of Jesus, "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thoudidst send me" (John 17:20-21). Question: Can two people, can ten people be one? Of course they can. Jesus so prayed that those whobelieve on Him might be one. Not one person, but one in aim, one indesires, one in purpose, one in plan, one is agreement, one inwords.

Is this not simply beating around the fact that their God is indeed numerically three distinct persons, and not numerically One ?-- 1 - Father, 2- Son, 3- Holy Spirit? 3 persons in one cluster.

The important point I want to bring across in this post is that trinitarians do not , cannot deny God is numerically three(!!) Is this a fair assessment and the logical end to trinitarian thought, Alam? It is mind boggling !

But the Shema of the Jews plainly tells us God is numerically One, Echad(the Hebrew word for the number 1).

best wishes,

alam

October 7th 2005, 07:00 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

It is my understanding that trinitarians do not deny God is three in number. Their definition of "one God" is not numeric but compound, clusterous -- "Not one person, but one in aim, one in desires, one in purpose, one in plan, one is agreement, one in words." While this certainly is true of the Church, true of a cluster of grapes, true of fraternal things belonging to a group, is it true of God ?

Gregory of Nyssa suggests that 'Godhead' is a divine activity. If a single act of 'Godness' is shared by the three hpostases he says they are not multiple Gods. Like his other argument about three men really being three instances of Man, this seems to want to reinvent the language to fit the doctrine.

Is this not simply beating around the fact that their God is indeed numerically three distinct persons, and not numerically One ?-- 1 - Father, 2- Son, 3- Holy Spirit? 3 persons in one cluster.

The important point I want to bring across in this post is that trinitarians do not , cannot deny God is numerically three(!!) Is this a fair assessment and the logical end to trinitarian thought, Alam? It is mind boggling !

Numerical oneness is abandoned, when push comes to shove.

Against those who cast it in our teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one God not in number but in nature. For everything which is called one in number is not one absolutely, nor yet simple in nature; but God is universally confessed to be simple and not composite. God therefore is not one in number.

http://www.monachos.net/patristics/basil/epistle8.shtml

What is one is the nature, which seems to be a pure abstraction. This is ameliorated by the Eastern insistence on the monarchy of God the Father, so that the abstract "oneness of nature" is anchored in something definite. Some think there is an unresolved tension there between Arianism (Cappadocian fathers were formerly Semi-Arians) and Homoousianism.

...there is an element of ontological subordinationism which remains in the Eastern view, which in the mind of those inclined toward the view of the Western tradition leaves the door open to implicit Arianism.

http://www.irr.org/mit/trinity2.html

The opposite obtains in Western or Augustinian thought; the nature or ousia is not an abstraction to any degree. It or rather He is a real, and personal being, but one who is tri-personal. This is the primary reality and the hypostases are derived from It (Him). Multiple Personality Disorder is a good analogy, which Trinitarians are starting to use as well as Jehovah's Witnesses.

But the Shema of the Jews plainly tells us God is numerically One, Echad(the Hebrew word for the number 1).

best wishes,

Absolutely. Hebrew does not use Echad in a loose way. The New Testament Greek is also careful with this, and uses the neuter, hen, when the oneness in question is not numerical. The distinction is retained in cognate languages such as Latin and Gothic. Our lack of an accepted English equivalent can impair our ability to even understand what is said in translation. In his Skeireins or Commentary on John, bishop Wulfila wrote,

...these matters were declared by John, not merely that he might proclaim the Lord's greatness, but to censure and rebuke that impious contention of Sabellius and Marcellus, who dared to say that the Father and the Son are one [ainana]. [cf. http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/token/?ID=T66215]

Given John 10:30 this is unintelligible and seems to put Wulfila on the wrong side of the argument, until we understand that ainana is masculine and applied to the masculine subjects of the Father and the Son would mean that they are one and the same being, which the NT Greek never does.

God bless,

John from Ebla

October 8th 2005, 05:04 AM

John from Ebla

October 8th 2005, 06:14 AM

5. The Lord said, “l and the Father are one” not “l am another god”
The Father is in Me and l am in the Father- one with him. John10:38 not another god

5. The term I and the Father are one. If you truly look at this, he in no way says he is the Father, but that they are one. The answer, if you continue to read, is provided in scripture; John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I will leave this to you to ponder John from Ebla. Just consider...

topherlee

Jesus is not the father because he cried out to the Father- but Jesus cannot be another god because (Ex 20:3) states “You shall have no other gods” This is clear, if you agree that the spirit of God in Gen 1 is the spirit of the Messiah- it cannot be another god.

God is spirit- they are one God spirit not another. We are not the spirit of God- the very essence of God, that which makes God, God.

As for John 17:18: Yes we are one in the Body of Christ even though we are many, just as Jesus is one with the Father- but our spirit did "not" create the world or exist as God. (Spirit)

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 8th 2005, 09:46 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

The spirit of God is the spirit of the messiah.

How does this prove the trinity? Quite the contrary.
Also this is the full quote:"The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1;)"

Above is saying the "Spirit of God" which moved upon the face of the waters in Gen. 1.2 in the creation act worked through Messiah . Just as the "Spirit of God" in the Saints produces good works through them (Gal. 5:22) , the "Spirit of God" worked through Messiah to create the Universe, consider John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17.

Now read the following from the same Jewish Encyclopedia link, to put things in perspective for yourself:

similarly in an apocryphon entitled "Joseph's Prayer," quoted by Origen in Johannem xxv., opp. iv. 84, where Jacob says, "I am an angel of God and a primeval spirit, the first-born of all creatures, and like me were Abraham and Isaac created before any other work of God. I am invested with the highest office in the face of God and invoke Him by His ineffable name."

Joseph is referred to as the "first-born of all creatures". In Col.1:15 Jesus is referred to as the "first-born of all creatures".

If therefore the phrase "The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters is the Spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1;)" means Messiah is God, then you must also conclude Joseph is Jesus since of Jospeh the link says "I am an angel of God and a primeval spirit, the first-born of all creatures.." I want you to take some time to understand what the link is actually saying. Would you do that and get back to me once you figure out the answer?

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 8th 2005, 11:20 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

How does this prove the trinity? Quite the contrary.
Also this is the full quote:"The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. i. 2) is the spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1;)"

Above is saying the "Spirit of God" which moved upon the face of the waters in Gen. 1.2 in the creation act worked through Messiah . Just as the "Spirit of God" in the Saints produces good works through them (Gal. 5:22) , the "Spirit of God" worked through Messiah to create the Universe, consider John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17.

Now read the following from the same Jewish Encyclopedia link, to put things in perspective for yourself:

similarly in an apocryphon entitled "Joseph's Prayer," quoted by Origen in Johannem xxv., opp. iv. 84, where Jacob says, "I am an angel of God and a primeval spirit, the first-born of all creatures, and like me were Abraham and Isaac created before any other work of God. I am invested with the highest office in the face of God and invoke Him by His ineffable name."

Joseph is referred to as the "first-born of all creatures". In Col.1:15 Jesus is referred to as the "first-born of all creatures".

If therefore the phrase "The "Spirit of God" which "moved upon the face of the waters is the Spirit of the Messiah (Gen. R. viii. 1;)" means Messiah is God, then you must also conclude Joseph is Jesus since of Jospeh the link says "I am an angel of God and a primeval spirit, the first-born of all creatures.." I want you to take some time to understand what the link is actually saying. Would you do that and get back to me once you figure out the answer?

best wishes,

Greeting Pythagoras

My fingers are typing the words you read- does that me my fingers typed what you are reading or l, myself, typed it? You and l both know the truth- the spirit of God is God- not another

My own hand laid the foundations of the earth and my right hand spread out the heavens. (Isaiah 48:13) Does this mean that God's right hand created instead of God Himself? Of course not!

Then (Psalm 33:6,9) the breath of God created everything. (The breath of God is his spirit, his word) These verses clearly show that the breath of God's mouth and God's word are the same- not another as you are trying to imply, another. So the word of God is God.

Once you conceded that the "Spirit of God” which moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. i.) is the spirit of the Messiah, the issue became good as dead. The spirit of God is God- it cannot be another. God is one and said, 'l am only Savior", with a singular personal pronoun, meaning it had to be him. The body died, the Spirit did not.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 8th 2005, 04:08 PM

Sorry guys, but it's not worth crying over spilt milk.

The spirit of God is the spirit of the messiah.

The spirit of God cannot be another god. (Ex 20:3) states “You shall have no other gods”

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

God is not a God of confusion-Jehovah witness however, are a people of confusion.

The Father is in Me and l am in the Father- one with him. (John10:38) Is clear they are one God.

Jesus is the “first and last”

Kind regards
John form Ebla

When you find some time, I would appreciate your response to posts 92 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224144&postcount=92) and 98 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224930&postcount=98). Thanks, :smile:

Pythagoras

October 8th 2005, 04:43 PM

Hi John from Elba,

Greeting Pythagoras

My fingers are typing the words you read- does that me my fingers typed what you are reading or l, myself, typed it? You and l both know the truth- the spirit of God is God- not another

My own hand laid the foundations of the earth and my right hand spread out the heavens. (Isaiah 48:13) Does this mean that God's right hand created instead of God Himself? Of course not! ......

Once you conceded that the "Spirit of God” which moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. i.) is the spirit of the Messiah, the issue became good as dead. The spirit of God is God- it cannot be another. God is one and said, 'l am only Savior", with a singular personal pronoun, meaning it had to be him. The body died, the Spirit did not.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

As you wish John of Ebla, but you're fooling yourself . Since that link also says Joseph is the "first-born of all creatures" , then he must be Jesus Christ (ref. Col. 1:15.), using your reasoning.

It shows us how desperate you truly are, more than anything else.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 8th 2005, 08:11 PM

Greetings Alam,

Thank you for another excellent post.

Absolutely. Hebrew does not use Echad in a loose way. The New Testament Greek is also careful with this, and uses the neuter, hen, when the oneness in question is not numerical. The distinction is retained in cognate languages such as Latin and Gothic. Our lack of an accepted English equivalent can impair our ability to even understand what is said in translation. In his Skeireins or Commentary on John, bishop Wulfila wrote,

Yes, the great Goth could not be deceived. Even without a working knowledge of Hebrew I know enough to note that Echad means ONE. Period. Nothing more! The word "ONE" can be used in several ways. It can appear as an adjective, a pronoun, or as a noun (e.g. the Holy One).

I've read that most frequently, the word ONE in the Torah , appears as an indefinite pronoun. Indefinite pronouns express the idea of quantity, as do some adjectives. By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from the modifier. And of course, the exact meaning always comes from the context of the sentence, where the combination of words are being used. The word "Echad" (and its feminine counterpart "Achat") appears nearly 1000 times in the OT, and in no single case does the word itself carry any plural implication. Depending upon whether a collective noun is being modified by the word "Echad," will determine to which degree a compound unity is in view. Examples of collectives nouns would be "family" or "people," or "tribe."

In their book, "The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound," (pg 14-16) the authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, give us this excellent parallel.

"Imagine that someone claimed that the word "one" meant " compound one" in the words "one tripod." Suppose someone thought that "the one United States of America" implied that "one" was really plural in meaning. The specious reasoning in obvious: The idea of plurality belongs to the words "tripd" and "States," not to the word "one. " It is a subterfuge to transfer to "one" the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying that "one" really means "one hundred" when it appears in the combination "one centipede!"

For example I can also say that I am playing ONE set of tennis (6 games). ONE tennis match can consist of several sets. One, in this context could describe a compound unity, but even so, it doesn't change the meaning of the word ONE, whether it refers to the ONE match or ONE set played, or ONE individual game played within the set.

A person who insists on twisting logic in order to keep the Triune doctrine intact, would be hard-pressed to find a single item in the entire created universe which could NOT be sub-divided into smaller parts, until you get down to the atomic level. All this proves is that every "thing" in the universe is a compound unity of one sort or another, and that ONE does not imply actual oneness, but rather it is "figurative."

For a person to argue that God is ONE, yet He is THREE, on the basis of the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our GOd is ONE God (Elohim Echad)" claiming that Echad here is compound unity, is utterly insane.

Given John 10:30 this is unintelligible and seems to put Wulfila on the wrong side of the argument, until we understand that ainana is masculine and applied to the masculine subjects of the Father and the Son would mean that they are one and the same being, which the NT Greek never does.

Trinitarians believe the Jews have always misunderstood the nature of God and it is they, the trinitarian Christians, who have the truth about God's being!

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/3divineonenesses.html

When God made the Self-revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ there was a unique revelation that His oneness was more complex than the monadic oneness of a singular and unextended unit of one as the Jewish people had understood God. In Christ, God revealed Himself as a plurality-in-oneness as a "three-in-oneness." Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Such a statement either had to be repudiated as a blasphemous denial of God as a monadic oneness (which was the response of the Jewish leaders - John 10:31,39), or the monotheistic oneness of God had to be reconsidered and reformulated in accord with God's revelation of Himself as being One with multiple personal distinction (which was the process in which the early Christians engaged theologically). It can definitely be noted that neither the first century Jews nor the subsequent Christians understood Jesus' comment to mean, "I and the Father have one purpose or objective," as later proponents of monadic monotheistic have disingenuously suggested. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, rather than to functional or teleological intent.

John from Ebla

October 8th 2005, 09:54 PM

Greetings Alam,

Thank you for another excellent post.

Yes, the great Goth could not be deceived. Even without a working knowledge of Hebrew I know enough to note that Echad means ONE. Period. Nothing more! The word "ONE" can be used in several ways. It can appear as an adjective, a pronoun, or as a noun (e.g. the Holy One).

I've read that most frequently, the word ONE in the Torah , appears as an indefinite pronoun. Indefinite pronouns express the idea of quantity, as do some adjectives. By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from the modifier. And of course, the exact meaning always comes from the context of the sentence, where the combination of words are being used. The word "Echad" (and its feminine counterpart "Achat") appears nearly 1000 times in the OT, and in no single case does the word itself carry any plural implication. Depending upon whether a collective noun is being modified by the word "Echad," will determine to which degree a compound unity is in view. Examples of collectives nouns would be "family" or "people," or "tribe."

In their book, "The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound," (pg 14-16) the authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, give us this excellent parallel.

"Imagine that someone claimed that the word "one" meant " compound one" in the words "one tripod." Suppose someone thought that "the one United States of America" implied that "one" was really plural in meaning. The specious reasoning in obvious: The idea of plurality belongs to the words "tripd" and "States," not to the word "one. " It is a subterfuge to transfer to "one" the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying that "one" really means "one hundred" when it appears in the combination "one centipede!"

For example I can also say that I am playing ONE set of tennis (6 games). ONE tennis match can consist of several sets. One, in this context could describe a compound unity, but even so, it doesn't change the meaning of the word ONE, whether it refers to the ONE match or ONE set played, or ONE individual game played within the set.

A person who insists on twisting logic in order to keep the Triune doctrine intact, would be hard-pressed to find a single item in the entire created universe which could NOT be sub-divided into smaller parts, until you get down to the atomic level. All this proves is that every "thing" in the universe is a compound unity of one sort or another, and that ONE does not imply actual oneness, but rather it is "figurative."

For a person to argue that God is ONE, yet He is THREE, on the basis of the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our GOd is ONE God (Elohim Echad)" claiming that Echad here is compound unity, is utterly insane.

Trinitarians believe the Jews have always misunderstood the nature of God and it is they, the trinitarian Christians, who have the truth about God's being!

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/3divineonenesses.html

When God made the Self-revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ there was a unique revelation that His oneness was more complex than the monadic oneness of a singular and unextended unit of one as the Jewish people had understood God. In Christ, God revealed Himself as a plurality-in-oneness as a "three-in-oneness." Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Such a statement either had to be repudiated as a blasphemous denial of God as a monadic oneness (which was the response of the Jewish leaders - John 10:31,39), or the monotheistic oneness of God had to be reconsidered and reformulated in accord with God's revelation of Himself as being One with multiple personal distinction (which was the process in which the early Christians engaged theologically). It can definitely be noted that neither the first century Jews nor the subsequent Christians understood Jesus' comment to mean, "I and the Father have one purpose or objective," as later proponents of monadic monotheistic have disingenuously suggested. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, rather than to functional or teleological intent.

Are you discussing things about what l said or about yourself and alam that believe in many gods, which is against the Shema- your Lord God is one, thy shall have no other gods. At least Buzzard denies the spirit of Jesus (gen.1) pre-existed – but his downfall is “the self inflected would of Christianity” his singular personal pronoun inflicted to his own book.

How many saviors are there? Who is the Rock of Israel, the Father or the Son? Who is the first and last? Who is the one Shepard? All these are refereed to with singular personal pronoun- they cannot be another.

There is only one form of God spirit (the essence of what makes God, God) not many. Thy shall have no other gods? If the essence of what makes God, God is part of both, Father and Son, then there are no “two Gods” or “many gods”-that is why there is only one Rock, one Savior, one Shepard, one Judge and one “first and last” – that is why the all have singular personal pronoun.

Off course, if you make Jesus one of many gods, as some do, you end up with a barrel of confusion- who is the first and last?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 8th 2005, 10:12 PM

Greetings Alam,

Thank you for another excellent post.

Greetings Pythagoras,

Thanks to you as well. Your comments on the Hebrew usage of Echad/Achath are right on. People could as easily prove that English "one" means a united plurality, and save themselves the trouble of going into the Hebrew. But then English speakers would see the claim for the sophistry it is, as Hebrew speakers do.

Yes, the great Goth could not be deceived. Even without a working knowledge of Hebrew I know enough to note that Echad means ONE. Period. Nothing more!

A person has to try in order to get something like that wrong!

The word "ONE" can be used in several ways. It can appear as an adjective, a pronoun, or as a noun (e.g. the Holy One). [/size]

Echad can be used as a substantive, and even as an adjective meaning "alone."

For if they fall, the one (hā'ehādh) will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone (hā'ehādh) when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone ('ehādh) God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God.

When God made the Self-revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ there was a unique revelation that His oneness was more complex than the monadic oneness of a singular and unextended unit of one as the Jewish people had understood God. In Christ, God revealed Himself as a plurality-in-oneness as a "three-in-oneness." Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Such a statement either had to be repudiated as a blasphemous denial of God as a monadic oneness (which was the response of the Jewish leaders - John 10:31,39), or the monotheistic oneness of God had to be reconsidered and reformulated in accord with God's revelation of Himself as being One with multiple personal distinction (which was the process in which the early Christians engaged theologically). It can definitely be noted that neither the first century Jews nor the subsequent Christians understood Jesus' comment to mean, "I and the Father have one purpose or objective," as later proponents of monadic monotheistic have disingenuously suggested. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, rather than to functional or teleological intent.

"...as later proponents of monadic monotheistic have disingenuously suggested" ???

Of course you already know about this, but for the benefit of others, here is Hippolytus on John 10:30 and 14:9 again:

7. If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me." What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance [ousia], or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: "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. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who "has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

The people who were reading John 10:30 to denote Essence were modalistic monarchians, "monadic monotheists" by definition.

God bless,

alam

October 8th 2005, 10:58 PM

John from Ebla,

You are very punctual in responding to Pythagoras' messages to me, relative to getting around to my messages to you! :ahem:

Are you discussing things about what l said or about yourself and alam that believe in many gods, which is against the Shema- your Lord God is one, thy shall have no other gods.

Post 98 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224930&postcount=98).

How many saviors are there? Who is the Rock of Israel, the Father or the Son? Who is the first and last? Who is the one Shepard? All these are refereed to with singular personal pronoun- they cannot be another.

The most emphatic series of statements of monotheism come in Isaiah.

I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

...that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

However, in the same passages we read,

Is there a God beside me? indeed there is no rock; I know not any" (cf. Deut. 32:4; Psa. 18:31).

I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour (cf. Hos. 13:4).

This shows us that God is not the only "God" in some lexical sense. He is the only God in the same way that He is the only Rock, the only Savior. The ones through whom God accomplishes His deeds of salvation became "saviors" (cf. Judges 3:9; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21), but not saviors apart from God (mibbal`ādhō), nor to be reckoned along with God.

The ultimate delegated savior is Christ:

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...

Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

The dilemmas you have tried to force regarding Christ could be forced in respect to Othniel ben Kenaz, who is called a Savior (mōshīa`), or in respect of the judges of Israel who are called ('elohīm), or in respect of the elect who is "one spirit" with the Lord.

There is only one form of God spirit (the essence of what makes God, God) not many. Thy shall have no other gods? If the essence of what makes God, God is part of both, Father and Son, then there are no “two Gods” or “many gods”-that is why there is only one Rock, one Savior, one Shepard, one Judge and one “first and last” – that is why the all have singular personal pronoun.

Please show a place where the Father and the Son are called a "he," since I do not know of one.

Off course, if you make Jesus one of many gods, as some do, you end up with a barrel of confusion- who is the first and last?

The Father is First without qualification, because He is at minimum causally prior to the Son. Beyond that, both existed before the world.

As for who is "the last", apparently more than one.

I the LORD, the first, and with the last (w'eth-'ahªronīm, plural), I [am] he.

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 12:57 AM

Hi Alam,

God bless.

People could as easily prove that English "one" means a united plurality, and save themselves the trouble of going into the Hebrew. But then English speakers would see the claim for the sophistry it is, as Hebrew speakers do.

You're right ofcourse. You brought up Gregory of Nyssa, who tried to do this very thing in English. He came across looking like a fool.

Alam, the following Jewish link puts it very nicely, from another angle:

http://faithstrengthened.org/ (http://faithstrengthened.org/)

"Suppose, for argument’s sake, Elohim does allude to a plurality of persons, how could the occurrence of Eloha (the singular form of Elohim) be justified? Thus we find in Deuteronomy 32:15, "And he forsook the Eloha [God] who made him," and Psalm 50:22, "Ye who forget Eloha [God]." Again, how can the advocates of the existence of a Trinity account for the alternate employment of Elohim and Eloha? See Isaiah 44:6, "And besides me there is no Elohim;" and, in verse 8, we read, "Is there an Eloha besides me?" If the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity depend on the term "Elohim," the word "Eloha" most decidedly disproves it, since it renders the allusion to a plurality perfectly unnecessary."

Indeed. How could the occurance of Eloha be justified if Elohim denotes a compound unity of persons? Eloha proves God is not a trinity if Elohim is construed a plurality of persons.

A person has to try in order to get something like that wrong!

Alam, then why do fairly intelligent people like John of Ebla, Darth Executor, Jb Holding, Sparko and the like fall for this nonsense? In fact virtually the whole "Christian" world harkens this lie. To me this is a bigger mystery than the actual doctrine of the trinity itself. Wasn't it Hiitler who said "the bigger the lie, the more readily it is believed", or something to that efect?

Echad can be used as a substantive, and even as an adjective meaning "alone."

Thanks.

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 12:59 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Are you discussing things about what l said or about yourself and alam that believe in many gods, which is against the Shema- your Lord God is one, thy shall have no other gods. At least Buzzard denies the spirit of Jesus (gen.1) pre-existed – but his downfall is “the self inflected would of Christianity” his singular personal pronoun inflicted to his own book.

How many saviors are there? Who is the Rock of Israel, the Father or the Son? Who is the first and last? Who is the one Shepard? All these are refereed to with singular personal pronoun- they cannot be another.

There is only one form of God spirit (the essence of what makes God, God) not many. Thy shall have no other gods? If the essence of what makes God, God is part of both, Father and Son, then there are no “two Gods” or “many gods”-that is why there is only one Rock, one Savior, one Shepard, one Judge and one “first and last” – that is why the all have singular personal pronoun.

Off course, if you make Jesus one of many gods, as some do, you end up with a barrel of confusion- who is the first and last?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Please read Alam's post numbered 111.

best wishes,

Recognitiones

October 9th 2005, 01:47 AM

John from Ebla, GO BACK TO EBLA.

John from Ebla

October 9th 2005, 02:27 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Please read Alam's post numbered 111.

best wishes,

l did read it. He confirms what l said, “there cannot be another God” so the spirit of God- that is, the very essence of what makes God, God is one and there cannot be another “ thy shall have no other gods”

There is only one form of God spirit (the essence of what makes God, God) not many- that is why Paul said Jesus is the form of what makes God, God. Not another form, as you and alam believe.

The fact that when singular personal pronoun is used in reference to the one Rock, the one Shepherd, the One Savior and the one First and Last, confirms the fact that there cannot be another. You shall have no other gods. Buzzards “self inflected wound of Christianity” is a wound inflicted into his own theology.

There cannot be another “first and last” if you want to believe in other gods, that is fine. But for me there is only one “First and last” and he gives his glory to no one

Kind regards
John From Ebla.

alam

October 9th 2005, 03:17 AM

John from Ebla,

Assuming you are a Trinitarian and not a Modalist, we are aware of what you believe. The question is whether you can substantiate any of it from Scripture. Not addressing counterarguments does not help.

He confirms what l said, “there cannot be another God”

You have missed this :

"This shows us that God is not the only "God" in some lexical sense. He is the only God in the same way that He is the only Rock, the only Savior. The ones through whom God accomplishes His deeds of salvation became "saviors" (cf. Judges 3:9; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21), but not saviors apart from God (mibbal`ādhō), nor to be reckoned along with God.

...

The dilemmas you have tried to force regarding Christ could be forced in respect to Othniel ben Kenaz, who is called a Savior (mōshīa`), or in respect of the judges of Israel who are called ('elohīm), or in respect of the elect who is "one spirit" with the Lord."

The principle of delegation will help you understand these things, if you give it a chance. As it stands, if your arguments prove anything at all, they prove too much.

But for me there is only one “First and last” and he gives his glory to no one

It is not a matter of what is true for you or for me. If Arianism is true, then it is even true for you, whether you like it or not. Isaiah 48:11 has already come up on this thread, please see post 6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6).

Respond this time.

Cheers. :smile:

John from Ebla

October 9th 2005, 04:40 AM

John from Ebla,

Assuming you are a Trinitarian and not a Modalist, we are aware of what you believe. The question is whether you can substantiate any of it from Scripture. Not addressing counterarguments does not help.

You have missed this :

"This shows us that God is not the only "God" in some lexical sense. He is the only God in the same way that He is the only Rock, the only Savior. The ones through whom God accomplishes His deeds of salvation became "saviors" (cf. Judges 3:9; 2 Kings 13:5; Obadiah 21), but not saviors apart from God (mibbal`ādhō), nor to be reckoned along with God.

...

The dilemmas you have tried to force regarding Christ could be forced in respect to Othniel ben Kenaz, who is called a Savior (mōshīa`), or in respect of the judges of Israel who are called ('elohīm), or in respect of the elect who is "one spirit" with the Lord."

The principle of delegation will help you understand these things, if you give it a chance. As it stands, if your arguments prove anything at all, they prove too much.

It is not a matter of what is true for you or for me. If Arianism is true, then it is even true for you, whether you like it or not. Isaiah 48:11 has already come up on this thread, please see post 6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6).

Respond this time.

Cheers. :smile:

Sorry alam but you are not comparing apples to apples, when it comes to "one savior" every human being can be a savior in the sense you imply, but there is only one GOD, known as savior from eternal damnation, not another- the Father or the Son? This is where the confusion is. :smile:

Every human being can be another god- again as you imply, but Jesus is not another god that we are saved through by believing in him- as you try to teach. The bible say’s ”You shall have no other gods”

The One GOD that is pronounced with a singular pronoun 20,0000 " I am, HE cannot be two gods because singular pronoun is one that does not imply another. "For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us..." (Isaiah 33:22).

Guess what- the Father judges no one and good old Abraham called the malak of the Lord “ judge of the world” If singular pronoun cannot imply another God because “l and Me” does not imply another, then the same law of language is applicable to Judge and King.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

John from Ebla

October 9th 2005, 08:33 AM

John from Ebla, GO BACK TO EBLA.

Greeting,

Have you got anything better to say? l can make similar comments about you, but l have the wisdom not too.

Kind regards.
John from Ebla

alam

October 9th 2005, 08:33 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Sorry alam but you are not comparing apples to apples, when it comes to "one savior" every human being can be a savior in the sense you imply, but there is only one GOD, known as savior from eternal damnation, not another- the Father or the Son? This is where your confusing is.

God has given Christ power to save from damnation. So if you are asking where salvation principally originates, it is from the Father.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

Every human being can be another god- again as you imply,

That's not what I implied. The rulers were elohim, but not elohim acherim from YHWH. Otherwise, how could God tell the people to go to them for judgment and obey them on pain of death (Ex. 22:28; Deut. 17:8-13)? The Torah forbids even doing obeisance to other gods (Exodus 23:24). That was a common gesture of respect, as performed by the prophet Nathan to David (1 Ki. 1:23). The rulers as "gods" cannot be what was meant by "other gods." They were distinct individuals from God, but they were not other "gods" from Him inasmuch as their authority in that capacity was derived from God.

but Jesus is not another god that we are saved through by believing in him- as you try to teach. The bible say’s ”You shall have no other gods”

To believe in Jesus is to believe in God, because he is the Messenger of God.

He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

The One GOD that is pronounced with a singular pronoun 20,0000 " I am, HE cannot be two gods because singular pronoun is one that does not imply another. "For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us..." (Isaiah 33:22).

Guess what- the Father judges no one and good old Abraham called the malak of the Lord “ judge of the world” If singular pronoun cannot imply another God because “l and Me” does not imply another, then the same law of language is applicable to Judge and King.

All judgment is ultimately from God the Father. Christ could not judge if the Father had not in some sense already judged.

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

It was God who commanded Jesus what to speak, and this is the basis of the judgment.

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.

It remains that God is the Judge of all (Heb. 12:23). Christ's judgment reflects God's will.

John from Ebla

October 9th 2005, 09:37 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

God has given Christ power to save from damnation. So if you are asking where salvation principally originates, it is from the Father.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

That's not what I implied. The rulers were elohim, but not elohim acherim from YHWH. Otherwise, how could God tell the people to go to them for judgment and obey them on pain of death (Ex. 22:28; Deut. 17:8-13)? The Torah forbids even doing obeisance to other gods (Exodus 23:24). That was a common gesture of respect, as performed by the prophet Nathan to David (1 Ki. 1:23). The rulers as "gods" cannot be what was meant by "other gods." They were distinct individuals from God, but they were not other "gods" from Him inasmuch as their authority in that capacity was derived from God.

To believe in Jesus is to believe in God, because he is the Messenger of God.

He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

All judgment is ultimately from God the Father. Christ could not judge if the Father had not in some sense already judged.

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

It was God who commanded Jesus what to speak, and this is the basis of the judgment.

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.

It remains that God is the Judge of all (Heb. 12:23). Christ's judgment reflects God's will.

Hi alam and thank you for your reply.

If Jesus did things on his own he would not have been one (God spirit) with the Father, he would have been another, just as you claim he is. He is one with the father and did/does not act independently of the Father, (because they are one) he does not do his own will. So who is the judge and savior when God said he is and not another?

Your reply does not answer who is the savior or who is the Judge, when the O/T clearly say God “is” and none other- you say Jesus is another and God gave salvation through Jesus, another god – but that is contra to what the O/T said, and against John 1:1-3,14

The word was God John1:1
The word was with God, John 1:2 (the word and God are One)
All things came in existence through the word (that was God) John 1:3
The word that was God became flesh: John1:14 not another. John 1:14

This makes (Isaiah 33:22) correct. God is Lord and Savior. Not another. So you are at a lost to explain how Jesus could be another god and not the God that (Isaiah 33:22) say’s was the savior and Judge, which is in agreement with John 1:1-3,14

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 01:06 PM

alam

October 9th 2005, 06:48 PM

Hi alam and thank you for your reply.

Thanks for yours.

If Jesus did things on his own he would not have been one (God spirit) with the Father, he would have been another, just as you claim he is.

I do not claim that. It seems you are trying to misrepresent what I say. From my last post,

The rulers were elohim, but not elohim acherim from YHWH. Otherwise, how could God tell the people to go to them for judgment and obey them on pain of death (Ex. 22:28; Deut. 17:8-13)? The Torah forbids even doing obeisance to other gods (Exodus 23:24). That was a common gesture of respect, as performed by the prophet Nathan to David (1 Ki. 1:23). The rulers as "gods" cannot be what was meant by "other gods." They were distinct individuals from God, but they were not other "gods" from Him inasmuch as their authority in that capacity was derived from God.

He is one with the father and did/does not act independently of the Father, (because they are one) he does not do his own will.

Becoming at one with God in will and purpose is the ideal for all elect.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing [ie. in God's will].

Where we fall short, Jesus did not. This does not mean that he himself was God.

So who is the judge and savior when God said he is and not another?

God the Father. He is the principle of all divine qualities and activities. He may distribute these to creations without ceasing to be their principle.

Your reply does not answer who is the savior or who is the Judge, when the O/T clearly say God “is” and none other- you say Jesus is another and God gave salvation through Jesus, another god – but that is contra to what the O/T said, and against John 1:1-3,14

No, the Old Testament always recognized that God could save and judge through His creations.

וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה

And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war...

This man was a savior, a judge or ruler, and hence an "elohim." Note the similar idea in Acts,

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

Christ as Savior is in typological parallel to the saviors that God raised up in the Old Testament.

AFAICT, your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin.

Isaiah 43:11 does not say that God is the only Savior from sin; it says that He is the only Savior period. You could read into it that God is the only Savior from sin, but we could as well read that God is the sole principle of salvation--apart from Him (mibbal`ādhō) there is no real salvation.

The word was God John1:1
The word was with God, John 1:2 (the word and God are One)
All things came in existence through the word (that was God) John 1:3
The word that was God became flesh: John1:14 not another. John 1:14

The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God.

Here is Origen:

IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION.

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm]

This makes (Isaiah 33:22) correct.

Isaiah 33:22 is obviously correct because it is in the Bible, your application is what is in dispute. All throughout the Bible there are kings and judges and even saviors who are not God. Do I understand you to suggest that they all reigned, judged and saved apart from God? If not, then they were not lords, judges and saviors besides God.

God is Lord and Savior. Not another. So you are at a lost to explain how Jesus could be another god and not the God that (Isaiah 33:22) say’s was the savior and Judge, which is in agreement with John 1:1-3,14

Christ is Lord, Savior and God in a similar manner as the angels and rulers of Israel were moshī`īm and 'elohīm. As with the latter, so with Christ, except that he is inestimably greater than them and entrusted with an inestimably greater work.

When scripture states that God made Christ Lord it should already settle the matter, because you cannot be made into what you already are.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

All the best,

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 09:18 PM

Hi Alam,

God the Father. He is the principle of all divine qualities and activities. He may distribute these to creations without ceasing to be their principle.

No, the Old Testament always recognized that God could save and judge through His creations.

This man was a savior, a judge or ruler, and hence an "elohim." Note the similar idea in Acts,

Christ as Savior is in typological parallel to the saviors that God raised up in the Old Testament.

Christ is Lord, Savior and God in a similar manner as the angels and rulers of Israel were moshī`īm and 'elohīm. As with the latter, so with Christ, except that he is inestimably greater than them and entrusted with an inestimably greater work.

Another excellent post. If John from Ebla still argues with you regarding this issue, then he's either not comprehending what you're saying or simply clutching at straws. For example in Exodus 7:1 God says the following:

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. 1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Must we therefore conclude Moses to be another God and Aaron to be the prophet of another God? Ofcourse not.

John from Ebla

October 9th 2005, 10:08 PM

Hi Alam,

Another excellent post. If John from Ebla still argues with you regarding this issue, then he's either not comprehending what you're saying or simply clutching at straws. For example in Exodus 7:1 God says the following:

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. 1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Must we therefore conclude Moses to be another God and Aaron to be the prophet of another God? Ofcourse not.

I understand what he is saying- but, with due respect, you and alam seem to be preaching the exact " trinity or Duality” that you are telling Crusader to take of his glasses. But l don’t believe Crusader is wrong. :ahem:

While God said, “l am savior” you are saying God and Jesus is- that is two not one and you are also making Jesus another god, a different form of god, That is not what (John 1:1-3,14) is doing. :smile:

“It was God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,……." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

God was in the man Jesus- that is why the man Jesus said l and the father are one. The man Jesus did not do his fleshly will. l and the father are one. The one body of Jesus ( fully human) an the one Spirit God- not another god.

Is 35.3-6: Encourage the exhausted, and strengthen the feeble. 4 Say to those with anxious heart, "Take courage, fear not. Behold, your God will come with vengeance; The recompense of God will come, But He will save you." 5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. 6 Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy...

In the Gospels Jesus did all this. He healed people from the infirmities as described above. He offered salvation to those that accepted him and brought vengeance-Titus destroyed Jerusalem

The prophet said “ Behold your God will come” John 1:1-3,14 say’s that it was God that became flesh. So when people beheld Jesus it was as the prophet foretold, “behold your God” God in the man Jesus- the body covered the spirit.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 9th 2005, 10:15 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Just a note (also to John of Ebla) that I have some things coming up in the next few days, and won't be able to put in as much time on TWeb as during the past week.

For example in Exodus 7:1 God says the following:

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. 1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Must we therefore conclude Moses to be another God and Aaron to be the prophet of another God? Ofcourse not.

That is an excellent example. It is especially significant because, as you know, Moses was a type of Christ the Logos, the True Prophet (Deut. 18:18; Acts 7:37). Paul works with the typology in 2 Corinthians 3:7 ff.

Indeed. How could the occurance of Eloha be justified if Elohim denotes a compound unity of persons? Eloha proves God is not a trinity if Elohim is construed a plurality of persons.

Thank you for the link, Pythagoras. I have heard of Hizzuq Emunah for years but never seen a translation. And it makes a legitimate point.

Alam, then why do fairly intelligent people like John of Ebla, Darth Executor, Jb Holding, Sparko and the like fall for this nonsense? In fact virtually the whole "Christian" world harkens this lie. To me this is a bigger mystery than the actual doctrine of the trinity itself. Wasn't it Hiitler who said "the bigger the lie, the more readily it is believed", or something to that efect?

You know there is tradition for tradition's sake! The Nicene religion has been a constant throughout most of Western history. It is understandable to be impressed by that, especially if this is one's own culture, and consider it providential.

Beyond that, who knows...

God bless,

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 10:42 PM

John of Ebla,

I understand what he is saying- but, with due respect, you and alam seem to be preaching the exact " trinity or Duality” that you are telling Crusader to take of his glasses. But l don’t believe Crusader is wrong. :ahem:

While God said, “l am savior” you are saying God and Jesus is- that is two not one and you are also making Jesus another god, a different form of god, That is not what (John 1:1-3,14) is doing. :smile:

Alam has put the following explanation into five or six differrent ways for you, yet you're still not getting it:

"God the Father. He is the principle of all divine qualities and activities. He may distribute these to creations without ceasing to be their principle."

In other words, God distributed the role of "Saviour" to Jesus Christ as He also delegated the role of "God" to Moses in Exodus 7:1. Neither Christ nor Moses became God as a result of it.
.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 9th 2005, 11:22 PM

Hi Alam,

You know there is tradition for tradition's sake! The Nicene religion has been a constant throughout most of Western history. It is understandable to be impressed by that, especially if this is one's own culture, and consider it providential.

Beyond that, who knows...

God bless,

Yes. The whole Western world, indeed the whole world, has been suckered in by this great mystery which originated in Babylonia. It is impossible to understand Western philosophical thought of the last 1500 years without giving pre-eminence to the "Mystery of the Holy Trinity".

Even apostle John was fascinated by the Church which originated this mystery, but his vigilant angel slapped him out of it:

Rev. 17:6-7,"When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me:"Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns..."

In Rev. 17:3 we are given a glimpse of this trinitarian mystery at it's profoundest , in the miracle of transubstantiation, and of the mother Church which initiates it:

"The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead:

Mystery
Babylon the Great
The mother of prostitutes
And of the abominations of the earth..."

John from Ebla

October 10th 2005, 01:44 AM

Hi Alam,

Yes. The whole Western world, indeed the whole world, has been suckered in by this great mystery which originated in Babylonia. It is impossible to understand Western philosophical thought of the last 1500 years without giving pre-eminence to the "Mystery of the Holy Trinity".

Even apostle John was fascinated by the Church which originated this mystery, but his vigilant angel slapped him out of it:

Rev. 17:6-7,"When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me:"Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns..."

In Rev. 17:3 we are given a glimpse of this trinitarian mystery at it's profoundest , in the miracle of transubstantiation, and of the mother Church which initiates it:

"The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead:

Mystery
Babylon the Great
The mother of prostitutes
And of the abominations of the earth..."

Sorry,

But alam did not inspire the word of God, God did. What is written in the bible, John1:1-3,14 is not what you and alam are saying.

God said he is Savior and you are trying to teach that God and Jesus (god) are saviors. alma told Crusader "take your trinity glasses off" (l am not saying Crusader was wrong) so l assume you can see there are two saviors in what you are saying- God, and according to you and alam, Jesus (god)

Can you count the saviors? 1 (God) + 1 (god)= 2 saviors :ahem:

I am savior, means the one that said it- not another.
1 am God, means he cannot be another form of god

PS. If you want to disscuss the Mother whore, perhapes another thread could be started.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 10th 2005, 03:15 AM

But alam did not inspire the word of God, God did.

No offense but :duh: !!! Who made this an issue?

alma told Crusader "take your trinity glasses off" (l am not saying Crusader was wrong) so

Assuming you mean "alam" I never said that to Crusader -- you can ask her. Nor am I on record on TWeb condemning the belief in a trinity as such. This shows how little you are following the thread or even trying.

When you are ready to have a discussion, I may be around, but not for a few days. You could take this time to prepare a reasonable response to post 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122).

John from Ebla

October 10th 2005, 04:18 AM

No offense but :duh: !!! Who made this an issue?

Assuming you mean "alam" I never said that to Crusader -- you can ask her. Nor am I on record on TWeb condemning the belief in a trinity as such. This shows how little you are following the thread or even trying.

When you are ready to have a discussion, I may be around, but not for a few days. You could take this time to prepare a reasonable response to post 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122).

1) Pythagoras made it an issue- telling to read what you wrote. l did read it and it's clear that in what both of you imply, there are two saviors. 1 (God) + 1(god) =2. The two of them are required to make the one savior- l am savior” implies the one that said it and not another

Yes you can have theological hypnosis- but it does not change the fact. 1 +1=2. Will read 122 again. :smile:

2) l mean Pythagoras, post 5 . l replied to his post but put your name down by mistake- this is because he got me to read what you originally posted, but in his post. Sorry for the mix up. :blush:

Kind regards
John from Ebla.

Pythagoras

October 10th 2005, 06:59 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

l did read it and it's clear that in what both of you imply, there are two saviors. 1 (God) + 1(god) =2. The two of them are required to make the one savior- l am savior” implies the one that said it and not another

Yes you can have theological hypnosis- but it does not change the fact. 1 +1=2. Will read 122 again.

Understand that Jesus Christ is “saviour” because God has granted him power and authority to save on God's behalf. By himself Jesus can do nothing(John 5:30). There is only one “Saviour”, the Almighty God who has empowered Jesus Christ. Moses(or god, ref. Ex 7:1) parted the sea(ref. Ex. 14:13-31). Do you believe two "Gods" parted the sea? If no, then why do you think there are two "Saviours" of mankind?

But trinitarians believe in 3 actual Gods("persons") in the "holy trinity" .

best wishes John,

John from Ebla

October 10th 2005, 08:31 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

Understand that Jesus Christ is “saviour” because God has granted him power and authority to save on God's behalf. By himself Jesus can do nothing(John 5:30). There is only one “Saviour”, the Almighty God who has empowered Jesus Christ. Moses(or god, ref. Ex 7:1) parted the sea(ref. Ex. 14:13-31). Do you believe two "Gods" parted the sea? If no, then why do you think there are two "Saviours" of mankind?

But trinitarians believe in 3 actual Gods("persons") in the "holy trinity" .

best wishes John,

Why is so hard for you to see that you fell into your own pit. :smile:

"l am savior" “l” singular personal pronoun means the one that said it, not another.

Your savior is made up of 1(God) +1(god)=2 saviors

God was in the body of Jesus reconciling the world 2 Cor 5:19. Off-course, this is not what Jehovah Witness teaches.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Topherlee

October 10th 2005, 05:24 PM

Jesus is not the father because he cried out to the Father- but Jesus cannot be another god because (Ex 20:3) states “You shall have no other gods” This is clear, if you agree that the spirit of God in Gen 1 is the spirit of the Messiah- it cannot be another god.

God is spirit- they are one God spirit not another. We are not the spirit of God- the very essence of God, that which makes God, God.

As for John 17:18: Yes we are one in the Body of Christ even though we are many, just as Jesus is one with the Father- but our spirit did "not" create the world or exist as God. (Spirit)

Kind regards
John from Ebla

I think, no insult intended, that you hear what you want to hear. You say that Jesus is not the Father, but the Son, but yet, they are both God - If I understand you correclty. The point you miss, and what everyone who believes in the Trinity misses, is that God did not create Jesus to be another god, he created Jesus to be our Lord and Savior, our King. This is correct; (Ex 20:3) states “You shall have no other gods”. Jesus is our King as appointed by God, his Father and our Father. Jesus refers to us as his bretheren.
Ponder on this; what does it mean when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Also, why are angels said to be sons of God and why we are referred to as God's children, hence, sons of God. Ask yourself, Satan was an angel, a son of God, does he consider himself a son of God?

Jesus is to be;
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The Muslim religion of Islam puts it, which I think is beautifully illustrated:
Islam; In Arabic, Islām from the root 'slm' (silm), to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace; Islam literally meaning "The active willful surrender, submission, obedience, in purity to the will of another (Allah) in complete peace." (understood as submission to God) and is described as a Dīn or Deen, meaning "way of life" and/or "religion." Etymologically, it is derived from the same root as, for example, Salām meaning "peace" (also a common salutation). The word Muslim is also related to the word Islām and means one who "surrenders" or "submits" to God. Although both "Islam" and "Muslim" are often pronounced with z sounds, the s should be pronounced not as a z but as a s, like in bliss.

Satan is the opposer, refused to be considered a son of God. He is his own god. Jesus on the other hand, accepted God Almighty, Jehovah, as his Creator, Father. Jesus is the faithful and true witness.

Pythagoras

October 10th 2005, 06:41 PM

Hi John,

Why is so hard for you to see that you fell into your own pit. :smile:

"l am savior" “l” singular personal pronoun means the one that said it, not another.

Your savior is made up of 1(God) +1(god)=2 saviors

God was in the body of Jesus reconciling the world 2 Cor 5:19. Off-course, this is not what Jehovah Witness teaches.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Even after numerous explanations , you still don't get it. At this point all I can recommend is that you please revisit my posts and alam's on this issue.

I hope one day you come to a saving knowledge of the true Lord Jesus Christ and him crucified. Please understand that the "tritiny" is worship of three Gods in the guise of one.

best wishes,

P.S. Could you please answer the questions posed to you in post 121?

John from Ebla

October 10th 2005, 10:12 PM

Hi John of Ebla,

How could only the second person of the trinity become a man, and not the other two persons in light of the trinitarian doctrine of the perichoresis of persons? How can the Father and Spirit only indwell Jesus (as it is commonly stated), while the eternal Son is actually Jesus' essential deity? How can one separate the persons like that without confessing three gods, only one of which became incarnated, and the other two just tag along?

For the rest,following is trinitarianism depicted in art form in Buddhist and Hindu thought:

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm)

Plate1(trinitarian), plate 2(oneness) and plate 5(tritheism)

Hindus who follow Shiva worship him as Creator, Preserver, and Judge, and timeless interpenetration of these three modes of existence is equivalent to the perichoresis of the "Christian" Trinity.

best wishes,

Hi Pythagoras,.

God is spirit. The spirit of God is not a person (flesh and bones) The spirit of God is the essence of what makes God, God. This is why (2 Cor 5:19) say's "God was in Christ" and (John1:1-3,) The word was God and it became flesh.

Your argument is that God cannot do that- so the best way you go around that is by making another god, doing exactly what the Shema is telling you not to do.

If God was flesh and bones then l would agree with you, how can one body get into another- but this is not the case, God is spirit.

"God in Christ" cannot be another God- it is the same spirit, not another. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 12:14 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Could you please answer my questions from post 121?

Thanks,

John from Ebla

October 11th 2005, 01:13 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Could you please answer my questions from post 121?

Thanks,

l did, they are One God Spirit- not flesh and bones as the one Human race is. We have a different understaning of what God is. If you want me to understand you- define your god. E.g. is small or big, does he cover all the universe or is he outside the universe- what are some of the things he cannot do ext

According to the New Testament- who is in the believers?
(1) The Holy Spirit, (2) Christ, (3) God- the reason you find scripture support 1,2 or 3 is because they are one.

If you fill two bottles up with water from the one fountain- would you be silly enough to say that one bottle is not water. Or is the fountain water and not the water itself.

God is spirit not “flesh and bones”. If you believe otherwise then we would have to agree that we disagree. :smile:

Kind regards
John form Ebla

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 01:34 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

l did, they are One God Spirit-

But your response is senseless. Not that anything more could have been expected.

If you want me to understand you- define your god. E.g. is small or big, does he cover all the universe or is he outside the universe- what are some of the things he cannot do ext

God is an absolute One, not a compound unity .

According to the New Testament- who is in the believers?
(1) The Holy Spirit, (2) Christ, (3) God- the reason you find scripture support 1,2 or 3 is because they are one.

The Spirit of God. The same Spirit that was also in Christ.

If you fill two bottles up with water from the one fountain- would you be silly enough to say that one bottle is not water. Or is the fountain water and not the water itself.

There you go again with your bottle nonsense.

We have a different understaning of what God is.

Yes we do. You believe in three Gods .

God is spirit not “flesh and bones”. If you believe otherwise then we would have to agree that we disagree. :smile:

You keep on saying God is not "flesh and bones" yet you don't mean it, since Christ who was certainly "flesh and bones" is God in your opinion. How to take you seriously?

best wishes,

alam

October 11th 2005, 02:19 AM

1)l did read it and it's clear that in what both of you imply, there are two saviors.

Yes, you are getting the idea. In terms of concrete reality there is more than one savior. We learn that from the Bible, not the arithmetic you have presented.

And saviors (mōshī`īm) shall ascend upon mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.

Does this contradict Isaiah 43:11?

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior (mōshīa`)

Up until now I have been going along with the way you interpreting this in English and not specifically contesting your interpretation of "besides" as exclusive, because such a verse as Obadiah 21 and others should have been enough to show that using the verse this way is wrong.

However, even in terms of the Hebrew our point can be born out. The word for "besides" there (bal`ªdhēy) can also mean "without," see Gesenius. This appears in Isaiah 36:10, where the servant of Sennacherib said, "And am I now come up without the LORD..." Same word there as in Isaiah 43:11. In the Hebrew of Isaiah 43:11, when God says "beside me" it is the same as saying "without me."

This is how Obadiah 21 agrees with Isaiah 43:11. Although there are many saviors, none of them are saviors without the LORD. This was true of Othniel ben Kenaz and Ehud ben Gera, whom God made saviors (Judges 3:9,15). It was also true of Jesus Christ, whom God made a Savior. None of them are saviors besides or without the LORD. He is the principle of salvation.

Much the same as with bal`ªdhēy seems to hold for other expressions translated as "besides" in Isaiah, zūlāh and biltī. With pronominal suffix the former means "properly I being removed, or more closely still, the removing of me, through the removing of me" (Gesenius). If God was removed, there would be no god, for He is the principle of Deity and all depend on Him. Scripture is very clear that there are "gods" who are not God Himself (e.g. Psa. 82:1,6), so, we may be better off understanding zūlāthī in Isaiah to mean "apart from me," as Geza Vermes translates it, imo with contextual justification, in 4Q491 fr. 11 (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English p. 185). And according to Gesenius the latter, biltī can mean "without" (Isa. 10:4)

The fact is that Isaiah 43:11 says nothing whatsoever that is contrary to our beliefs.

Out of time now. Hopefully more to come.

Yes you can have theological hypnosis

You certainly can.

Will read 122 again. :smile:

Please be sure to. I look forward to your response! :thumb:

2) l mean Pythagoras, post 5 . l replied to his post but put your name down by mistake- this is because he got me to read what you originally posted, but in his post. Sorry for the mix up. :blush:

Kind regards
John from Ebla.

No problem. I am sorry for generalizing from that.

All the best.

John from Ebla

October 11th 2005, 02:58 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

But your response is senseless. Not that anything more could have been expected.

God is an absolute One, not a compound unity .

The Spirit of God. The same Spirit that was also in Christ.

There you go again with your bottle nonsense.

Yes we do. You believe in three Gods .

You keep on saying God is not "flesh and bones" yet you don't mean it, since Christ who was certainly "flesh and bones" is God in your opinion. How to take you seriously?

best wishes,

Can you at least define your god, so people can understand you? l can reply with silly quotes just like you, but l have the wisdom to do better. :smile:

Logically, l see you would call the fountain water, while the truth is that water in itself is water, air in itself is air and the spirit of God is the essence of what God is.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 05:39 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

Can you at least define your god,

I already did last post. -- the Shema. If that's not enough, I can't help you.

so people can understand you? l can reply with silly quotes just like you,

Is telling you God is an absolute One a "silly quote"?

but l have the wisdom to do better. :smile:

Do you consider yourself wise?.

Logically, l see you would call the fountain water, while the truth is that water in itself is water, air in itself is air and the spirit of God is the essence of what God is.

You keep on spewing this nonsense . Why?

On the one hand you say God is not "flesh and bones" ,on the other hand you say Christ (who was certainly "flesh and bones") is God Almighty? How to take you seriously?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 07:08 AM

Hi alam,

Yes, you are getting the idea. In terms of concrete reality there is more than one savior. We learn that from the Bible, not the arithmetic you have presented.

.

This is what Tertullian wrote:

"but that of old time
two were preached as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ
came he should both be recognised as God and have the name of
Lord, because he is the son of him who is God and Lord.
For if there were found in the scriptures one Person both of God
and of the Lord, rightly would Christ not have been admitted
to the name of God and Lord (because none other besides one
God and one Lord was preached), and it would have come about
that the Father himself would have seemed to have come down from heaven (because we were reading of one God and one
Lord), and darkness would have fallen upon his whole economy
which was designed and administered for material of faith. But
when Christ came and was known by us as being he who of old
time had caused plurality by being made a second beside the
Father, and a third along with the Spirit, and now that through
him the Father was more fully made manifest, the name of God
and of Lord was reduced again to union.. but
shall follow the apostle, with the result that if the Father and the
Son are to be mentioned together, I call the Father "God"
and name Jesus Christ " the Lord ".4 But Christ by himself I
shall be able to call God, as does the same apostle when he
says, Of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.5"

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm)

130 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

</P>

</P>

John from Ebla

October 11th 2005, 07:29 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

I already did last post. -- the Shema. If that's not enough, I can't help you.

Is telling you God is an absolute One a "silly quote"?

Do you consider yourself wise?.

You keep on spewing this nonsense . Why?

On the one hand you say God is not "flesh and bones" ,on the other hand you say Christ (who was certainly "flesh and bones") is God Almighty? How to take you seriously?

best wishes,

I will ask you for the second time. Define God. E.g. big, small, spirit, matter, here, there- the way your brain is capable off. If you cannot, l see no point of discussing with you

The “Echad” in the Shema is the same as the “Echad” in genesis for husband and wife. The “Jewish law of agency” is not in the tanakh or the New Testament- so you will have to do better.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 02:54 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

I will ask you for the second time. Define God. E.g. big, small, spirit, matter, here, there- the way your brain is capable off. If you cannot, l see no point of discussing with you

Beyond reciting the Shema and defining Him as Spirit, I cannot say anymore. He's not like the man-god who can be designated "big", "small" and so forth. I would not even dare to speculate:

Behold Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One God.

The “Echad” in the Shema is the same as the “Echad” in genesis for husband and wife.

Yes, the word Echad is used in both cases.

The “Jewish law of agency” is not in the tanakh or the New Testament- so you will have to do better.

Filter Alam's posts on this thread regarding this matter.

best wishes,

P.S. Are you going to tell me why your god is "flesh and bones" ?

John from Ebla

October 11th 2005, 10:21 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

Beyond reciting the Shema and defining Him as Spirit, I cannot say anymore. He's not like the man-god who can be designated "big", "small" and so forth. I would not even dare to speculate:

Behold Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One God.

Yes, the word Echad is used in both cases.

Filter Alam's posts on this thread regarding this matter.

best wishes,

P.S. Are you going to tell me why your god is "flesh and bones" ?

Yes I did and will again.

God is spirit and a "spirit" can be in a body, but it is not the body. The body was Jesus the spirit inside was the spirit of God.

PS. l will respond to alam soon. (She/he said, will be away for 2 days, why respond to have you jumping in with your Nonsense, Nonsense)

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 11th 2005, 11:20 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

God is spirit and a "spirit" can be in a body, but it is not the body. The body was Jesus the spirit inside was the spirit of God.

The only problem with the above is that it's not biblical. God is nowhere described in the bible as a Spirit residing in flesh and bones; angels maybe, but not God.

Infact Catholics go so far as to think a wafer is God . Where does the madness end?

P.S. Thanks for finally admitting your God is flesh and bones.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 01:54 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

The only problem with the above is that it's not biblical. God is nowhere described in the bible as a Spirit residing in flesh and bones; angels maybe, but not God.

Infact Catholics go so far as to think a wafer is God . Where does the madness end?

P.S. Thanks for finally admitting your God is flesh and bones.

best wishes,

Not biblical. Well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

The word was God and the word became flesh. (John 1:1-3,14) and (2 Cor:5-19) God was in Christ.

Equation: God (Spirit) Christ (Flesh and bone) and No, God is not a wafer

l never step foot in a Catholic church, but just to add a bit of spice to what you said-that is, Catholic go as far as making a wafer- the Jews at the waling wall were making a chicken God (l have the Photo the Rabbi and with the chicken up against the wall doing the ceremony)

Now tell me, how can l make a mule drink?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 12th 2005, 02:21 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

Not biblical. Well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

The word was God and the word became flesh. (John 1:1-3,14) and (2 Cor:5-19) God was in Christ.

Equation: God (Spirit) Christ (Flesh and bone) and No, God is not a wafer

What's this mumbo-jumbo? As usual your equations are false.

I will let a great Saint of Christ rebuke you in this regard.Origen,
born of Christian parents A.D. 185, the most prolific of all early Christian writers. Trained by Clement of Alexandria. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith. He was not a trinitarian.

Centuries before the JW's, and expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen wrote,

“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.” Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

l never step foot in a Catholic church, but just to add a bit of spice to what you said-that is, Catholic go as far as making a wafer-

There is no difference betwen the one who makes God a man or the one who makes Him into a wafer. Both are insane.

the Jews at the waling wall were making a chicken God (l have the Photo the Rabbi and with the chicken up against the wall doing the ceremony)

The trinity seems to have rendered you cockoo.

Now tell me, how can l make a mule drink?

Repent of the worship of three gods and acknowledge the One true God.
Do you not know the Saints are willng to lay down their lives for this truth?

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 02:40 AM

Hi John of Ebla,

What's this mumbo-jumbo? As usual your equations are false.

I will let a great Saint of Christ rebuke you in this regard.Origen,
born of Christian parents A.D. 185, the most prolific of all early Christian writers. Trained by Clement of Alexandria. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith. He was not a trinitarian.

Centuries before the JW's, and expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen wrote,

“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.” Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

There is no difference betwen the one who makes God a man or the one who makes Him into a wafer. Both are insane.

The trinity seems to have rendered you cockoo.

Repent of the worship of three gods and acknowledge the One true God.
Do you not know the Saints are willng to lay down their lives for this truth?

best wishes,

You have not answered my question. How do l make a mule drink?

The Chicken quote is a fact: Catholic use wafer and think it is God, taking awaying their sins. The Jews Use Chicken and think it iss God, taking away their Sins and passing it over to the chicken.

If "Shuyaddragon" is in China he may have see the same paper. Quote "may have seen"

Kind Rgards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 12th 2005, 03:06 AM

Hi John,

The Jews Use Chicken and think it iss God,

Can you please support your claim that the Jews think a Chicken is God?

I think the trinity has done you in.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 03:29 AM

Hi John,

Can you please support your claim that the Jews think a Chicken is God?

I think the trinity has done you in.

best wishes,

Only God can forgives sins. l have the paper and the article with the Rabbi holding the Chicken against the wall and asking for his sins to be forgiven. Do you think all Jews are sane, just because they are Jews? If Yes, then let me refresh your memory. :smile:

Sabbatai's announcement in 1665, evoked an unheard of response; thousands of Jews from all over Europe and the Middle East sold their belongings and went to join Sabbatai in Palestine. Must have been big let down.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 12th 2005, 04:39 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Only God can forgives sins.

No. Read John 20:23.

l have the paper and the article with the Rabbi holding the Chicken against the wall and asking for his sins to be forgiven.

Just out of curiosity, is Rabbi's chicken "transubstantiated", by any chance?

Do you think all Jews are sane, just because they are Jews? If Yes, then let me refresh your memory. :smile:

I have high regard for the Jews.

John, you're going cookoo because you have dabbled much too deeply and for far too long in the triune God madness.

I'm no longer having a conversation with a rational person.-- you think Jewish Rabbis believe God is a Chicken.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 05:15 AM

Hi Phthagoras,

I have high regard for the Jews.

best wishes,

What about for Sabbatai's Zevi and the Jews that followed that followed him?

PS alam, when your back let me know so l may place a response for you on your post (122)

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 12th 2005, 05:46 AM

Hi John,

If God can be in flesh and bones(Jesus), why do you discount the notion that He could be in a wafer?

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 08:49 AM

Hi John,

If God can be in flesh and bones(Jesus), why do you discount the notion that He could be in a wafer?

best wishes,

Wafer or chicken – they are both in the same class. There is a verse in the O/T about the Mother whore, "like mother so is the daughter" if you care to start another thread l will discuss it there with you. :ahem:

God is not flesh and bones. I keep on writing one thing you keep on seeing another. So lest start from scrap.

Do you know anything about Jewish feasts- for example, the feast of Tabernacle? :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 12th 2005, 01:21 PM

Hi John,

Wafer or chicken – they are both in the same class.

The major difference being that Catholics believe the wafer becomes God but Jews when they offer burnt offerings(as in Lev. 1:14-17, pigeon or dove) do not believe their sin or burnt offerings literally become God .

There is a verse in the O/T about the Mother whore, "like mother so is the daughter" if you care to start another thread l will discuss it there with you. :ahem:

OK.

God is not flesh and bones. I keep on writing one thing you keep on seeing another. So lest start from scrap.

On the one hand you tell me Jesus (who was certainly flesh and bones) is God, on the other you say God is not flesh and blood. You're not making any sense.

Do you know anything about Jewish feasts- for example, the feast of Tabernacle? :smile:

I suppose next you're going to tell me Jews perform the "miracle of transubstantation" at the feast of Tabernacle.

You're insane.

John from Ebla

October 12th 2005, 10:35 PM

Hi John,

The major difference being that Catholics believe the wafer becomes God but Jews when they offer burnt offerings(as in Lev. 1:14-17, pigeon or dove) do not believe their sin or burnt offerings literally become God .

OK.

On the one hand you tell me Jesus (who was certainly flesh and bones) is God, on the other you say God is not flesh and blood. You're not making any sense.

I suppose next you're going to tell me Jews perform the "miracle of transubstantation" at the feast of Tabernacle.

You're insane.

Like Mother so is the daughter. The rabbi did not make an offering he was doing just as the Pope " the Chicken takes away his sins. (l am waiting for you to start the thread because you first mentioned "the great Whore"

Rather than saying what you think l am, can you just tell me about the Feast of Tabernacle.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 12:33 AM

Hi John,

The rabbi did not make an offering he was doing just as the Pope " the Chicken takes away his sins.

The Rabbis do not believe their sin offering is God. The Catholics believe the transubstantiated wafer is God(Christ).

You're insane. I'm going to limit my responses to you .

best wishes ,

John from Ebla

October 13th 2005, 01:11 AM

Hi John,

The Rabbis do not believe their sin offering is God. The Catholics believe the transubstantiated wafer is God(Christ).

You're insane. I'm going to limit my responses to you .

best wishes ,

l have the article with pictures- The Rabbi holds the chicken against the wall and asked's it to remove his sins to it. End of story. Wafer or Chicken it is the same. Like Mother like Daughter. The mother say's "come to mama" and that is what you did.. Now mama is showing you the chicken.

Kind Regards.
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 03:18 AM

Hi John,

l have the article with pictures- The Rabbi holds the chicken against the wall and asked's it to remove his sins to it. End of story. Wafer or Chicken it is the same.

Please realize Jewish Rabbis do not believe their sin offering literally becomes God . Catholics belive the wafer literally becomes God. Do you understand the difference, John?

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to present him to the Lord in Jerusalem. There they made a sacrifice to God. -- "a pair of doves or two pigeons". (Luke 2:24) Are you suggesting God was literally in that "pair of doves" , or those two pigeons ? Yes or No?

Like Mother like Daughter. The mother say's "come to mama" and that is what you did.. Now mama is showing you the chicken.

You're going cuckoo.

Dear brother John, reject the trinity. It is driving you insane. . I shall pray for you .

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 13th 2005, 03:52 AM

Hi John,

Please realize Jewish Rabbis do not believe their sin offering literally becomes God . Catholics belive the wafer literally becomes God. Do you understand the difference, John?

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to present him to the Lord in Jerusalem. There they made a sacrifice to God. -- "a pair of doves or two pigeons". (Luke 2:24) Are you suggesting God was literally in that "pair of doves" , or those two pigeons ? Yes or No?

You're going cuckoo.

Dear brother John, reject the trinity. It is driving you insane. . I shall pray for you .

best wishes,

l think the Rabbi's that don't beleive in Jesus are going cookoo.

You are yet to tell me about the feast of Tabernacle. E.g what does it mean or why are people (Jews) still sitting in booths on that feast.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 04:18 AM

Hi John,

Was the "real presence of God" in the pair of doves Mary and Joseph offered to God in Jerusalem ? Yes or No.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 13th 2005, 04:35 AM

Hi John,

Was the "real presence of God" in the pair of doves Mary and Joseph offered to God in Jerusalem ? Yes or No.

best wishes,

l think trinity has afftected your brain not mine.

God is not wafer, God is not Chicken, God is not a pair of doves. Rabbi and Pope are the same.

Now tell me about the feast of tabernacle?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 13th 2005, 04:36 AM

Hi John,

Was the "real presence of God" in the pair of doves Mary and Joseph offered to God in Jerusalem ? Yes or No.

best wishes,

Sorry for the double post.

l think trinity has afftected your brain not mine.

God is not wafer, God is not Chicken, God is not a pair of doves. Rabbi and Pope are the same.

Now, tell me about the feast of tabernacle

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 01:45 PM

Greetings John from Ebla,

God is not wafer,
Correct.

God is not Chicken,
Correct.

God is not a pair of doves.
Correct.

Then why do you think God is a man ?.

Rabbi and Pope are the same.

No. In order to defend the trinity doctrine you're forced to lie. The rabbi does not believe his sin offering is God at any point. The Pope on the other hand believes the "transubstantitated" wafer is God. Therefore Rabbi and Pope are "not the same" .

Now, tell me about the feast of tabernacle

For what?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 04:09 PM

Hi Alam,

The Catholics or trinitarians teach that a wafer becomes God and is to be worshipped as God.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm\ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm)

I suppose it's not much of a stretch to go from "God is a man" to "God is a wafer". What are your thoughts on this?

roddmann

October 13th 2005, 05:00 PM

By death Jesus was speaking of His physical human death, which didn't end anything for Him. He preached to the saints in Hell and on the 3rd day He rose and 40 days later He ascended to the father.

John 10:11-18

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.

Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 22:13

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Revelation 1:17-18

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

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 05:53 PM

Hi roddmann,

By death Jesus was speaking of His physical human death, which didn't end anything for Him.
.

How can you say Jesus's physical human death didn't end anything for him in light of the hypostatic union ? The Council of Chalcedon (451), declared that " in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person" -- eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). In Christ the divine and Human natures are "substantially united" and cannot be separated; one dies, the other dies.

Furthermore if Christ was the "Second Adam" and if "Christ tasted death for all men"as the bible says (i.e. for Adam and for all Adam's descendants), then his soul must of necessity have died since the first Adam's body didn't die on the day he disobeyed God but his soul.. Unless ofcourse you want to argue the line that Christ didn't die as Adam did, or as we do?

best wishes,

alam

October 13th 2005, 07:43 PM

PS. l will respond to alam soon. (She/he said, will be away for 2 days, why respond to have you jumping in with your Nonsense, Nonsense)

I am a man. Place cursor over the penguin under my username. Back btw.

alam

October 13th 2005, 07:52 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Hi Alam,

The Catholics or trinitarians teach that a wafer becomes God and is to be worshipped as God.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm\

I suppose it's not much of a stretch to go from "God is a man" to "God is a wafer". What are your thoughts on this?

Agree. I see no reason to think bread and wine turns into literal flesh and blood.

We also, our Father, thank thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, and for his precious body, whereof we celebrate this representation (antitupa), as himself appointed us, "to show forth his death."

This is what Tertullian wrote:

"but that of old time
two were preached as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ
came he should both be recognised as God and have the name of
Lord, because he is the son of him who is God and Lord.
For if there were found in the scriptures one Person both of God
and of the Lord, rightly would Christ not have been admitted
to the name of God and Lord (because none other besides one
God and one Lord was preached), and it would have come about
that the Father himself would have seemed to have come down from heaven (because we were reading of one God and one
Lord), and darkness would have fallen upon his whole economy
which was designed and administered for material of faith. But
when Christ came and was known by us as being he who of old
time had caused plurality by being made a second beside the
Father, and a third along with the Spirit, and now that through
him the Father was more fully made manifest, the name of God
and of Lord was reduced again to union.. but
shall follow the apostle, with the result that if the Father and the
Son are to be mentioned together, I call the Father "God"
and name Jesus Christ " the Lord ".4 But Christ by himself I
shall be able to call God, as does the same apostle when he
says, Of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.5"

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm

130 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Thank you for posting that. The Logos Christology of the early Church Fathers was very different from the semi-Sabellianism that seems to pass today.

God bless

John from Ebla

October 13th 2005, 10:22 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Agree. I see no reason to think bread and wine turns into literal flesh and blood.

We also, our Father, thank thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, and for his precious body, whereof we celebrate this representation (antitupa), as himself appointed us, "to show forth his death."

Thank you for posting that. The Logos Christology of the early Church Fathers was very different from the semi-Sabellianism that seems to pass today.

God bless

Bread and wine does not turn into flesh and Blood. The spilling of blood ended when our "passover lamb" Chirst was crucified.

PS will give you a response to your post 122 latter to day.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 13th 2005, 10:33 PM

Hi John,

Bread and wine does not turn into flesh and Blood. The spilling of blood ended when our "passover lamb" Chirst was crucified.

PS will give you a response to your post 122 latter to day.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Isn't it equally outrageous to say Jesus (a man) is God as to say a wafer (food) is God ?

By the way, one of the cornerstones of the triune Godhead is the hypostatic union, the union of the two natures, one divine and the other human, in the person of Jesus Christ. As the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures (divinity and humanity); which natures remain distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man. The two natures are perfectly united (hypostasis) forever in the one person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is therefore “two Whats (divine nature and human nature) and one Who (single person).”
So even in death, Christ could not have been separated from his "humanity"

The following conclusion therefore is inexcapable: one-third of the trinity died(the Son), while two-thirds didn't(Father and Holy Spirit).

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 03:00 AM

Hi John,

Isn't it equally outrageous to say Jesus (a man) is God as to say a wafer (food) is God ?

By the way, one of the cornerstones of the triune Godhead is the hypostatic union, the union of the two natures, one divine and the other human, in the person of Jesus Christ. As the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures (divinity and humanity); which natures remain distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man. The two natures are perfectly united (hypostasis) forever in the one person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is therefore “two Whats (divine nature and human nature) and one Who (single person).”
So even in death, Christ could not have been separated from his "humanity"

The following conclusion therefore is inexcapable: one-third of the trinity died(the Son), while two-thirds didn't(Father and Holy Spirit).

Do you have a mental problem? :smile: l keep on saying God is not wafer, God is not bread and wine, God is not Chicken. GOD IS SPIRIT

The scriptures say, "GOD was in Christ" (2 Cor5:19) and "the Word was GOD and became flesh" (John 1:1-3,13) The scriptures do not say- God became Chicken or Wafer, or Dove or wine.

Is that too hard for your brain to understand? So, it's either your own mind that is affected by many gods or you are just here to stir.

Explain why a Spirit cannot be in Christ. Can a spirit be divided? Does it become half of what it is? Is that your definition of Spirit? You have given no indication of what you think and believe in. :ahem:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 04:39 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Stop getting excited .

If God can be in a man then why can't He also be in a wafer("transubstantiation")? It's not that much of a stretch. After all it is from the Catholic Church that people like you derive fundamental trinitarian concepts like the "hypostatic union" . Why do you disagree with your mother ?

best wishes,

P.S. Do you even believe in the "hypostatic union"? Yes or No?

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 04:47 AM

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 04:54 AM

John from Ebla,

Because it is not in the scriptures. It is made up by the Pope just as the Chicken is made up by the Rabbi.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Coudn't the doctrine of the trinity also have been made up by the Catholic Church?

Second request: Do you believe in the hypostatic union ?

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 05:17 AM

John from Ebla,

Coudn't the doctrine of the trinity also have been made up by the Catholic Church?

Second request: Do you believe in the hypostatic union ?

best wishes,

Read your Bible before you discuss scriptures. l believe the scripture- your beloved word (trinity) is not in the scriptures, but the plurality of God is. The Jewish law of agency is not in scriptures, but the plurality of God is.

Which one has more scipture support- Jewish law of angency or Your beloved word? :blush:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 05:40 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Read your Bible before you discuss scriptures. l believe the scripture- your beloved word (trinity) is not in the scriptures, but the plurality of God is.

Indeed the word "trinity" does not exist in the bible and should arouse your suspicions. As for your claim that God is a "plurality", there is no basis at all in all of scripture for such an interpretation. Ironically the Protestant Church derived it's trinitarian doctrine from the Roman Church!

The Jewish law of agency is not in scriptures, but the plurality of God is.

I'm afraid a careful, truthful scrutinity of scriptures always shows the "plurality of God" is not in the bible.

Third request: Do you believe in the hypostatic union?

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 05:54 AM

Thanks for yours.

I do not claim that. It seems you are trying to misrepresent what I say. From my last post,

The rulers were elohim, but not elohim acherim from YHWH. Otherwise, how could God tell the people to go to them for judgment and obey them on pain of death (Ex. 22:28; Deut. 17:8-13)? The Torah forbids even doing obeisance to other gods (Exodus 23:24). That was a common gesture of respect, as performed by the prophet Nathan to David (1 Ki. 1:23). The rulers as "gods" cannot be what was meant by "other gods." They were distinct individuals from God, but they were not other "gods" from Him inasmuch as their authority in that capacity was derived from God.

Becoming at one with God in will and purpose is the ideal for all elect.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing [ie. in God's will].

Where we fall short, Jesus did not. This does not mean that he himself was God.

God the Father. He is the principle of all divine qualities and activities. He may distribute these to creations without ceasing to be their principle.

No, the Old Testament always recognized that God could save and judge through His creations.

וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־ײ וַיָּקֶם ײ מוֹשִׁיעַ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם אֵת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז... וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ־ײ וַיִּשׁפּט אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה

And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, and the LORD raised up a savior unto the children of Israel [who] saved them, [even] Othniel the son of Kenaz... And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war...

This man was a savior, a judge or ruler, and hence an "elohim." Note the similar idea in Acts,

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.

Christ as Savior is in typological parallel to the saviors that God raised up in the Old Testament.

AFAICT, your response is that God cannot make a subordinate Savior from sin. Since this seems to be the essence of your present argument, you need to show us where you have learned this in the Bible. If you cannot, I think we would have to conclude from Acts 5:31 that God has made a subordinate Savior from sin.

Isaiah 43:11 does not say that God is the only Savior from sin; it says that He is the only Savior period. You could read into it that God is the only Savior from sin, but we could as well read that God is the sole principle of salvation--apart from Him (mibbal`ādhō) there is no real salvation.

The only-begotten in verse 14 is the monogenēs theos in John 1:18, translated as "the only begotten God" (NASB). In this expression, Theos is used as a common noun. This is a good clue that it is used in a similar way in John 1:1. "Theos was the Logos" does not tell us who the Logos was, but what he was, a God.

Here is Origen:

IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION.

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm]

Isaiah 33:22 is obviously correct because it is in the Bible, your application is what is in dispute. All throughout the Bible there are kings and judges and even saviors who are not God. Do I understand you to suggest that they all reigned, judged and saved apart from God? If not, then they were not lords, judges and saviors besides God.

Christ is Lord, Savior and God in a similar manner as the angels and rulers of Israel were moshī`īm and 'elohīm. As with the latter, so with Christ, except that he is inestimably greater than them and entrusted with an inestimably greater work.

When scripture states that God made Christ Lord it should already settle the matter, because you cannot be made into what you already are.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

All the best,

Your ending on post 122 was “When scripture states that God made Christ Lord it should already settle the matter, because you cannot be made into what you already are.”

Not really, consider the fact that “Christ” the man is the anointed one (messiah) King of Israel. Peter does not say he made Christ Lord- the Lord God was always Lord God, but the Lord God was not Christ until (John 1:1-3,13- Phil 2:5-8). Peter is telling the Jews that said, “we have no king but Cesar” and cut off the anointed one (John19;15) that God has made, the Jesus they cut off and rejected, ‘ Lord and Christ”

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

How can this be? Very simple:

Philippians 2:5-8—“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it 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.

Paul asserts the same as (John1:1-3,14)The word was God and with God became flesh (Human).

(1)He was first Lord God in the form of God. (John 1:3,14- Phil 2:5-8)(2)

(2)Then because flesh (Christ, the anointed one- messiah) the Jews said, “we have no king but Cesar” and cut off the anointed one. In Acts 2:36 Peter said, “this Jesus” the one they killed, God made both Lord and Christ- at first he was only Lord God and the Lord God could not have become the anointed one (messiah) until becoming flesh- born according to the promise made to David. After he rose from the dead, the Father, restored to him the glory he had with him before he became Christ (John17:5) What Glory did he have before he because flesh? Read (John 1:3,14- Phil 2:5-8)

In the O/T there was only “One” existing in the form of God. Yes! the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

"And the Messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob........." (Exodus 3:2-14). Remember Paul and John said Jesus existed in the Form of God equal to God. (Phil 2:6-John 1:1-3,13)

There can only be One savior because the Lord God is not a created being as his creation. (He is one Spirit- l and the father one- the same spirit not anotther)

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 06:12 AM

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 10:46 AM

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 03:22 PM

John of Ebla, do you believe in the hypostatic union ? --fourth request.

John from Ebla

October 14th 2005, 10:26 PM

John of Ebla, do you believe in the hypostatic union ? --fourth request.

You respond to my question and points with one word “nonsense” but l have the wisdom to do better- This is the forth answer, and the same.

l believe the scriptures- so what do the scriptures say? “ let us” make man in our image

All things were made through him /Jesus- (John 1:10, Corinthian 8:6 Colossians 1:16-18, Hebrews 1:2) If nothing came into existences without him (Jesus/ the word) How did he come to be, create himself- a pee wee brain :smile: would say something like that because they listen to JW and the Rabbi that loves his chicken.

If he is created, as another god, then not all things came to be through him….

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 14th 2005, 11:52 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

Answer the question.

Yes or no, do you believe in the hypostatic union?

alam

October 15th 2005, 03:37 AM

Your ending on post 122 was “When scripture states that God made Christ Lord it should already settle the matter, because you cannot be made into what you already are.”

Not really, consider the fact that “Christ” the man is the anointed one (messiah) King of Israel. Peter does not say he made Christ Lord- the Lord God was always Lord God, but the Lord God was not Christ until (John 1:1-3,13- Phil 2:5-8). Peter is telling the Jews that said, “we have no king but Cesar” and cut off the anointed one (John19;15) that God has made, the Jesus they cut off and rejected, ‘ Lord and Christ”

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

How can this be? Very simple:

Philippians 2:5-8—“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it 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.

Paul asserts the same as (John1:1-3,14)The word was God and with God became flesh (Human).

(1)He was first Lord God in the form of God. (John 1:3,14- Phil 2:5-8)(2)

(2)Then because flesh (Christ, the anointed one- messiah) the Jews said, “we have no king but Cesar” and cut off the anointed one. In Acts 2:36 Peter said, “this Jesus” the one they killed, God made both Lord and Christ- at first he was only Lord God and the Lord God could not have become the anointed one (messiah) until becoming flesh- born according to the promise made to David. After he rose from the dead, the Father, restored to him the glory he had with him before he became Christ (John17:5) What Glory did he have before he because flesh? Read (John 1:3,14- Phil 2:5-8)

In the O/T there was only “One” existing in the form of God. Yes! the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

"And the Messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.............Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob........." (Exodus 3:2-14). Remember Paul and John said Jesus existed in the Form of God equal to God. (Phil 2:6-John 1:1-3,13)

There can only be One savior because the Lord God is not a created being as his creation. (He is one Spirit- l and the father one- the same spirit not anotther)

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

Hi John of Ebla, thanks for the response. I am a bit disappointed that you restricted your response to the last sentence of my post, but you have voiced your concerns, and will continue to do so, no doubt. Two points have appeared in almost all your messages.

1) Philippians 2:6 and the morphē theou or "form of God"

2) John 10:30 from which we learn that the Father and the Son are, in a certain sense, "one," and which you infer to mean, "one spirit"

1) According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromily Tr. & Ed. (Eerdmans), vol. 4, morphē or "form" had several meanings in Greek literature. The basic meaning is "external appearance" (742).

The Septuagint uses morphē to translate a few Hebrew and Aramaic terms. They are t'mūnāh (Job 4:16), to'ar (Judges 8:18), tabhnīth (Isa. 44:13), and ş'lēm (image, Dan. 3:19). In one text morphē is used to translate zīw (radiance, Dan. 5:6). "The term always refers to the exterior, to that in a man which may be seen" (746). Also,

As the Hellenists speak [anthropomorphically] of the morfh of God, so the Rabbis speaks [sic] of the דְּמוּת...(p. 750).

The Peshitta has d'mūth(ā') (likeness) for morphē in Phil. 2:6 and so does the Hebrew NT translated by Franz Delitzsch. According to the OT, humankind itself was made in the likeness of Elohim (Gen. 5:1). In Gen. 1:26 the Septuagint translates d'mūth with the word homoiōsis, closely related to the word homoiōma which Paul places in apposition to morphē in Philippians 2:7 and which the LXX uses for some of the same Hebrew words as morphē : t'mūnāh, şelem, tabhnīth. Ezekiel 1:28 brings together d'mūth (likeness) and kābhōdh (doxa, glory) in the narration of a theophany. This is significant in view of a further observation by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament :

The lofty terminology of the hymn [in Philippians 2] can venture to speak of the form or visible appearance of God in this antithesis [with the morphēn doulou in v. 7] on the theological basis of the doxa concept of the Greek Bible, which is also that of Paul, and according to which the majesty of God is visibly expressed in the radiance of heavenly light...the morfh qeou in which the pre-existent Christ was is simply the divine doxa. Paul's en morfh qeou uparkwn corresponds exactly to Jn. 17:5...(p. 751).

Your post seems to concur with this identification of the morphē theou as the glory which Christ had with God before the world, which he set aside for a while, and then reassumed. Concerning this glory, please see post 6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6).

A more basic point about Philippians 2:5-11 and the Kenosis is that one cannot empty himself of his own nature. If you were to empty yourself of your human nature, your humanness, what would be left to constitute you? Unless you were not fully human, nothing. When Christ emptied himself, what was emptied was not essential to him, but distinct and separable. If being the Lord was one of the attributes which Christ emptied from himself, then he is not essentially Lord, but he is so by derivation, by the act of the Father, as the scriptures teach (Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9)

2) Unfortunately, I know of no place where the scriptures say that God and Christ are "one spirit," though you can reasonably apply "one" in John 10:30 to Their spirit. It is reasonable to do so in John 17:21 as well, considering that

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

and

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The Hebrew word for "spirit" (rūah) can mean "of will and counsel" or "intellect" (Gesenius). The Septuagint, quoted by Paul, does translate this word as "mind" or nous (1 Cor. 2:16; Isa. 40:13). To say that multiple people are of one mind means that they have a single purpose or disposition. If 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:17 may be viewed as commentary on the manner of the believers' oneness with one another and with the Lord, and if the Lord is united to the Father in a similar manner, as the scriptures teach (John 17:22), then this, or something like it, is the manner of the Lord's oneness with his Father. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound basis for inferring that this is also the manner of God's oneness with Himself.

All the best,

Recognitiones

October 15th 2005, 03:53 AM

If he is created, as another god, then not all things came to be through him….
Wrong! It says in Colossians 1:15 that he is "the first-born of creation."

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 04:20 AM

Wrong! It says in Colossians 1:15 that he is "the first-born of creation."

The scriptures say all thing are through Him. If he was created all things cannot be through him, and all of creation is throught another god- Not God.

So before you say wrong- tell me, how was Isaack the only begotten son, meaning he would be first born aswell.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 04:34 AM

Hi John of Ebla, thanks for the response. I am a bit disappointed that you restricted your response to the last sentence of my post, but you have voiced your concerns, and will continue to do so, no doubt. Two points have appeared in almost all your messages.

1) Philippians 2:6 and the morphē theou or "form of God"

2) John 10:30 from which we learn that the Father and the Son are, in a certain sense, "one," and which you infer to mean, "one spirit"

1) According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromily Tr. & Ed. (Eerdmans), vol. 4, morphē or "form" had several meanings in Greek literature. The basic meaning is "external appearance" (742).

The Septuagint uses morphē to translate a few Hebrew and Aramaic terms. They are t'mūnāh (Job 4:16), to'ar (Judges 8:18), tabhnīth (Isa. 44:13), and ş'lēm (image, Dan. 3:19). In one text morphē is used to translate zīw (radiance, Dan. 5:6). "The term always refers to the exterior, to that in a man which may be seen" (746). Also,

As the Hellenists speak [anthropomorphically] of the morfh of God, so the Rabbis speaks [sic] of the דְּמוּת...(p. 750).

The Peshitta has d'mūth(ā') (likeness) for morphē in Phil. 2:6 and so does the Hebrew NT translated by Franz Delitzsch. According to the OT, humankind itself was made in the likeness of Elohim (Gen. 5:1). In Gen. 1:26 the Septuagint translates d'mūth with the word homoiōsis, closely related to the word homoiōma which Paul places in apposition to morphē in Philippians 2:7 and which the LXX uses for some of the same Hebrew words as morphē : t'mūnāh, şelem, tabhnīth. Ezekiel 1:28 brings together d'mūth (likeness) and kābhōdh (doxa, glory) in the narration of a theophany. This is significant in view of a further observation by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament :

The lofty terminology of the hymn [in Philippians 2] can venture to speak of the form or visible appearance of God in this antithesis [with the morphēn doulou in v. 7] on the theological basis of the doxa concept of the Greek Bible, which is also that of Paul, and according to which the majesty of God is visibly expressed in the radiance of heavenly light...the morfh qeou in which the pre-existent Christ was is simply the divine doxa. Paul's en morfh qeou uparkwn corresponds exactly to Jn. 17:5...(p. 751).

Your post seems to concur with this identification of the morphē theou as the glory which Christ had with God before the world, which he set aside for a while, and then reassumed. Concerning this glory, please see post 6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6).

A more basic point about Philippians 2:5-11 and the Kenosis is that one cannot empty himself of his own nature. If you were to empty yourself of your human nature, your humanness, what would be left to constitute you? Unless you were not fully human, nothing. When Christ emptied himself, what was emptied was not essential to him, but distinct and separable. If being the Lord was one of the attributes which Christ emptied from himself, then he is not essentially Lord, but he is so by derivation, by the act of the Father, as the scriptures teach (Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9)

2) Unfortunately, I know of no place where the scriptures say that God and Christ are "one spirit," though you can reasonably apply "one" in John 10:30 to Their spirit. It is reasonable to do so in John 17:21 as well, considering that

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

and

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The Hebrew word for "spirit" (rūah) can mean "of will and counsel" or "intellect" (Gesenius). The Septuagint, quoted by Paul, does translate this word as "mind" or nous (1 Cor. 2:16; Isa. 40:13). To say that multiple people are of one mind means that they have a single purpose or disposition. If 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:17 may be viewed as commentary on the manner of the believers' oneness with one another and with the Lord, and if the Lord is united to the Father in a similar manner, as the scriptures teach (John 17:22), then this, or something like it, is the manner of the Lord's oneness with his Father. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound basis for inferring that this is also the manner of God's oneness with Himself.

All the best,

If Paul said he existed in the form of God, and Jesus said he had glory with the father (John 17;5), then you only need to look at the past ( tanakh) not the future. The only 'one" that is shown in the tanankh is the Messenger of the LORD- that appeared in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush............. He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob........." (Exodus 3:2-14)

It might help if you do a bit of study on Greek words if you want to explain “morphe” not just take out one of several meaning, because the one the said " l am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the form of God

Look at the Hebrew word for “form” when God says ‘ l talk to Moses face to face and he sees the form of God. ( PS. don't go to the future and start telling me about the Jewish law of ageny- the rabbis' are now loving chickens) :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 04:38 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Answer the question.

Yes or no, do you believe in the hypostatic union?

Not this nonsense again. :smile:

Is air still air where ever it is ? Is water still water where ever it is?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Recognitiones

October 15th 2005, 04:45 AM

The scriptures say all thing are through Him.
That does not mean he is not "the first born of creation."

If he was created all things cannot be through him
He is the firstborn of creation, what prevents him from creating those after him?

, and all of creation is throught another god- Not God.
God in hebrew is [elohim], literally mighty one(s). This title is used for angels, and prophets, but only the Father is the Most High and therefore, there is no mighter one before him. Jesus' creating the world does not infringe upon gods' mightyness anymore than a servant obeying a king subordinates the king to the servant.

So before you say wrong- tell me, how was Isaack the only begotten son, meaning he would be first born aswell.
He was chosen by Lord.

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 04:54 AM

That does not mean he is not "the first born of creation."

He is the firstborn of creation, what prevents him from creating those after him?

God in hebrew is [elohim], literally mighty one(s). This title is used for angels, and prophets, but only the Father is the Most High and therefore, there is no mighter one before him. Jesus' creating the world does not infringe upon gods' mightyness anymore than a servant obeying a king subordinates the king to the servant.

He was chosen by Lord.

Sorry but angels do not created. All things were made through Jesus. " Genesis say's " Let us make man in our image' we are not made in the image of angels.

Once again- how is Isaack the only begotten- meaning he is also the first born?

Kind regards
John from Ebla

alam

October 15th 2005, 05:01 AM

If Paul said he existed in the form of God, and Jesus said he had glory with the father (John 17;5), then you only need to look at the past ( tanakh) not the future. The only 'one" that is shown in the tanankh is the Messenger of the LORD- that appeared in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush............. He said, 'I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob........." (Exodus 3:2-14)

This is irrelevant to the points I just posted.

It might help if you do a bit of study on Greek words if you want to explain “morphe” not just take out one of several meaning, because the one the said " l am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the form of God

Well, I have done a bit of study, and find no reason whatsoever to accept the meaning you would like to read into morphe. As for Exodus 3:6, please see post 10 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1213141&postcount=10).

Look at the Hebrew word for “form” when God says ‘ l talk to Moses face to face and he sees the form of God. ( PS. don't go to the future and start telling me about the Jewish law of ageny- the rabbis' are now loving chickens) :smile:

Whatever you think of the rabbis, the law of agency is much better attested in the first century, including in the New Testament, than the whole theory of homoousios.

An answer may be found in the principle of delegation or shlichut, summed up by the Rabbinic saying שלוּחוֹ של אדם כמוֹתוֹ, "a man's messenger is as himself" (Berachoth 5:5) cited about nine times in the Talmud. The messenger or agent is empowered to act and to be received as the one who sent him.

We see this at work in the Bible in the parallel accounts of the healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. According to Luke, the officer sent out messengers to find Christ and present Him with his request. Matthew, writing from a Jewish perspective, simply did not think it necessary to mention the messengers, and wrote as though he had sought out Christ in person.

This principle of delegation seems to be assumed in Christ's teachings:

He that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him who sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Paul wrote,

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.

Jesus, the Sent One of God, had a preeminent place among the other divine messengers and prophets of the Old and New Testaments. These other prophets, according to the ante-Nicene view, were sent by the Logos himself, not directly by God. Such a view is indicated in Matthew 23:34 and Luke 11:49-50:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city...

In the Incarnation, the Logos himself, the Son of God, who was with the Father from the beginning, came down from heaven as the messenger of God. During the thirty some years of Christ's sojourn on Earth, God was with us through Christ in a unique and unprecedented way.

[http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1187076&postcount=47]

I wish you the best. :smile:

Recognitiones

October 15th 2005, 05:22 AM

Sorry but angels do not created.
Sorry John, but your argument is a lie. I never said angels created the world, only Jesus. If you disagree with this why don't you argue against it. I said that Jesus is mighty, so are angels, and prophets, and ultimately the Father God. None of this says that angels created the world. Quit attributing things to me which I have never said!!!
All things were made through Jesus.
I agree.
" Genesis say's " Let us make man in our image' we are not made in the image of angels.
I never said we were made in the image of angels but only that God is a "mighty one," once again, quit attributing things to me WHICH I HAVE NEVER SAID!!!
Once again- how is Isaack the only begotten- meaning he is also the first born?
I already told you, he was chosen by the Lord. If you want to argue that he wasn't, then make your case!!!

alam

October 15th 2005, 05:24 AM

The scriptures say all thing are through Him. If he was created all things cannot be through him, and all of creation is throught another god- Not God.

So before you say wrong- tell me, how was Isaack the only begotten son, meaning he would be first born aswell.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

John from Ebla,

No offense, you seem to be the one saying "wrong" to Colossian 1:15 here. If Christ is firstborn of all creation, then by default he is part of all creation; firstborn + a group is part of that group in scripture. You will find nothing else. But even without Colossians 1:15, I believe your reasoning from John 1:3 is incorrect, as has come up on this thread (e.g. post 48 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1219969&postcount=48)).

With this sort of logic, one could prove that because Jesus does all that the Father does, and the generation of Christ is an activity of the Father, that Christ generates himself (John 5:19). We do not have to look far to find self-limiting applications of "all" in the scriptures. "All things are yours" (1 Cor. 3:22), yet this does not include ourselves-- 6:19. God "worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6)--does it mean that He will work Himself (15:28)

Sorry but angels do not created.

You yourself admit that the Logos was manifest as the mal'akh YHWH in the OT. So at least one angel can and does create. Yes or no?

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 05:46 AM

Recognitiones

October 15th 2005, 06:00 AM

Hi Guys,

To say God in hebrew is [elohim] and can literally mean mighty one(s) and apply it to angels and Jesus- then come out and say the son of God is like the angles but better- is to give "GOD" a slap on the face, and say, "he is like angels but better than them and the son" because he is an "elohim" that created- well so is the Son.
That is presupposing that the Father and son are equal in mightiness which is contrary to John 14:28.

Why not cast the son with the father, why cast the son with the angels.
You tell us "why?"
The angels were made through the son
I agree.
and the Son is equal with the father
WRONG! READ JOHN 14:28, "my Father is greater than I."
because of creative powers.
Nope, that doesn't cut it, show us this with the book, chapter, and verse.
And still no reponses of how Isaack is the only begotten, meaning his is also first born
Only because you've ignored my response twice.

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 06:17 AM

That is presupposing that the Father and son are equal in mightiness which is contrary to John 14:28.

You tell us "why?"

I agree.

WRONG! READ JOHN 14:28, "my Father is greater than I."

Nope, that doesn't cut it, show us this with the book, chapter, and verse.

Only because you've ignored my response twice.

You did not refute what l said.

Gen.1 say's "let us make man in our image."

To say God in hebrew is [elohim] and can literally mean mighty one(s) and apply it to angels and Jesus- then come out and say the son of God is like the angles but better- is to give "GOD" a slap on the face, and say, "he is like angels but better than them and the son" because he is an "elohim" that created- well so is the Son.

Off-corse the Father is the father and the Son is the Son. Would l expend my son to be more than me. No! But you are giving God a slap in the face and casting his son with angles- you claim he is created just like angles, but you do not explain how Isaack is the only begotten.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 15th 2005, 06:37 AM

Hi Guys,

To say God in hebrew is [elohim] and can literally mean mighty one(s) and apply it to angels and Jesus- then come out and say the son of God is like the angles but better- is to give "GOD" a slap on the face, and say, "he is like angels but better than them and the son" because he is an "elohim" that created- well so is the Son.

Be careful what you call giving "GOD" a slap on the face"...For all we have seen here and from you, it may be the homoousios doctrine that meets that description.

Why not cast the son with the father, why cast the son with the angels. The angels were made through the son and the Son is equal with the father because of creative powers. :smile:

I do reckon the Son with the Father, with this basic exception: the Father has made the Son what he is, but no one has made the Father what He is; God the Father is Agennetos and Autotheos.

And still no reponses of how Isaack is the only begotten, meaning his is also first born

It seems to me that the contextual sense of firstborn in Col. 1:15 ff. is that of numeric priority, but if you think as adoptionist that it does not, that is for another time. The point is that "firstborn of all creation" means, at least, part of creation.

Regards

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 06:48 AM

Be careful what you call giving "GOD" a slap on the face"...For all we have seen here and from you, it may be the homoousios doctrine that meets that description.

I do reckon the Son with the Father, with this basic exception: the Father has made the Son what he is, but no one has made the Father what He is; God the Father is Agennetos and Autotheos.

It seems to me that the contextual sense of firstborn in Col. 1:15 ff. is that of numeric priority, but if you think as adoptionist that it does not, that is for another time. The point is that "firstborn of all creation" means, at least, part of creation.

Regards

Hi,

You claim he is created by saying he is first born- but you do not explain how Issack is the only begotten-meaning he can be the First born.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 15th 2005, 07:00 AM

Hi,

You claim he is created by saying he is first born- but you do not explain how Issack is the only begotten-meaning he can be the First born.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15.

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 07:57 AM

I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15.

Alam,

If he is part of creation then he is created- in another post you said he is like angels but with a higher postions.

Since Jesus was born human, he is human so his is part of creation in this sense- his human nature. In hebraic understaning what does the ' firstborn" have that the others after him, in the same household, don't have. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 15th 2005, 08:56 AM

Alam,

If he is part of creation then he is created- in another post you said he is like angels but with a higher postions.

And the human judges. But it would be better said that they in their roles were like him. The human prophets, priests, judges, saviors of the OT were signs, pointing to the heavenly reality of the Logos, much as the earthly tabernacle was a sign and figure of the True.

Since Jesus was born human, he is human so his is part of creation in this sense- his human nature.

Verse 16, talking about the original creation, begins with "for" or hoti, indicating a logical connection to verse 15. If Christ is the agent of all creation (v. 16), and is himself created, as in the Wisdom tradition (Prov. 8:22 LXX, Sirach 1:4,9; 24:9), which most commentators think Paul had in mind in the passage, then he must be the firstborn of creation. If you see a clearer connection the floor is yours. :smile:

In hebraic understaning what does the ' firstborn" have that the others after him, in the same household, don't have. :smile:

The b'khorah.

John from Ebla

October 15th 2005, 09:50 AM

I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15.

You are going around in circles.

The Jesus that went around Jerusalem 2000 years ago was born Human. This mean the word that became flesh, became as you say '"part of all creation" So the first born that Paul is talkng about, is what? He was not the first human, but neither was "Isaack"- getting the point :ahem:

You are just beating around the bush.

kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 15th 2005, 01:53 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

Not this nonsense again. :smile:

Is air still air where ever it is ? Is water still water where ever it is?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Do you believe in the hypostatic union? Yes or No? This is my sixth request.

I don't think you're about to answer my question!

Your evasiveness does not bode weill for you. Jesus, my Lord said ,"Let your "yes" be your "yes", and your "no" be your "no", everything else is from the evil one." It's obvious where your doctrine is from.

best wishes nonetheless,

Recognitiones

October 15th 2005, 03:02 PM

To say God in hebrew is [elohim] and can literally mean mighty one(s) and apply it to angels and Jesus- then come out and say the son of God is like the angles but better- is to give "GOD" a slap on the face, and say, "he is like angels but better than them and the son" because he is an "elohim" that created- well so is the Son.

Off-corse the Father is the father and the Son is the Son. Would l expend my son to be more than me. No! But you are giving God a slap in the face and casting his son with angles- you claim he is created just like angles, but you do not explain how Isaack is the only begotten.

John, you are a LIAR. You falsely quote me as saying: "he is like angels but better than them and the son" which I HAVE NEVER SAID! Because I have never said this, neither have I, as you claim, been "giving God a slap in the face and casting his son with angles-" AND NEITHER HAVE I SAID, AS YOU ONCE AGAIN FALSELY CLAIM : "he is created just like angles." STOP SPEAKING LIES! The colored text in your quote above is for a testimony against the slander which you have spoken of me..

alam

October 15th 2005, 04:22 PM

You are going around in circles.

Then show how the comment you responded to is part of a circular argument.

The Jesus that went around Jerusalem 2000 years ago was born Human. This mean the word that became flesh, became as you say '"part of all creation" So the first born that Paul is talkng about, is what? He was not the first human, but neither was "Isaack"- getting the point"

You are merely assuming that "firstborn of all creation" refers to the incarnation, which is the very point at issue. And you talk about circles! Such has characterized your style throughout your exchanges here. From last post (202) which you chose to ignore,

Verse 16, talking about the original creation, begins with "for" or hoti, indicating a logical connection to verse 15. If Christ is the agent of all creation (v. 16), and is himself created, as in the Wisdom tradition (Prov. 8:22 LXX, Sirach 1:4,9; 24:9), which most commentators think Paul had in mind in the passage, then he must be the firstborn of creation. If you see a clearer connection the floor is yours.

You are just beating around the bush.

The master speaks.... :ahem:

All the best nevertheless.

alam

October 15th 2005, 06:07 PM

Hi Alam,

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes Athanasius as "the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known" and "Father of Orthodoxy".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm)

What do you think?

Hello Pythagoras,

Athanasius was certainly the father of homoousion orthodoxy, which is unorthodox by any standard but influence/numbers.

On the Incarnation, he held that the Logos could not divinize his elect if he were not Absolute Deity.

It may be questioned whether this argument was cogent, since the 'divinization' of man did not mean for Athanasius that man was to become one with God in the sense in which he believed the Son was one with the Father . . . . It may seem that there is no reason why the participation in God, through grace, of a created being should not be effected by an Arian Logos who is himself a created being participating in deity by grace. Athanasius, however, is sure that one who is himself deified cannot deify; no one can make others participate in what he himself possesses only by participation and not in his own right, for it is not his to bestow but it belongs to another, and he enjoys possession of it only by grace which is sufficient for himself alone.

De Synodis 51 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28173.htm) contains the argument in Athanasius' own words. But I must second the suggestion of the author. There appears to be no reason why Christ could not divinize his elect, if the Father, the Owner of the divine qualities, had as Principal empowered him for that.

Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Another issue for Athanasius, foreshadowing the Christological disputes: how one being, one man can be simultaneously finite and infinite. It is not a matter of giving some exhaustive logical definition, but how we are even supposed to think of this as a real event.

Now, the Word of God in His man's nature was not like that; for He was not bound to His body, but rather was Himself wielding it, so that He was not only in it, but was actually in everything, and while external to the universe, abode in His Father only.

Can one meaningfully think about an infinite, ubiquitous being possessing a body? Would not such a being rather "wield" a body or cause it to move around like a marionette? It is said that Athanasius' Christology "clearly verges on the docetic" (Cunliffe-Jones 109). To that extent it must be destructive of Incarnationism rather than the champion of it!

Yours in Christ

Pythagoras

October 15th 2005, 09:04 PM

Hi Rec.,

John, you are a LIAR. You falsely quote me as saying: "he is like angels but better than them and the son" which I HAVE NEVER SAID! Because I have never said this, neither have I, as you claim, been "giving God a slap in the face and casting his son with angles-" AND NEITHER HAVE I SAID, AS YOU ONCE AGAIN FALSELY CLAIM : "he is created just like angles." STOP SPEAKING LIES! The colored text in your quote above is for a testimony against the slander which you have spoken of me..

I stopped taking John of Ebla seriously when he said Jewish Rabis believe God is a chicken. He has "pictures" to prove this!

John from Ebla

October 16th 2005, 12:48 AM

Hi Rec.,

I stopped taking John of Ebla seriously when he said Jewish Rabis believe God is a chicken. He has "pictures" to prove this!

Can any body take you seriously? 'Nonsense"

When you can say how Isaack is the only begotten meaning he can be firstborn- Then, maybe it's worth disscussing.

But for know. :wink: In the words of alam

"I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15."

He became part of creation when? "When he was born human"

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

alam

October 16th 2005, 03:03 AM

Can any body take you seriously? 'Nonsense"

When you can say how Isaack is the only begotten meaning he can be firstborn- Then, maybe it's worth disscussing.

But for know. :wink: In the words of alam

"I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15."

He became part of creation when? "When he was born human"

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

If you feel like writing to someone, you have some unanswered mail, posts 204-206 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=13&pp=16) for starters. :smile:

Regards,

John from Ebla

October 16th 2005, 03:49 AM

If you feel like writing to someone, you have some unanswered mail, posts 204-206 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61701&page=13&pp=16) for starters. :smile:

Regards,

If you want to respond, then tell me how Isaack is the only begotten' If not, Crusader is right and you are going around in circles. :smile:

You said he is not created."I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15."

He became part of creation when he took on Flesh "The word became flesh" and as such, the man Jesus, has the right of he "firstborn" and "only begotten" just like Isaack.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 16th 2005, 05:14 AM

Greetings Alam,

Athanasius was certainly the father of homoousion orthodoxy, which is unorthodox by any standard but influence/numbers.

How prevalent was homoousion ideology before Athanasius? Did any of the Church fathers adhere to it?

On the Incarnation, he held that the Logos could not divinize his elect if he were not Absolute Deity.

The reverse is true since in the present dispensation man cannot deal directly with God. In John 1:18 the apostle wrote, "No one has seen God at anytime." In Ex. 33:20 God said to Moses: "You cannot see My face; for no man can see My face and live." Only through a conduit, a circuit breaker of sorts, can the elect receive eternal life, for God may not look upon sinful humanity without destroying it. Throughout the bible, messangers, envoys or ambassadors,ones sent(men like Moses) are dispached to the elect to save, to justify and to make holy by God's grace.-- Ex. 13:21,Ex.14:19,Ex.24:9-11,Gen.32:13,Gen.32:24, etc.

Another issue for Athanasius, foreshadowing the Christological disputes: how one being, one man can be simultaneously finite and infinite. It is not a matter of giving some exhaustive logical definition, but how we are even supposed to think of this as a real event.

Regarding the hypostatic union Catholics, whether they know it or not, use the term "mystery" as a euphemism for nonsense.

For instance how did Christ "taste death for all men"( Heb. 2:9) if only his outer shell (i.e. his human body) "died", leaving the rest of his being totally unscathed ? Such a "death" is no death at all and may becompared to a snake shedding it's skin. The trinitarian position demands, whether they want to admit it or not, that Christ didn't really die, Christ coudn't really have died(because trinitarians believe God cannot die even though they do acknowledge he did die superficially).

If Christ didn't truly die, then he didn't die for our sins, which makes a mockery of the entire Gospel. How could the penal death have been extracted in an "infinite degree" by the death, or "non-death" of Christ, since trinitarians feverently mantain only Christ's perishable, non-essential outer-casing, his physical body, died? Furthermore the very notion of God repaying a debt to God is nonsensical and contradicts what scripture says regarding the remission of Adam's sins. In actuality the ransom must be paid by one of like kind. A son of Adam, the seed of Adam, "the second Adam" must deliver the debt, no more no less; not God , not an ant.

God bless,

John from Ebla

October 16th 2005, 05:21 AM

Greetings Alam,

How prevalent was homoousion ideology before Athanasius? Did any of the Church fathers adhere to it?

The reverse is true since in the present dispensation man cannot deal directly with God. In John 1:18 the apostle wrote, "No one has seen God at anytime." In Ex. 33:20 God said to Moses: "You cannot see My face; for no man can see My face and live." Only through a conduit, a circuit breaker of sorts, can the elect receive eternal life, for God may not look upon sinful humanity without destroying it. Throughout the bible, messangers, envoys or ambassadors,ones sent(men like Moses) are dispached to the elect to save, to justify and to make holy by God's grace.-- Ex. 13:21,Ex.14:19,Ex.24:9-11,Gen.32:13,Gen.32:24, etc.

Regarding the hypostatic union Catholics, whether they know it or not, use the term "mystery" as a euphemism for nonsense.

For instance how did Christ "taste death for all men"( Heb. 2:9) if only his outer shell (i.e. his human body) "died", leaving the rest of his being totally unscathed ? Such a "death" is no death at all and may becompared to a snake shedding it's skin. The trinitarian position demands, whether they want to admit it or not, that Christ didn't really die, Christ coudn't really have died(because trinitarians believe God cannot die even though they do acknowledge he did die superficially).

If Christ didn't truly die, then he didn't die for our sins, which makes a mockery of the entire Gospel. How could the penal death have been extracted in an "infinite degree" by the death, or "non-death" of Christ, since trinitarians feverently mantain only Christ's perishable, non-essential outer-casing, his physical body, died? Furthermore the very notion of God repaying a debt to God is nonsensical and contradicts what scripture says regarding the remission of Adam's sins. In actuality the ransom must be paid by one of like kind. A son of Adam, the seed of Adam, "the second Adam" must deliver the debt, no more no less; not God , not an ant.

God bless,

Nonsense

Alam said he is not created."I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15."

He became part of creation when he took on Flesh "The word became flesh" and as such, the man Jesus, has the right of he "firstborn" and "only begotten" just like Isaack.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 16th 2005, 07:01 AM

If you want to respond, then tell me how Isaack is the only begotten' If not, Crusader is right and you are going around in circles. :smile:

John from Ebla,

By now Pythagoras, Recognitiones and I have countered about every significant assertion you have made. Until you make an attempt at defending your positions we don't have to do anything but keep posting links to the arguments you have not answered. :lol:

A partial listing of unanswered or half-answered messages I have submitted against: your cavils about the principle of agency (10 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1213141&postcount=10), 192 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235539&postcount=192)), your translation of Hebrews 9:14 (74 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74)); your claims about the Wisdom tradition (41 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1219901&postcount=41)), about how many saviors there are/can be (111 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1226874&postcount=111), 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)); about the "form of God" and the meaning of "one spirit" (185 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235516&postcount=185)), divine titles in general (70 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222091&postcount=70); 92 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224144&postcount=92)), about John 1 (122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)), and others. Then there is the original argument I posted here (6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6)), which Crusader never answered and neither have you, showing how self-defeating it is to use Isaiah 42:8 as part of a Trinitarian argument.

On Colossians 1:15, none of us have based an argument exclusively on the etymology of "firstborn"--you brought that up. You have already admitted that "firstborn of all creation" locates Christ within the category of creation. Your argument now, which is a non-argument until you support it, is that this merely refers to the incarnation. I reject that based on the logic and context of the passage in Colossians 1:15, not on the etymology of "firstborn," and so Isaac being yahidh has nothing to do with it. This would be another red herring on your part. Post 202 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235613&postcount=202) is still in queue for you as well.

You said he is not created."I do not claim that he is created because he is first born, but that his being firstborn of all creation means that he is part of all creation. Certainly not a creation like the other creations, but Paul has nevertheless included him with them in verse 15."

You should have read what I wrote before quoting it so many times. Read it again, with greater care than is normal for you, and you will see that no where in there do I say or imply that he is not created. :ahem:

Regards,

John from Ebla

October 16th 2005, 09:01 AM

John from Ebla,

By now Pythagoras, Recognitiones and I have countered about every significant assertion you have made. Until you make an attempt at defending your positions we don't have to do anything but keep posting links to the arguments you have not answered. :lol:

A partial listing of unanswered or half-answered messages I have submitted against: your cavils about the principle of agency (10 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1213141&postcount=10), 192 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235539&postcount=192)), your translation of Hebrews 9:14 (74 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74)); your claims about the Wisdom tradition (41 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1219901&postcount=41)), about how many saviors there are/can be (111 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1226874&postcount=111), 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)); about the "form of God" and the meaning of "one spirit" (185 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235516&postcount=185)), divine titles in general (70 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222091&postcount=70); 92 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224144&postcount=92)), about John 1 (122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)), and others. Then there is the original argument I posted here (6 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1211544&postcount=6)), which Crusader never answered and neither have you, showing how self-defeating it is to use Isaiah 42:8 as part of a Trinitarian argument.

On Colossians 1:15, none of us have based an argument exclusively on the etymology of "firstborn"--you brought that up. You have already admitted that "firstborn of all creation" locates Christ within the category of creation. Your argument now, which is a non-argument until you support it, is that this merely refers to the incarnation. I reject that based on the logic and context of the passage in Colossians 1:15, not on the etymology of "firstborn," and so Isaac being yahidh has nothing to do with it. This would be another red herring on your part. Post 202 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235613&postcount=202) is still in queue for you as well.

You should have read what I wrote before quoting it so many times. Read it again, with greater care than is normal for you, and you will see that no where in there do I say or imply that he is not created. :ahem:

Regards,

You are just flooding your post. The core issues is " first born" if he is not created then end of story. :smile:

When he became flesh he became part of creation and inherited the right of firstborn of all creation.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 16th 2005, 02:08 PM

John from Ebla

October 16th 2005, 10:02 PM

Alam,

I think John from Ebla is beginning to realize how impossible it is to logically defend the doctrine of the trinity. That's why he is not answering questions, nor engaging in a real dialogue but refuging in lies and distortions.

This was expected from the get-go . Trinitarianism is a defeatd doctrine.

That is not true. Trinity is what is in your mind- it has you obsessed with many gods. In this tread, you are the only one that keeps on bring up the word, it is a mental problem you have. :smile:

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

October 16th 2005, 10:04 PM

You are just flooding your post. The core issues is " first born" if he is not created then end of story. :smile:

With this comment,

"If you want to respond, then tell me how Isaack is the only begotten' If not, Crusader is right and you are going around in circles",

you seemed to have forgotten where your case stands here. The post was not long; if it seemed like a flood, blame yourself for not answering the arguments.

When he became flesh he became part of creation and inherited the right of firstborn of all creation.

You can propose that explanation for Colossians 1:15, but that doesn't make it the best one, or even a good one. See third paragraph of that "flooded" post you objected to, and follow the link there to post 202 to see where the issue is at.

Regards :smile:

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 12:25 AM

Hi John,

That is not true.

Ofcourse it is. For example, you were telling a lie when you said "Jews worship a Chicken" ! However I personally think insane is a better word to describe you, because no rational person would say such a thing to begin with.

Trinity is what is in your mind-

Yes.

it has you obsessed with many gods.

Which ever way you slice it, "tri(three)nity" is the worship of three gods.--

In this tread, you are the only one that keeps on bring up the word, it is a mental problem you have. :smile:

Why not, you don't like the term trinitarian?

Best wishes, may you prosper in this world,

alam

October 17th 2005, 12:40 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

How prevalent was homoousion ideology before Athanasius? Did any of the Church fathers adhere to it?

By "homoousian ideology" I would understand a tendency to deny mediation between the Absolute Deity and the world. If such mediation was the philosophical "raison d'etre" of the Logos doctrine, as usually claimed, then no adherent of the Logos doctrine is a true homoousian.

The Fathers associated the Logos very closely with the being of God the Father. If there was not a close association, then one could question how meaningfully the Logos "reveals" God. The mediator must have some characteristics of both parties involved. Tertullian, writing of the Old Testament theophanies :

For we claim also that Christ has always acted in God the Father's name, has himself ever since the beginning associated with, and conversed with, patriarchs and prophets. He is the Son of the Creator, his Word whom by bringing him forth from himself he caused to be his Son. From then onwards he put him in authority over his whole design and purpose, by reducing him a little below the angels (cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:9), as it is written in David. . . . for he was learning even from the beginning, by so early assuming manhood, to be that which he was going to be at the end. He it is who comes down <to inquire into Sodom>, who asks questions <of Adam and of Cain>, who makes request <of Moses>, and who swears with an oath. That the Father has become visible to no man is the testimony of that gospel which you share with us, in which Christ says, No one knoweth the Father save the Son (Luke 10:22). It was he also who in the Old Testament had already declared, No man shall see God and live (Exod. 33:20), thus pronouncing that the Father cannot be seen, while with the Father's authority and in his name he himself was the God who was seen, the Son of God. So too among us God is accepted in the person of Christ, because in this way also he belongs to us. Therefore all the <attributes and activities> you make requisition of as worthy of God are to be found in the Father, inaccessible to sight and contact, peaceable also, and, so to speak, a god philosophers can approve of: but all the things you repudiate as unworthy, are to be accounted to the Son, who was both seen and heard, and held converse, the Father's agent and minister, who commingles in himself man and God, in the miracles God, in the pettinesses man, so as to add as much to man as he detracts from God.

[Adversus Marcionem, 2.27.1-7]

The Logos must be like God, share many of his qualities, but not be the same as God--otherwise the idea of mediation becomes redundant. The triumph of thorough-going homoousianism in the 4th century saw a decline in the ancient belief that the Logos was subject of the theophanies (although the belief remained strong among the Arians) :

It was almost universally held, until the end of the fourth century, that the subject of the theophanies, the speaker of divine words throughout the Old Testament, was God the Son acting as the agent or messenger of the Father: Justin, dial. 56 sqq.; Tertullian, adv. Prax. 14-16; Eusebius, H.E. i. 2; Prudentius, Apotheosis (passim).

Hippolytus called the Logos "the substance of God"--having been begotten from the Father as sort of a material cause (Ref. Haer. x. 29), but then says of humanity, "For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." Confronted with Noetus' modalism, we have seen that he rejected homoousian use of John 10:30 (Against Noetus 7 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm)).

In the following passage Irenaeous seems to say that even the substance of humanity and the world came out of God: "He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world" (Ad. Haer. iv. 20).

Justin Martyr, Dial. Tryph. 128, shows how we may understand the Apologists when they speak of the Logos being produced out of God:

"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm]

Origen spoke of the Father and the Son as heteroousios (different in substance) but was "inconsistent in his vocabulary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm)". Dionysus of Alexandria (bishop c. 247-264) wrote that the Son was "alien in essence" from the Father, as a vine from a vinedresser. This was denounced in a synodical letter (c. 260) issued by Dionysus, the Bishop of Rome (d. 268), in which he denied that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases.

...[Dionysus of Rome's] reaction to what he had been told is important, for it illustrates the different climate of thought in which Eastern theology was developing after Origen from that which still prevailed in the Latin West. In the days of Praxeus, Noetus and other 'monarchians', the West, and Rome in particular (where bishops like Callistus and his predecessor Zephyrinus seem to have reacted sharply against the pluralistic Logos theology of Hippolytus) had as it were been inoculated with a large dose of theological monism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes it as Tertullian's concession "to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance" (Homoousion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm)).

"The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, 'of other or different ousia'" (Homoousion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm)).

In the beginning of the 4th century, "homoousion" was associated with the beliefs of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, which denied that the Logos was a distinct being/person from God.

When homoousianism came back into running in the fourth century, at least two of its most visible supporters, Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch, were modalistic theologians. The Western/Athanasian-dominated council of Sardica (343) seemed to have trouble differentiating the "Father" from the "Son" :

"We confess that God is; we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence, nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son.

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27022.htm]

In the early church, the ones consistently advocating "homoousios" and pressing for its full implications were seen as unorthodox, modalists and such.

The reverse is true since in the present dispensation man cannot deal directly with God. In John 1:18 the apostle wrote, "No one has seen God at anytime." In Ex. 33:20 God said to Moses: "You cannot see My face; for no man can see My face and live." Only through a conduit, a circuit breaker of sorts, can the elect receive eternal life, for God may not look upon sinful humanity without destroying it. Throughout the bible, messangers, envoys or ambassadors,ones sent(men like Moses) are dispached to the elect to save, to justify and to make holy by God's grace.-- Ex. 13:21,Ex.14:19,Ex.24:9-11,Gen.32:13,Gen.32:24, etc.

Absolutely.

Regarding the hypostatic union Catholics, whether they know it or not, use the term "mystery" as a euphemism for nonsense.

I agree with you. There is a difference between the incomprehensible and the nonsensical. The infinite is incomprehensible; such statements as 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, or A & ~A are not incomprehensible--we do comprehend them, and comprehend that they are wrong.

For instance how did Christ "taste death for all men"( Heb. 2:9) if only his outer shell (i.e. his human body) "died", leaving the rest of his being totally unscathed ? Such a "death" is no death at all and may becompared to a snake shedding it's skin. The trinitarian position demands, whether they want to admit it or not, that Christ didn't really die, Christ coudn't really have died(because trinitarians believe God cannot die even though they do acknowledge he did die superficially).

If Christ didn't truly die, then he didn't die for our sins, which makes a mockery of the entire Gospel. How could the penal death have been extracted in an "infinite degree" by the death, or "non-death" of Christ, since trinitarians feverently mantain only Christ's perishable, non-essential outer-casing, his physical body, died? Furthermore the very notion of God repaying a debt to God is nonsensical and contradicts what scripture says regarding the remission of Adam's sins. In actuality the ransom must be paid by one of like kind. A son of Adam, the seed of Adam, "the second Adam" must deliver the debt, no more no less; not God , not an ant.

You make very good points. The theories of the atonement proposed in the Nicene churches are only as sound as the doctrine of hypostatic union.

God bless,

John from Ebla

October 17th 2005, 01:52 AM

Hi John,

Ofcourse it is. For example, you were telling a lie when you said "Jews worship a Chicken" ! However I personally think insane is a better word to describe you, because no rational person would say such a thing to begin with.

Yes.

Which ever way you slice it, "tri(three)nity" is the worship of three gods.--

Why not, you don't like the term trinitarian?

Best wishes, may you prosper in this world,

No, l was not. Your brain is affected with many gods.

You assume all Jews do the same thing- bad assumption.
You assume all Christian do what the pope does- bad assumption.
You assume the Nicene council made trinity, (plurality of God) – bad assumption. (the Chaldee and Targums spoke of plurality way before- A Chip of the Old block)

The Pope and his followers may think God is wafer- Yes! Same as the Rabbi and his followers think God is Chicken- Yes! Does this mean all Christians and all Jews? No! But it does show the way your brain is affected by many gods. You are the only one on this thread that say's Trinity

Kind Regards.
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 05:06 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Take a deep breath, and stop getting excited.

The Pope and his followers may think God is wafer- Yes!

Indeed they do, close to a billion Catholics, which accounts for the majority of those who fancy themselves Christian and Orthodox . A holocaust of souls.

Same as the Rabbi and his followers think God is Chicken- Yes!

I've not met nor heard of a single Rabbi or his followers who think God is a Chicken. There is absolutely no proof for such a claim. The vaste majority of Jews believe, as severely as the Arians do, that God is an absolute One and not a compound unity. They certainly don't think God is a Chicken.

But it does show the way your brain is affected by many gods.

You're projecting.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

October 17th 2005, 05:38 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

Take a deep breath, and stop getting excited.

Indeed they do, close to a billion Catholics, which accounts for the majority of those who fancy themselves Christian and Orthodox . A holocaust of souls.

I've not met nor heard of a single Rabbi or his followers who think God is a Chicken. There is absolutely no proof for such a claim. The vaste majority of Jews believe, as severely as the Arians do, that God is an absolute One and not a compound unity. They certainly don't think God is a Chicken.

You're projecting.

best wishes,

You have not met one. So that mean it cannot be. Wow- l have, sorry to break your heart.

l have seen Rabbi's that are not Jews, Yes- nothing more than ex JW doing new tricks to deceive.

l have see rabbi's that don't believe in GOD, Yes- an atheist practicing formalities.

I have seen Rabbi’s loving Chicken because they take away their sin.

I have seen Rabbi’s do many thing- do you think they are any better than Popes? :blush:

Maybe you should get around a little. :smile:

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 05:43 AM

John , I'm afraid you're going off the deep end.

John from Ebla

October 17th 2005, 05:50 AM

John , I'm afraid you're going off the deep end.

Bad assumption.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Krusader

October 17th 2005, 11:03 AM

Bad assumption.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

The problem with Arians is that, once they have blindly accepted this heretical belief and devoted their lives to denying Our Lord's deity, God gives them over to that very lie, and they are really unable to accept the truth.

If the Lord God wanted the vs. in Colos. to indicate "first created," there is a separate Greek word from the one used that would have taught that Christ was the first created being (as Arians love to assume). Unfortunately for them, the word is "first born," indicating supremacy over all creation (since Christ was the Creator), and which does not teach that the Creator, Himself, was created.

alam

October 17th 2005, 05:27 PM

The problem with Arians is that, once they have blindly accepted this heretical belief and devoted their lives to denying Our Lord's deity, God gives them over to that very lie, and they are really unable to accept the truth.

The opposite may be the case. We have been forthright about our beliefs, and met what arguments you have offered head on. See John 3:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:15.

If the Lord God wanted the vs. in Colos. to indicate "first created," there is a separate Greek word from the one used that would have taught that Christ was the first created being (as Arians love to assume)

The word is prōtoktistos. It was not in common use in the first century. When it did, it was used by Christians such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen with reference to the Logos (e.g. Stromata v. 14).

Even if we could expect to find this word in Paul's letters, there is no reason to think he would have used it in Colossians 1. Paul may have had several related ideas in mind: not only that Christ is first creation, in accord with the Wisdom tradition (Prov. 8:22; Sirach 24:9), but possesses the right of the firstborn in consequence.

Unfortunately for them, the word is "first born," indicating supremacy over all creation (since Christ was the Creator), and which does not teach that the Creator, Himself, was created.

If "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.

Regards,

Pythagoras

October 17th 2005, 08:50 PM

Greetings Alam,

God bless . Your post numbered 220 was thought provoking and very informative.

From that reading I noted the following quite frank admission by the Catholic Encyclopedia :

"and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heterooussion, "of other or different ousia"".

Three points , Alam.

(A) Trinitarians mantain they have in 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 2:22 support for the hypostatic union and the "Deity" of Christ. However, John wrote his epistles and those verses condemning those "who confess not that Jesus Christ came in the flesh" because of the teaching of the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a syncretic religion that combined doctrines of mysticism and gnosis with Kabbalistic conceptions(an early form of trinitarianism),eastern religion and Christianity. They denied that Jesus Christ came in literal flesh and blood because of their philosophical belief that matter is evil. According to them if Jesus had come with a real human body, he would have been sinful.

There is nothing in those verses which even remotely suggest Jesus is God.

(B) Catholics believe Jesus was God because he accepted "worship". However the Greek word "proskuneo" denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature or to the Creature. This is amply proved in Mt. 18:26 where the servant of the human Lord falls down and "proskuenoed" him.
It may safely be concluded that Jesus did not necessarily accept worship as God.

(C) Trinitarians believe "Jesus was God in the flesh". This is another way of saying Jesus was God in an idol(flesh, human).
I have met many an idol worshipper in India and they all tell me without fail the idol(often made of clay) they worship as God is holy and deserving of worship because God dwells in it, and not because of the idol itself. This is exactly what trinitarians do to and with Jesus Christ. What do you think?

Peace in Christ Jesus, the Son of God,

John from Ebla

October 17th 2005, 10:29 PM

[QUOTE=alam]

If "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.QUOTE]

I don;t have time now because l am going out- but once again, the above quote of yours means he was not created. Col1:15 is about the Son that was sacrificed (v14) not the logos that was God.

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

John from Ebla

October 18th 2005, 03:42 AM

The opposite may be the case. We have been forthright about our beliefs, and met what arguments you have offered head on. See John 3:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:15.

The word is prōtoktistos. It was not in common use in the first century. When it did, it was used by Christians such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen with reference to the Logos (e.g. Stromata v. 14).

Even if we could expect to find this word in Paul's letters, there is no reason to think he would have used it in Colossians 1. Paul may have had several related ideas in mind: not only that Christ is first creation, in accord with the Wisdom tradition (Prov. 8:22; Sirach 24:9), but possesses the right of the firstborn in consequence.

If "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.

Regards,

alam,

If the “firstborn” ‘prototokos’ means first in chronology; or first of any group plus pre- eminence- then to which group is the logos in? Do consider that God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” Is the "logos" part of the group that creates? Since all things are through him. You would have to say he is opposite to all that is created, because he is a creator- so who is he with-the Father? :ahem:

When he became ‘ Jesus’. He became part of creation- the firstborn, having pre- eminence over all that is created, and so he (Jesus) should have pre-eminence because he created all. ‘He came to that which belonged to him- his own creation…(.John 1:11)

Is your creator another god and not the one God.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Topherlee

October 18th 2005, 11:50 AM

Topherlee

October 18th 2005, 06:33 PM

alam

October 18th 2005, 08:25 PM

alam,

If the “firstborn” ‘prototokos’ means first in chronology; or first of any group plus pre- eminence- then to which group is the logos in? Do consider that God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” Is the "logos" part of the group that creates? Since all things are through him. You would have to say he is opposite to all that is created, because he is a creator- so who is he with-the Father? :ahem:

When he became ‘ Jesus’. He became part of creation- the firstborn, having pre- eminence over all that is created, and so he (Jesus) should have pre-eminence because he created all. ‘He came to that which belonged to him- his own creation…(.John 1:11)

Is your creator another god and not the one God.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Hello John from Ebla :

I don;t have time now because l am going out- but once again, the above quote of yours means he was not created. Col1:15 is about the Son that was sacrificed (v14) not the logos that was God.

Unless Christ incarnate is a distinct individual from the heavenly Logos, verse 14 does not in any way require us to read verse 15 in terms of the incarnation. Instead, the hoti clause in verse 16 indicates that it should be understood in terms of the original creation.

If the “firstborn” ‘prototokos’ means first in chronology; or first of any group plus pre- eminence- then to which group is the logos in? Do consider that God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” Is the "logos" part of the group that creates?

I do not class the Son with the generality of angels. He is of a different sort, although we may glean something of how he is from other spiritual creations--the angels, and primarily, what in us continues to bear God's image.

"All creation" is the group the Logos belongs to according to Colossians 1:15. He is created, brought into being by God, but does not belong to a further class.

Is your creator another god and not the one God.

Christianity has always taught that God the Father did not create directly, but through His Logos. The Logos is individual from God, as a son is from his father.

Since the Logos, ultimately, was God's agent in creation (the word used, dia, may denote instrumentality), the creation, as one of Christ's works (John 5:19,20,30; 14:10), is principally ascribed to God. In much the same way the miracles of the apostles, and the good works of the elect, are ascribed to God: "thou also hast wrought all our works in us" (Isa. 26:12).

However, when looking at instrumental as distinct from principal causes, it is very true to say that the Logos created, just as scripture ascribes to him agency in the mighty acts he did while on earth (Acts 2:22).

If this is objectionable to you in principle, as it is to some Jews and Muslims, I cannot help. Creation through the Logos is part of the Christian faith, as given by the apostles and handed down from the earliest times. But if you think that the scriptures themselves weigh against the view, that is something we can discuss.

I will be gone again for a day or so.

All the best

alam

October 18th 2005, 11:01 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Apologies! Somehow I missed your latest post. God willing, I will respond in a couple days, when I can spend the time that it deserves.

Yours in Christ

John from Ebla

October 19th 2005, 05:25 AM

Hello John from Ebla :

I don;t have time now because l am going out- but once again, the above quote of yours means he was not created. Col1:15 is about the Son that was sacrificed (v14) not the logos that was God.

Unless Christ incarnate is a distinct individual from the heavenly Logos, verse 14 does not in any way require us to read verse 15 in terms of the incarnation. Instead, the hoti clause in verse 16 indicates that it should be understood in terms of the original creation.

If the “firstborn” ‘prototokos’ means first in chronology; or first of any group plus pre- eminence- then to which group is the logos in? Do consider that God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” Is the "logos" part of the group that creates?

I do not class the Son with the generality of angels. He is of a different sort, although we may glean something of how he is from other spiritual creations--the angels, and primarily, what in us continues to bear God's image.

"All creation" is the group the Logos belongs to according to Colossians 1:15. He is created, brought into being by God, but does not belong to a further class.

Is your creator another god and not the one God.

Christianity has always taught that God the Father did not create directly, but through His Logos. The Logos is individual from God, as a son is from his father.

Since the Logos, ultimately, was God's agent in creation (the word used, dia, may denote instrumentality), the creation, as one of Christ's works (John 5:19,20,30; 14:10), is principally ascribed to God. In much the same way the miracles of the apostles, and the good works of the elect, are ascribed to God: "thou also hast wrought all our works in us" (Isa. 26:12).

However, when looking at instrumental as distinct from principal causes, it is very true to say that the Logos created, just as scripture ascribes to him agency in the mighty acts he did while on earth (Acts 2:22).

If this is objectionable to you in principle, as it is to some Jews and Muslims, I cannot help. Creation through the Logos is part of the Christian faith, as given by the apostles and handed down from the earliest times. But if you think that the scriptures themselves weigh against the view, that is something we can discuss.

I will be gone again for a day or so.

All the best

Firstborn and Created do not mean the same in English, Latin. Greek, or Hebrew.

God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” so the "logos" is not part of the group that is created- and since all things are through him you would have to say he is opposite to all that is created because he is a creator. Since there is not a single verse in the scriptures that say the logos was created then there is no support to say he is created.

Firstborn: Since you agree that all scriptures speak of firstborn as in groups and pre- eminence (but not necessarily, chronological order, e.g. Esau- Isaac) then without doubt the Logos is with the creator (non of what is created is part of this group)

The first man was created and the woman came from man (Gen 2:23) they were the same creatures type, just one was man and the other woman- all others born and , within those that are born, we have firstborn.

The Logos proceeds from the Father (not one scripture suggest he is created) he is the very word of the father and should be of the same essence, substance, form, type, glory, just as the scriptures say the Son is, and just as the Logos is shown in the O/T- ‘thy shall have no other gods” The Lord God is the Logos- as is the Father so is the son- The same is said for all humans-our firstborn are not another creature. :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 20th 2005, 05:21 AM

Greetings alam,

May God bless you.

John from Ebla is prone to repeat the following:

There can only be One savior because the Lord God is not a created being as his creation. (He is one Spirit- l and the father one- the same spirit not anotther)

Even though we have explained to him on numerous occasions why and how Jesus could be a Saviour yet God still be the only Saviour, he refuses to understand. Perhaps the words of an apostolic father will convince him:

Irenaeus:

[color=black][size=1]"Just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king because the king, even though not personally in the battle, commanded the battle to take place, so the Father is credited with being the Creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it" (AH2, II.3). "Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).

This is sound doctrine, which contradicts the unsound doctrine of the Trinity and the defies their claim that Arians make two gods. Infact it the Trinitarians who imagine three gods and make unions of hypostasis and whatnot.

After commenting upon a verse in Psalms (33:9) concerning creation: "He [the Father] commanded, and they were created", Irenaeus asks "Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom the heavens were established" (AH3, VIII.3). Amen.

Irenaeus makes the observation that, because the Son (the Word) was empowered by the Father to fulfill His will in creation, the Son and the Father both may rightly be called God and Lord (AH3, VIII.3).

God bless,

John from Ebla

October 21st 2005, 02:03 AM

John from Ebla

October 21st 2005, 04:53 AM

Practical wisdom will tell you that when Jesus was led up to the mountain to be tempted of the devil, offering him kingdoms, riches, and power upon the earth, who do you think Satan was tempting? Was he tempting God, the creator of all things, or, was he tempting the Son of God, the true and faithful witness.
We know God through faith and scripture. Satan knew God through presence and communication. Why offer the creator of all things, things of the earth. Was God Almighty deceiving the deceiver?
Think with reason, not confusion...

- topherlee

Practical wisdom will tell you that Jesus was God in the flesh- off course he was human with the Logos spirit in him- that is why he spoke to the Father.

You think Paul did not know what he said "God was in Christ" (2Cor5-19) he new the O/T- the Logos that said, " l am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It wasn’t the “Father” but it was not the lie of the Rabbi’s God Turned his back on them in 70AD
1 Cor:8-6, Gen 1:26, John1:1-3,10

Read your bible and tell me who the god of this world is, has he ever said the truth ?- so rethink about what you said with reason, not confusion... What did Jesus over come by his Death and Resurrection- who’s powers?

Who else could do this? none other than GOD

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

October 21st 2005, 06:53 AM

Greetings Alam, May God bless you.

From the following link I've printed rule 1:

http://www.pfrs.org/sharp.html (http://www.pfrs.org/sharp.html)

Rule I.
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person"

Granville Sharpe though he had found in Greek grammar proof for this trinity business. Could you please explain why it doesn't work.

No rush.... Thanks.

Pythagoras

October 21st 2005, 02:43 PM

Hi John from Ebla,

When l small l used to watch "Batman and Robin" and l recall at times how "Boy wonder" didn’t answer a person directly but pointed out his argument to Batman.

Now, “Boy wonder” :smile: Jesus, the man born, was empowered by having in him the spirit that was the logos- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That why in Jesus is the fullness of God because The LORD GOD of the O/T was GOD.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

You are missing the point. I'm having a similar discussin with another trinitarian on another forum, and he seems to have the same problem you do.

Revisit Irenaeus's ax , wood and woodcutter example which I furnished . Irenaeus likens the axe to Jesus in that illustration . He says the woodcutter, not the ax, cuts the wood, though it is the ax that literally chips away at the wood. . The ax is Jesus in his example.

Undoubtly Irenaeus was inspired by John's words in John 3:10 when he used this analogy:

"The ax is already at the root of the trees[symbol for men in the OT, eg. Ps. 1:3, 52:8,92:15 etc.], and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

In John 3:11, John tells us who this ax of God is:

"I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize yuo with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. "
: Jesus is not another Saviour God is the only Saviour. Similarily, there is only one Saviour of man's souls.. "

The New testament does not say the Logos was empowered.

Unfortunately for you, the NT does say the Logos was empowered. This is confirmed by Jesus himself many times. For instance Jesus said "On my own I can do nothing". Do you know which verse and chapter? There are other such statements ofcourse.

best wishes,

Topherlee

October 21st 2005, 03:36 PM

Practical wisdom will tell you that Jesus was God in the flesh- off course he was human with the Logos spirit in him- that is why he spoke to the Father.

You think Paul did not know what he said "God was in Christ" (2Cor5-19) he new the O/T- the Logos that said, " l am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It wasn’t the “Father” but it was not the lie of the Rabbi’s God Turned his back on them in 70AD
1 Cor:8-6, Gen 1:26, John1:1-3,10

Read your bible and tell me who the god of this world is, has he ever said the truth ?- so rethink about what you said with reason, not confusion... What did Jesus over come by his Death and Resurrection- who’s powers?

Who else could do this? none other than GOD

Kind regards.
John From Ebla

1. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus was the human body of God.

2. God was in Christ, how? But then again, God is in all and through all. Your body is God's temple;
Paul asked in 1 Corinthians: “Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” and “Don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God?” In 2 Corinthians he comes right out and says it plainly: “We are a temple of the living God; even as God said, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’”

3. Now you are saying that the Logos is a spirit. In no way does logos pertain to a spiritual or physical being. It is God's law, thought, plan, idea, manner of speech, etc. Jesus is the chosen representative, the Messiah, of the logos. God's law, plan...

Why was Jesus anointed? And, anointed with what? Why does Jesus pray to God? And our Father and his Father? Yet, you say he is the Father. You said yourself, he spoke to the Father. Joseph and Mary went on to have children. Are you saying that God has brothers and sisters. Because, Jesus refers to them, and the apostles, as his bretheren.

There are no three gods that make up one god. There is only one God, the Father, and our Lord and King Jesus, our brother, who has been MADE so much better than the angels and above man, that we should accept him as our Lord as indicated by our Father.

1 Cor 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

- topherlee

alam

October 21st 2005, 07:53 PM

Hi Pythagoras, God bless,

The thread has certainly kept going strong, will have some reading to do. : )

From that reading I noted the following quite frank admission by the Catholic Encyclopedia :

"and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heterooussion, "of other or different ousia"".

Nicean Homoousianism was a lapse. Its watchword was proscribed before, from Antioch in the 3rd century, and afterwards, from Rimini in 359.

(A) Trinitarians mantain they have in 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 2:22 support for the hypostatic union and the "Deity" of Christ. However, John wrote his epistles and those verses condemning those "who confess not that Jesus Christ came in the flesh" because of the teaching of the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a syncretic religion that combined doctrines of mysticism and gnosis with Kabbalistic conceptions(an early form of trinitarianism),eastern religion and Christianity. They denied that Jesus Christ came in literal flesh and blood because of their philosophical belief that matter is evil. According to them if Jesus had come with a real human body, he would have been sinful.

There is nothing in those verses which even remotely suggest Jesus is God.

This is very true. 1 John 4:3 and 2:22 do not support any doctrine unique to Trinitarianism. The Arians too believed in the Incarnation; they held that the Logos occupies in relation to his human flesh the place that our spirit occupies in relation to our flesh. This is the analogy that our homoousian friends have to keep making to explain the "death of God," although for them this is a "heresy" called Apollinarianism.

The Logos is able to perform the function of a finite human spirit because finitude and the condition of a human creature are not antithetical to the Logos. Incarnation involved Kenosis or 'emptying' of the glory that was his at the Father's will.

OTOH we cannot coherently speak of God Almighty "emptying" Himself of His divine nature, for there is nothing pertaining to God that is not divine, nor is God a composite (contingent) being.

As you know, the Gnostics were not only anti-cosmic but tended to oppose the God of Israel. Of necessity, they had to downplay the concept of Jesus as "Christ." It was well known in the ancient Church that "Christ" was the Hebrew title for a king, much as "Pharaoh" was for the Egyptians and "Caesar" for Romans (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.3.7; Lactantius, Divine Institutes iv, 7; Recognitions of Clement i, 45).

IIRC, the Pistis Sophia does not call Jesus "Christ" except in the concluding section, which is believed to be an interpolation. The concept of Christhood is absent or on a low level in Gnostic documents.

The logic of 1 John 2.22 is that someone who denies the Messiahship of Jesus is denying the Father and the Son. In terms of the Tanach, it can be easily understood why.

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

(B) Catholics believe Jesus was God because he accepted "worship". However the Greek word "proskuneo" denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature or to the Creature. This is amply proved in Mt. 18:26 where the servant of the human Lord falls down and "proskuenoed" him.
It may safely be concluded that Jesus did not necessarily accept worship as God.

This is absolutely correct; proskuneō; like Hebrew l'hishtahªwōth does not refer to the worship that is God's alone. Latria is reserved for God, although the Roman church does teach that hyperdulia, the next best thing, should be offered to the human nature of Christ, and to the Virgin Mary.

(C) Trinitarians believe "Jesus was God in the flesh". This is another way of saying Jesus was God in an idol(flesh, human).
I have met many an idol worshipper in India and they all tell me without fail the idol(often made of clay) they worship as God is holy and deserving of worship because God dwells in it, and not because of the idol itself. This is exactly what trinitarians do to and with Jesus Christ. What do you think?

This is problematic. The Hebrew scriptures teach that God could "dwell" in material things, and to external appearances, these would have seemed to be treated as God. The word for the tabernacle, mishkan, means, "place of dwelling." While it stood, this was the center of worship on earth; the worship of God was directed toward the tabernacle (Psa. 5:7). And Christ said, "in this place is [one] greater than the temple" ( Matt. 12:6).

A possible solution -- the Israelite worship featured no images of God, in the way that Hindus have images of God, or Niocenes with crucifixes have images of God. The closest that the Israelite tabernacle came to representing God were the images of the covering cherubs upon the mercy seat, and these symbolized the inaccessibility of God through material forms.

Humanity is the image of God -- not our physical appearance, otherwise one could produce an anthropomorphic image and claim it is an accurate depiction of God -- but the spiritual nature. In the fall, this nature was marred. The Logos was the archetype after which our spiritual nature was patterned (Gen. 1.26), and the Logos made flesh was and is the accurate human image of God. Yet, as with the tabernacle, there is nothing depictable about the Logos that is the image of God. His resemblance to God is spiritual. He is a living icon, and living icons are the only sort that will do in representing the living God.

As the Nicenes explain their veneration of images in terms of the hypostatic union, the Arian rejection of the hypostatic union may illuminate their rejection of the use of images, including the crucifix as channels of worship. In the baptistry of king Theodoric, the throne on the Eastern side--the direction of prayer--is without a depiction of Christ, being occupied by a simple cross. The image of Christ in the Jordan is oriented East, toward God, the opposite of the Catholic baptistry (http://www.turismo.ra.it/binary/turismo_ravenna/arte_monumenti/ariani.1102599087.pdf ; http://www.initaly.com/regions/byzant/byzant4.htm). What it is in Christ that represents God is immaterial, off-limits to the arts, just as it is immaterial in the rest of humankind.

Yours in Christ,

John from Ebla

October 21st 2005, 08:11 PM

1. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus was the human body of God.

2. God was in Christ, how? But then again, God is in all and through all. Your body is God's temple;
Paul asked in 1 Corinthians: “Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” and “Don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God?” In 2 Corinthians he comes right out and says it plainly: “We are a temple of the living God; even as God said, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’”

3. Now you are saying that the Logos is a spirit. In no way does logos pertain to a spiritual or physical being. It is God's law, thought, plan, idea, manner of speech, etc. Jesus is the chosen representative, the Messiah, of the logos. God's law, plan...

Why was Jesus anointed? And, anointed with what? Why does Jesus pray to God? And our Father and his Father? Yet, you say he is the Father. You said yourself, he spoke to the Father. Joseph and Mary went on to have children. Are you saying that God has brothers and sisters. Because, Jesus refers to them, and the apostles, as his bretheren.

There are no three gods that make up one god. There is only one God, the Father, and our Lord and King Jesus, our brother, who has been MADE so much better than the angels and above man, that we should accept him as our Lord as indicated by our Father.

1 Cor 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

- topherlee

Don't hold your breath trying to prove your assumption.

God was in Christ 2 Cor:5-19
The word God became Flesh 1:1-3-14 Tabernacled- as the pressence of God Dwelt amongst Israel- it dwelt in Christ. :blush:

Let me guess- my Pressence before someone is not me.

Kind regard
John From Ebla

alam

October 21st 2005, 09:37 PM

Firstborn and Created do not mean the same in English, Latin. Greek, or Hebrew.

No contest there.

God never said to any created angel “You are my son, today l begotten you” so the "logos" is not part of the group that is created-

The verse does not say "any created angel" but "which of the angels," an entire class. You are supplying things into the text to harmonize it with your view, because you know that Christ appeared as Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament.

and since all things are through him you would have to say he is opposite to all that is created because he is a creator. Since there is not a single verse in the scriptures that say the logos was created then there is no support to say he is created.

Colossians 1:15 locates him within the group of creation. The "all" in v. 16 does not change things. The range of "all," especially in Paul's writings, is determined by the context. See post 194 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235547&postcount=194).

Verse 16 states "in him were all things created." In principle everything was created in the Logos, who is the "ratiocination of the universe" (Hippolytus, Ref. Haer. x, 29 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm)). This does not preclude the Logos from being created, any more than "in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22,23) precludes that Christ himself was made alive. It is the contrary: if Christ was not made alive, no one could be made alive with/in him (1 Cor. 15:16-18), nor could the universe have been created in Christ if Christ was not created by God.

Firstborn: Since you agree that all scriptures speak of firstborn as in groups and pre- eminence (but not necessarily, chronological order, e.g. Esau- Isaac) then without doubt the Logos is with the creator (non of what is created is part of this group)

Firstborn does not signify bare pre-eminence but is also partitive. You could not be firstborn of a group if you are not part of that group. Imagine a rancher claiming that his son is the firstborn of all his calves. That would be absurd, but it seems to be what you are saying about Colossians 1:15.

The Logos proceeds from the Father (not one scripture suggest he is created) he is the very word of the father and should be of the same essence, substance, form, type, glory, just as the scriptures say the Son is,

The scriptures say nothing about essences.

and just as the Logos is shown in the O/T- ‘thy shall have no other gods” The Lord God is the Logos- as is the Father so is the son- The same is said for all humans-our firstborn are not another creature

Of course someone's son is another creature than him. You are jumbling all these ideas together. You mean that a son is not a different kind of creature from his father. But then you would be reading into "thou shalt have no other gods," the qualification, "no other kind of gods."

Are we to understand that it was fine for the Israelites to have other gods as long as they were the same kind of god as YHWH, familially related to him somehow? Throughout the classical paganism, the gods were conceived of as related to eachother; in the Canaanite religion, Ba`al was thought to be the son of 'El. So according to your view, the Canaanite mythology was not polytheistic, because they did not see Ba'al as a different kind of god than God!

Nor did the paganism have one center of worship, but Bamoth. The first thing Jerobam did against the religion was to create two golden calves, and proclaim these calves to be YHWH -- "behold thine Elohim, O Israel, which brought (pl.) thee up out of the land of Egypt" -- two calves, of the same substance (gold), the same kind of gods, the same shape or form. This was the abomination that destroyed Israel. Yet you would have us believe, that the Torah only prohibits the children of Israel from worshiping multiple kinds of gods?

Regards

Pythagoras

October 22nd 2005, 02:01 AM

Greetings alam,

God bless and thanks for your reply. I've noticed English- Hebrew translations do not literally translate.

For instance Ex. 7:1, Mechon Mamre,

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

However literally it should read "See, I have set thee [a] Elohim(God) over Pharaoh...", yes?

This dilution in translation by the Jews, is it done on purpose or out of respect for God, and perhaps to shield their faith against accusations of polytheism by the ignorant?

Here's another example:

Psalm 82:6, "I said:ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most high."

But the NT John 10:34 gives us the literal read of Psalm 82:6 and from the mouth of Jesus himself, "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, "I have said you are gods(Elohim) ?.."

The Hebrew translations seem to soften the "blow" , I suspect out of fear a literal translation be wrongly construed . In Hab. 1:12 they even render "You shall not die" to "we shall not die."

What are your thoughts?

alam

October 22nd 2005, 08:43 PM

Greetings alam,

May God bless you.

John from Ebla is prone to repeat the following:

Even though we have explained to him on numerous occasions why and how Jesus could be a Saviour yet God still be the only Saviour, he refuses to understand. Perhaps the words of an apostolic father will convince him:

Irenaeus:

[color=black][size=1]"Just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king because the king, even though not personally in the battle, commanded the battle to take place, so the Father is credited with being the Creator of all, though the Son actually performed the creation act, because the Father willed and empowered him to do it" (AH2, II.3). "Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).

This is sound doctrine, which contradicts the unsound doctrine of the Trinity and the defies their claim that Arians make two gods. Infact it the Trinitarians who imagine three gods and make unions of hypostasis and whatnot.

After commenting upon a verse in Psalms (33:9) concerning creation: "He [the Father] commanded, and they were created", Irenaeus asks "Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom the heavens were established" (AH3, VIII.3). Amen.

Irenaeus makes the observation that, because the Son (the Word) was empowered by the Father to fulfill His will in creation, the Son and the Father both may rightly be called God and Lord (AH3, VIII.3).

God bless,

Amen, and thank you Pythagoras, these perfectly illustrate the view of the fathers.

Rule I.
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person"

Granville Sharpe though he had found in Greek grammar proof for this trinity business. Could you please explain why it doesn't work.

By definition, Sharp's rule does not apply when one of the nouns is a proper noun. Greg Stafford of University of Wisconsin has argued that such is the case in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1. Thus neither verse would be an instance of the rule. On the other hand, if theos in these verses is a common noun, the verses would not tell us anything new. We already know that theos as a common noun is applied to Jesus (John 1.1,18); it is descriptive of what he is. The question is whether theos is uniquely descriptive of Jesus' personal identity, as it is of God the Father.

As long as megas theos is not construed as a proper noun designating the Supreme Being, I have no difficulty with its application to Christ. No one doubts that the Logos is greatest of the subordinate gods (Micah 5:4; Psa. 45:6-7; 82:1). But scripture states that he too has a God, One greater than him. That One is the principal cause of salvation (Titus 3:4-6).

You probably know that Nero was called "god and savior": "An inscription from Salamis (c. 60-61 CE) calls him ‘god and savior’ (qew|= kai_ swth=ri)" [source (http://www.bsw.org/?l=71821&a=Comm06.html), taken from "M. SMALLWOOD, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius Claudius & Nero (Cambridge 1967) 52, entry 145"]. Assuming Sharp's rule for the phrases, I would tend to see in them a political statement as much as anything. What do you think?

However literally it should read "See, I have set thee [a] Elohim(God) over Pharaoh...", yes?

That is a precise translation. To be fully literal you would say to Pharaoh but that is a really fine point.

This dilution in translation by the Jews, is it done on purpose or out of respect for God, and perhaps to shield their faith against accusations of polytheism by the ignorant?

Perhaps to distinguish themselves more sharply from pagans, the custom evolved of reserving the words for "god" to the Supreme Being.

Although Christians have also come to adopt this, for us such lexical "purification" fosters misunderstanding, considering the original importance of the Logos doctrine, which, by definition, involves a subordinate god or level of deity -- not to mention the importance still attached to the doctrine of 'theosis' in some quarters. Even if people were to paraphrase John 1:1 as "the Logos was an angel" or "divine being," as they do to 'ĕlohīm in some of the Psalms, it would not be ideal; there would be a loss of meaning.

Fortunately, more people are beginning to speak of biblical "monolatry" as opposed to "monotheism." Latria is reserved for the Supreme Being, and His glory should be the final cause of a believer's life and every act (Deut. 6:4-6). This includes the veneration He has commanded of Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). As Theognis of Nicea wrote to bishop Alexander, "Knowing from the holy scriptures that the Father alone is ungenerated, him alone we adore. On the other hand we venerate (veneramur!) the Son, because among us it is certain that his glory ascends to the Father" (Thomas A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism: Volume I, 1979; p. 28).

God bless,

Topherlee

October 23rd 2005, 11:18 AM

Don't hold your breath trying to prove your assumption.

God was in Christ 2 Cor:5-19
The word God became Flesh 1:1-3-14 Tabernacled- as the pressence of God Dwelt amongst Israel- it dwelt in Christ. :blush:

Let me guess- my Pressence before someone is not me.

Kind regard
John From Ebla

Great rebuttal - expected.
Not the word God, but the word of God. Remember the "word" is not a physical or spiritual being; "and the Word was with God".
You appear to be good with greek translations. Reexamine John 1:1 for yourself.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.

Pythagoras

October 23rd 2005, 05:11 PM

Greetings Alam, May God richly bless you,

This is problematic. The Hebrew scriptures teach that God could "dwell" in material things, and to external appearances, these would have seemed to be treated as God. The word for the tabernacle, mishkan, means, "place of dwelling." While it stood, this was the center of worship on earth; the worship of God was directed toward the tabernacle (Psa. 5:7). And Christ said, "in this place is [one] greater than the temple" ( Matt. 12:6).

My read of the bible says God does not personally "dwell" in material or human things. In my opinion, one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit cannot be a "person" or cannot be the "Second person of God(Trinity)" is because God does not "personally" dwell in anything or anyone apart from Himself. This is reiterated numerous times in scripture. Would not the presence of the "Second person of the Holy Trinity" render the saints flesh and blood idols of Yahweh ? And would not Christ be the Supreme idol, having God literally dwell in him in a body of flesh and blood?. The Revelation of Jesus Christ in 13:15 speaks of an idol that came to life. But the bible says God cannot be confined in bodies or buildings.

A possible solution -- the Israelite worship featured no images of God, in the way that Hindus have images of God, or Niocenes with crucifixes have images of God. The closest that the Israelite tabernacle came to representing God were the images of the covering cherubs upon the mercy seat, and these symbolized the inaccessibility of God through material forms.

The OT says the God revealed in the Bible is fundamentally different than the gods of the nations. He does not need houses or temples to dwell in---the entire universe is God's house, "the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him" and His infinite Spirit can not be confined in any way to man or to man-made dwelling places.-- Isah. 66:1, Jer. 23:23, 24. The apopstle Paul was disturbed in his spirit by the profusions of false gods, images and shrines when he visited Athens. The apostle boldly reasserted that God assuredly did not dwell in buildings made by men. -- Acts 17:16-31.

Yet in spite of these clear teachings throughout the Bible that God does not live in man-made buildings or in men, trinitarians continue to believe He does ,citing Ex. 25:8-9, 40. But this is a mistaken interpretation. God's "Shekinah" presence in the temple does not mean He's literally there, but that His presence , His force and His council on earth resides there. It is God's footstool and not His dwelling place. Obviously one cannot literally inhabit one's own footstool. The tabernacle is referred to as the "dwelling place" of God, his footstool. The Tabernacle gave tangible evidence that God was with His people as did the Pillar of Cloud by day and the Pillar of fire by night(the Shekinah). Infact the Lord makes a house for Israel , and not Israel for the Lord. (2 Samuel 7:1-13). We may not even behold God and live, let alone have Him in us. But Catholics force this conclusion, since they believe the Holy Spirit is God.

If the Holy Spirit is God, how can it live in us and we not die?

Even Solomon recognized that God could scarcely becontained in a stone building. -- 1 Kings 8:27, 2 chron. 2:6, 6:18.

And Acts 7:44-50. Infact, we are temples of God and Christ Jesus the first among many brethen in this regard. God does not literally dwell in us in person, but his presence (Holy Spirit) is in us . The analogy of fire(Holy Spirit) lighting a candle(man) is a good one. -- Hebrews 3, John 1:14, John 2:13-23, Cor. 13:16-17, I Cor 6:15-20 etc.