Is Jesus God or a god? [Archive]

Shazard

March 31st 2006, 03:26 AM

Problem with JW is that the word "God" to them is not description of nature (similar to men, dog, stone) but title. Simple word which you can stick to whatever you like and because of it, it becomes God.
You can stick title "dog" wherever you like but only to real Dog it will imply true. Question, why then sometimes something else then Dog is called "dog". Coz it implies some dogish features, like anger, like barking, etc. Sometimes people are called dogs - by this saying that people are bad. But it does not mean that the word "dog" itself is title in EVERY context. If it is implied to some unnamed creature then we assume that the word explains nature of the creature and by this we imply everything dog is - is this unnamed creature.
SO... word "God" is not title in every context. When it is applied to men, it implies some features supposely being only God's features applied to men. For Moses it was his authority to speak about disasses and promising bad things to pharaon. This is real's Gods features, thats why you can at some sense say that Moses is like god. Judges are called Gods, coz judgement is only God's feature, but the very next verese says, that these men will die as men. So in these contexts word "god" is title not nature. BUT, when the word "God' talks about God, it implies NATURE of the creature. It explains the very nature of the creature the context is talking. This is what JW ignore, they ignore that word's meaning is defined by the very context the word is used. JWs implies mening of the word defined by OTHER context in the bible. So meaning of Word was God is defined by Context from Old Testament. But the very context of John 1 is enough to understand the real meaning of the word "God" is it talking about Nature of the creature, or it is only title. And you have to be very very very very blind to not see, that here the word "God" implies nature of the beaing, not title. Coz very next 2 verses explains, that we are talking about creator of the universe. And THIS means that here it is not title, but very nature of being. Coz only God is creator, and whoever is creator is God. Even the name of God YHWH is very essence of God - Creator. So if somebody IS Creator this somebody is God. And only God is Creator. That's why Jeremia talks that every God which is not Creator will be destroyed.
So if you are honest and do not imply other meaning of word rather then one defined by wery context, you will conclude that Jesus is God by nature. Father is God by Nature. So to harmonise these revelations you have to conclude that Father and Son both are God by nature. And this very Nature is Creator... God is not title, God is nature in proper context, and title in other context. The same is with Holy Spirit. Word Spirit has about 8 meanings, and the very context of expression will define whcih one of the meanings it is. So if the context speaks about "spirit telling, spirit teaching, spirit saying 'I'" then even for child it is clear that the word "spirit" is used in the sense of person. JW does (as allways) opposite. They goes find some expression where context obviously speaks about other meaning of the same word, and applys THAT context to the word which is used in other context. And THEN defines context by the "new" meaning of the word. But again. Bible itself sayse that New Testament is primary over Old Testament in revelation and undertanding. So first you have to come to conlcusion what is Holy Spirit by only reading New Testament, and then apply the conclusion to Old Testament verses, not otherwise.

Sparko

March 31st 2006, 11:03 AM

Exactly Shazard. Excellent post.

Pythagoras

March 31st 2006, 02:36 PM

Hi Shazard,

Problem with JW is that the word "God" to them is not description of nature (similar to men, dog, stone) but title.

I'm not a JW but you're wrong if you're giving the impression they use God as a title in every instance.

Simple word which you can stick to whatever you like and because of it, it becomes God.

Actually this is what trinitarians do more often than not! For example, because Jesus is called God(Theos) in John 1:1, "a simple word", they "stick it to whatever" by making Jesus God Almighty. Why they don't do the same with passages like 2 Cor. 4:4 where Satan is called Theos(God) boggles my mind.

You can stick title "dog" wherever you like but only to real Dog it will imply true.

Exactly!

Question, why then sometimes something else then Dog is called "dog". Coz it implies some dogish features, like anger, like barking, etc. Sometimes people are called dogs - by this saying that people are bad. But it does not mean that the word "dog" itself is title in EVERY context.

Exactly!

When it is applied to men, it implies some features supposely being only God's features applied to men. For Moses it was his authority to speak about disasses and promising bad things to pharaon. This is real's Gods features, thats why you can at some sense say that Moses is like god. Judges are called Gods, coz judgement is only God's feature, but the very next verese says, that these men will die as men. So in these contexts word "god" is title not nature.

Bravo! Therefore when the word "God" is used to describe Jesus it is used as a title, because we know Jesus was a man, he died and he wasn't omniscient etc., but God Almighty is not a man, neither does He die and He is all knowing etc.

This is what JW ignore, they ignore that word's meaning is defined by the very context the word is used.

How very ironic.

But the very context of John 1 is enough to understand the real meaning of the word "God" is it talking about Nature of the creature, or it is only title. And you have to be very very very very blind to not see, that here the word "God" implies nature of the beaing, not title.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the prologue of John to indicate Jesus is God Almighty. Infact, many Greek grammarians, including Origen the church Father say the articless Theos in John 1:1 and other nuances in the prologue argues against the Deity of Christ. So your claim is subjective with many scholars disagreeing with your point of view, that "you have to be very very very very blind not to see" what you see (that Jesus is God Almighty). .

In a nutshell, your argument that Jesus is God Almighty is based not upon Greek grammar nor on proper exegesis but on 4th century trinitarian dogma and appeal to frustration, i.e. "very very very very very blind not to see it" etc.

So first you have to come to conlcusion what is Holy Spirit by only reading New Testament, and then apply the conclusion to Old Testament verses, not otherwise

In other words, first you have to believe in the trinity doctrine, then interprete the Old and New Testaments with this belief system, which is the classic definition of "arguing in circles".

best wishes,

Jeckle&Hyde

April 2nd 2006, 04:36 PM

Actually this is what trinitarians do more often than not! For example, because Jesus is called God(Theos) in John 1:1, "a simple word", they "stick it to whatever" by making Jesus God Almighty. Why they don't do the same with passages like 2 Cor. 4:4 where Satan is called Theos(God) boggles my mind.

I for one am not interested in who does what...to me such an argument is only a deflection...

But shall we examine the comparisons then?

John 1 one is certianly different from 2 Cor 4 four when using the word 'theos'...settled then...or should their be a continuation?

Thats all I wanted to comment on..

Pythagoras

April 2nd 2006, 06:25 PM

Jeckle&Hyde

April 2nd 2006, 06:48 PM

There is nothing in John 1:1 , appart from thoelogical bias, to warrant the use of the word Theos in a different sense than it's use in 2 Cor 4:4, John 10:34 etc.

That's the point.

Then why point out 2 Cor? Like I said..deflection :ahem:

Pythagoras

April 2nd 2006, 07:43 PM

Jeckle&Hyde

April 2nd 2006, 10:05 PM

You're not following the logic.

Well.....do i have too follow "the logic"? Perhaps i am trying to take this logic elsewhere...somewhere you haven't been before?

Hmmm....give me day...i will try and present something you will actually want to talk about..concerning the issue at hand..i'll present it differently... :smile:

Shazard

April 3rd 2006, 05:17 AM

Hi Shazard,
For example, because Jesus is called God(Theos) in John 1:1, "a simple word", they "stick it to whatever" by making Jesus God Almighty. Why they don't do the same with passages like 2 Cor. 4:4 where Satan is called Theos(God) boggles my mind.
best wishes,

I can Answer. Coz those trinitarians read in context. If you bother to read next 2 verses then you will find out that we are talking about such Theos who is creator of the whole universe. And also if you go and read whole 18 verses then you will find that John 1:1 Theos is other then 2 Cor 4:4 Theos. That is the problem I see in JW and all other cults, they ignore what Bible says if it does not says what they want. And context of 2 Cor 4:4 is very different from Conterxt of John 1:1-18. John is talking about incarnation of God in human flesh and funny is that in the same prologue John tells, that the world didn't accepted exactly this truth. This is what I see JW do. They can't recognize YHWH even when he is standing in front of them and telling "you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He,] you will die in your sins." You see him and do not recognize him. What else he can do? He revelead himself through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is reflection of God's nature and in him dwells whole beeing of God bodily. It's impossible to tell and show and explain it more clearly then it is allready sayed.

anewlife

April 3rd 2006, 10:02 AM

Actually, I went from proving the scriptures and inspiration before ever considering the trinity or any other creedal statements. In my endeavors I find that I still am a soft-skeptic, soft cessationist and did not fully understand the articulation of the trinity. I could have easily stated the trinity concept as being a pagan document--however, I would have to fully research the pagan religion, and of course the history of the Ecumenical Movement (councils).

Would it be a fair to say I do not fully understand the concept of trinity and therefore it can't be christian--so it must be pagan by default? I wouldn't think so. So if Christians made statements (Nicene, Chalcedon) wouldn't they have to be able to back up such statements with scripture? Why would the early Christians make such statements (other than to counter Ebionism, Docetism, Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism), Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism), Arianism)?

:ahem:

Elohim, used for God 2,570 times in the OT, literally means "the powerful ones."

Adonai, used 449 times, means "my lords."

Titus 2:13 "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."

Rom. 9:5 "Of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

Col. 1:15–17a "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

What about?

The Holy Spirit is called God:



2 Cor. 3:17–18



"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from



glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."



Acts 5:3–4



"But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’"



See also:



2 Sam. 23:2; Isa. 40:13–18; compare Isa. 6:9 with Acts 28:25; Ps. 95:7 with Heb. 3:7ff; Jer. 31:31 with Heb. 10:15. In these places the words of the Spirit are the words of God.



The Holy Spirit is a Person:



• The Spirit has His own intelligence (1 Cor. 2:10–13).

• The Spirit manifests emotions (Eph. 4:30).

• The Spirit demonstrates His own will (Acts 8:29, 9:31; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 1 Cor. 12:11).

• Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is worse than blasphemy of Christ or the Father (Matt. 12:32).

• The Spirit humbles Himself by willingly diverting attention away from Himself to Christ (John 15:26; 16:13–14).

Just as Christ humbled Himself in becoming a servant of man (Phil. 2:5–8), the Holy Spirit humbles Himself in that He is the . . .



1. Least known

2. Least worshiped

3. Least individualized of the Godhead

1 Cor. 12:4–6 "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men."



2 Cor. 13:14 "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."



Eph. 2:18 "For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.



[/size][/size]

Jeannot

April 3rd 2006, 12:36 PM

In John 14, Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."

Shazard

April 3rd 2006, 02:08 PM

In John 14, Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."

So? Now go and read Philipians 2:6-9 and seek the answer why he sayed so!

Real question is Father better?
Atleast we find that Jesus is much better then any of angelrs (so he can't be Angel by nature) in Heb 1:3-4

Pythagoras

April 4th 2006, 04:40 AM

Hi Shazard,

I can Answer. Coz those trinitarians read in context. If you bother to read next 2 verses then you will find out that we are talking about such Theos who is creator of the whole universe. ....

Trinitairans read out of context more like. That verse doesn't say Christ created the whole Universe but that God did through Christ just as God delivered the children of Israel and parted the sea through Moses. If we follow your logic, we would have to conclude Moses, the God of Pharaoh(Ex.7:1), parted the sea and delivered the children of Israel and not God.

best wishes,

Jeannot

April 4th 2006, 01:40 PM

alam

April 4th 2006, 09:01 PM

The JW position seems to me to be about the same as the early Arians. I believe the Aryans cited Proverbs 8:22ff and applied it to the Son:

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old. I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water . . . .

Then I was the craftsman at his side, I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in the whole world and delighting in mankind."

The concept of the Son then more or less fits the Platonic idea of the Demiurge.

Hello Jeannot:

In Plato's Timaeus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html), the Greek δημιουργος is translated as the "Creator" (see the link) because this is what "demiurge" means in Timaeus, as also in most patristic writings. The platonic demiurge creates using the forms as a template but does not work for someone else. Thus this is rather different from JW and Arain belief.

Best regards

Shazard

April 5th 2006, 04:48 AM

Hi Shazard,

Trinitairans read out of context more like. That verse doesn't say Christ created the whole Universe but that God did through Christ just as God delivered the children of Israel and parted the sea through Moses. If we follow your logic, we would have to conclude Moses, the God of Pharaoh(Ex.7:1), parted the sea and delivered the children of Israel and not God.

best wishes,

See again. You put Moses context into John 1:1 context, which ar two very different contexts. But context of John 1:1-18 is very clear, that we are talking about creator Theos. And greek word "dia" is english "by". Showing active agent of the creation. The same is applied to Father in Heb 2:10 and especially read Rom 11:36. I am showing you similar contexts, where it is written that all things are through God (Theios). So only blind (or fool) refuses to obey simple rules of exegesis. John 1:1-18 is speaking about such Theos which is Creator through whom and by whom all things are created and no single thing created without him. This actually is real and the only true characteristics of God. He is creator, besides him there is no other God's. When he created the world there were no other gods. I could not be trinitarian, it is enough that I am honest person and read in context. Context is VERY clear. That's you are trying to force other meaning of the word "god" which is drived from very very different context. That is normal thing that words have different meanings. And very rule of hermaneutics says that context define meaning not otherwise. The same applies to "Holy Spirit". If you do not know what meaning of word "spirit" it is, you read context. If conext applies person charateristics to word "spirit" then it is clear that we are talking about person version of word "spirit". What JW do is fid some very different context, where it is clear that word "spirit" is used by other meaning and then try to force that meaning into different context. Trinitarians in 90% of cases finds the meaning of the word in the very context. Bible is very clear book for those whoo seeks truth and are not afraid to find it and face it.

Jeannot

April 5th 2006, 10:49 AM

Hello Jeannot:

In Plato's Timaeus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html), the Greek δημιουργος is translated as the "Creator" (see the link) because this is what "demiurge" means in Timaeus, as also in most patristic writings. The platonic demiurge creates using the forms as a template but does not work for someone else. Thus this is rather different from JW and Arain belief.

Best regards
Thanks, Alam. As you can see, my education consisted primarily of Aristotelian/Thomist ideas.

Anyway, isn't the demiourgos under the overall Good in Plato? I dunno. As I understand it, the Neo-Platonists refined the ideas further, as did the Jewish and Christian Gnostics.

Topherlee

April 5th 2006, 05:59 PM

I think you are rationalizing and turning a blind eye to the text.

the verses say (and there are plenty more) that there is NO OTHER GOD. It doesnt say "No other God as almighty as me." It says NONE. NO OTHER. There is no other God besides YHWH. He is the ONLY GOD.

All other Gods are false Gods. Idols.

It's funny watching you twist in the wind trying anyway you can to deny clear, plain language. God wasn't mincing words. He said what he meant. NO OTHER GODS. PERIOD.

Moses was not a God. He was representing God to the Pharoah. The various Judges were not Gods either. There is only ONE true God. YHWH.

Jesus cannot be a "lesser" god. The bible makes that clear. God himself makes it clear. If you can't even see that, then there is no point in discussing anything with you, because you are a polytheist, not a Christian.

Is Jesus the Almighty God? Is he as great as the Father? Jesus himself says he's not. You yourself said that Moses is in representation a god or of God. Jesus being the Word of God, can he not also be in representation a god or of God? Exod 7:1 no where speaks of in representation.
It is your automatic conclusion that false gods means that there are no other gods. The very godly nature of man is in spirit and only then are we one with God. For God is a Spirit, those that worship him must do so in spirit.
A false god is one who decieves and who opposes the one true God.

just a thought?

Sparko

April 5th 2006, 06:19 PM

Is Jesus the Almighty God? Is he as great as the Father? Jesus himself says he's not.

No he doesn't. In fact he claims to be God and John claims it too. But I guess you can't read with that blind eye of yours.

You yourself said that Moses is in representation a god or of God. Jesus being the Word of God, can he not also be in representation a god or of God? Exod 7:1 no where speaks of in representation.

Go do a study on "memra" of the old testament. The use of the "Logos" or "Word" for Jesus directly relates to that. Then come back and tell me what you have found out.

It is your automatic conclusion that false gods means that there are no other gods. The very godly nature of man is in spirit and only then are we one with God. For God is a Spirit, those that worship him must do so in spirit.

YHWH SAYS THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS! HE SAYS IT OVER AND OVER AND IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS JUST SO THERE IS NO CHANCE OF YOU MISUNDERSTANING HIM. BUT YOU SEEM TO DO SO ANYWAY.

How much clearer do you want God to tell you there are no other Gods beside himself? There there were no God before him nor after him nor with him. There is only ONE true God. All others are false gods, like idols or demons.

A false god is one who decieves and who opposes the one true God.
A false god is NOT A GOD AT ALL. You yourself just said "the one true God" If there is only ONE TRUE GOD, then all others must be false by definition. There can't be both ONE TRUE GOD and TWO TRUE GODS.

just a thought?

Yeah. let me know how that thinking stuff works out. You should actually try it some time.

Pythagoras

April 5th 2006, 08:10 PM

Hi Shazard,

See again. You put Moses context into John 1:1 context, which ar two very different contexts. But context of John 1:1-18 is very clear, that we are talking about creator Theos. And greek word "dia" is english "by". Showing active agent of the creation. ...

This is your interpretation of scripture which I believe is faulty. We could say the same about Moses, that "by" him the sea was parted, "showing active agent of the parting." These sorts of statements are neither here nor there.

You have major problems which you ignore. How about all those statements which show Jesus to not be God? He was a man, he died, he was not omniscient, he claimed to be inferior to God. To explain these scriptures away, the Catholic Church came up with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, paragraphs of self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo which cliams he was some sort of hybrid, freakish God-Man.

No dice.

Shazard

April 6th 2006, 01:18 AM

Hi Shazard,

You have major problems which you ignore. How about all those statements which show Jesus to not be God? He was a man, he died, he was not omniscient, he claimed to be inferior to God. To explain these scriptures away, the Catholic Church came up with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, paragraphs of self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo which cliams he was some sort of hybrid, freakish God-Man.

No dice.

It is your assumtion that God can't become man problematic. Scripture shows that exactly this was case in Phil 2:6-9 And this is what all the christians learned from scripture. That God became Man. And claims "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are claims about Jesus nature.
And My interpretation of John 1:1 is exactly from the context. But you try to force Moses analogy (that is other context) onto allready clear context to confuse reader. But you do not have to go to other context to understand John 1:1-18. That's why the prologue is there - to make it clear what we are talking about. But JW are not able to live without forcing very different contexts and applying false analogies to allready clear scriptures. Actually this is not only JW but each cult tactis - describe clear Bible verses with unclear. And that's why half of JW doctrines are based in Revelation which can be interpreted as you wish, and then JW uses this wishful interpretation to interpretate very clear passages. But it is sayed (in John 20:30-31) that John Gospel alone is able to bring us to faith and everlasting life. So you even don't need to read Moses to understand who is Jesus and what "Son of God" actually means. But ofcourse if you do not believe and you do not want to come to Jesus for everlasting life, you will use every possible way to aviod it - even applying Moses context to John context, but Bible says (In 2 Cor 3) that you have to explain Moses by New Testament but JW are doing exactly oposite, that's why they are learning and never getting to truth... light is blinking while whole world allready last 2000 years lives in the light which is Jesus - fully God and fully Man

spitndirt

April 6th 2006, 01:26 AM

And this is yet another question. Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God? But we will stick to one the subject at hand.
The "Godhead" refers to godhood. Jesus is the invisible image of God. We are the image and likeness of God. We are of flesh and Jesus is of spirit. We are also told to worship God in spirit, because as John 4:24 states "God is a Spirit. Does this mean we must obtain the godhood to be one with our maker?
John 1:1 I believe is correct according to the NWT. That the Word is a god. As God made Moses (Exod 7:1) a god to the Pharoah and basically from how I read it, the Pharisees also saw Moses as a god. So was the Word made a god to us, our Lord.
Does this mean there are more than one god? No, I surely do not believe so. I'll say that there is one God who by means of him are men gods by association. If you do the works of our God, are you not godly?

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
How can we be children of God if we are not godly?
What do you think?
Hi,

This is what I believe: Jesus, the man, could have been referred to (very loosely) as 'a God' in the sense that the Israelites of old - those (men) to whom the Word of God came - were called 'gods' by God. Yet since He was 'the Word made flesh' He was really much more than they. The 'Word' prior to becoming 'flesh' was God 'personified' in the beginning - begotten, not made - as per Proverbs ch. 8:22-31 (I believe). If you will notice in this passage a 'progression' of this 'One' into creation. 1) I was brought forth....2) I was there (in the heavens).....3) then I was by Him, as One brought up with Him....! Here you would have the Word being both God, and also 'with' God. I believe this happened when God said in the beginning '...let [there] be light...'. This 'light' was the Word brought forth, then sent forth into the earth that is described in Gen.1:2. Later, then, this One became 'flesh'....Jesus, the Word made flesh. A man in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. The Godhead being the Father who Himself is Spirit.

That's kinda the way I see it (as through a glass darkly). Peace.....

apostoli

April 6th 2006, 01:38 AM

Hello All,

I thought I'd share a bit of Philo (the 1st century Jewish philosopher) & his Logos concepts with you...

"Why is it that [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself?

Philo, Questions & Answers on Genesis, Book II Q.62
The Works of Philo (Complete & Unabridged), New Updated Edition of Yonge's translation.(1993) p834.

Just Checked: Yonges translation is available online (free)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

So, for our "Arian" friends I'll also cite Philo's "WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS" Chapter XLII

"And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. (206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;"{69}{#nu 16:48.} neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace."

Pythagoras

April 6th 2006, 02:02 AM

Hi Shazard,

It is your assumtion that God can't become man problematic.

It's not an assumption but a fact. Malachi 3:6a

"For I am the LORD, I change not."

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Doesn't get any clearer than that. Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19. Just as God is not a liar, he is not a man. God imposes these limitations upon himself.

Scripture shows that exactly this was case in Phil 2:6-9 And this is what all the christians learned from scripture.

Unfortunately Phil. 2:6-9 does not say God became a man.

That God became Man. And claims "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are claims about Jesus nature.

The very appelation son of God proves that Jesus not God. Even the Saints are called sons of God. Angels too.

And My interpretation of John 1:1 is exactly from the context.

Keep fooling yourself. What can I say?

But you try to force Moses analogy (that is other context) onto allready clear context to confuse reader. But you do not have to go to other context to understand John 1:1-18. That's why the prologue is there - to make it clear what we are talking about. But JW are not able to live without forcing very different contexts and applying false analogies to allready clear scriptures. Actually this is not only JW but each cult tactis - describe clear Bible verses with unclear. And that's why half of JW doctrines are based in Revelation which can be interpreted as you wish, and then JW uses this wishful interpretation to interpretate very clear passages. But it is sayed (in John 20:30-31) that John Gospel alone is able to bring us to faith and everlasting life. So you even don't need to read Moses to understand who is Jesus and what "Son of God" actually means. But ofcourse if you do not believe and you do not want to come to Jesus for everlasting life, you will use every possible way to aviod it - even applying Moses context to John context, but Bible says (In 2 Cor 3) that you have to explain Moses by New Testament but JW are doing exactly oposite, that's why they are learning and never getting to truth... light is blinking while whole world allready last 2000 years lives in the light which is Jesus - fully God and fully Man

Here you're trying to convince yourself that you're right. Keep fooling yourself. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

best wishes,

Krusader

April 6th 2006, 01:44 PM

Shazard

April 6th 2006, 05:17 PM

Hi Shazard,

It's not an assumption but a fact. Malachi 3:6a

"For I am the LORD, I change not."

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Doesn't get any clearer than that. Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19. Just as God is not a liar, he is not a man. God imposes these limitations upon himself.

1) Heb 13:8 says that Christ does not change too
2) And again, you use Old Testament to proove something clear from New Testament. Go and again read 2 Cor 3 to see how Old testament relates to New Testament and which one explains which one.
3) God does not change. His nature never changes. God allways was, is, and will be God. By becoming man Christ didn't stop beeing God. He just humiliated himself to the level of man. And that was this paradox, that Creator of universe stands in front of those who should know him, and still they can't recognize him. The same applies today. Nobody knows who is Son except Fateher and nobody knows who is Father except Son and those whom Son reveals it (Luk 10:22). And Christ sayed, that those who does not know God are not able to know Jesus. If you would know Jesus you would know Father. He sayed that he has reaveled Father to them. Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father. Can you draw 2 circles where first is inside second and second is inside first. Draw such 2 circles and tell me what you got!

The very appelation son of God proves that Jesus not God. Even the Saints are called sons of God. Angels too.

So then son of Man prooves that Jesus is not man. But it is sayed that Christ is beggotten from God. God beggots only God. Similary as Man can born only Man. Dog can born dog. One Nature borns same nature.

And again you are mixing words 'god' meaning... title with nature. Do not force meaning of one context into other.

Pythagoras

April 6th 2006, 06:15 PM

Hi Crusader,

Pyth, you are being downright dishonest here. You very well know that Christianity does not teach that the Nature of God, His Substance, changed into a human substance in the Incarnation. The Nature of God and His Substance rather took on an additoinal nature, that of man. Christ is the God/Man. His Human nature was not transformed into Deity, nor His Divine Nature into Humanity. The two resided within the One Person, Jesus Christ.

And this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Nice try. What does "God taking on an additional nature, that of man" mean but that God became a man.

The bible says God is not a man.

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Pythagoras

April 6th 2006, 06:22 PM

Hi S.,

1) Heb 13:8 says that Christ does not change too
2) And again, you use Old Testament to proove something clear from New Testament. Go and again read 2 Cor 3 to see how Old testament relates to New Testament and which one explains which one.
3) God does not change. His nature never changes. God allways was, is, and will be God. By becoming man Christ didn't stop beeing God. He just humiliated himself to the level of man. And that was this paradox, that Creator of universe stands in front of those who should know him, and still they can't recognize him. The same applies today. Nobody knows who is Son except Fateher and nobody knows who is Father except Son and those whom Son reveals it (Luk 10:22). And Christ sayed, that those who does not know God are not able to know Jesus. If you would know Jesus you would know Father. He sayed that he has reaveled Father to them. Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father. Can you draw 2 circles where first is inside second and second is inside first. Draw such 2 circles and tell me what you got!

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the bible says God is not a man? Trinitarians say God is man and God, defying scripture.

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

So then son of Man prooves that Jesus is not man. But it is sayed that Christ is beggotten from God.

The bible says there is only one God, so son of God cannot mean God, lest we have more than one God. But son of man means another man because there is more than one man in the world. This is not rocket science. Even the angels are called sons of God. And Saints too.

God beggots only God. Similary as Man can born only Man. Dog can born dog. One Nature borns same nature.

Read the Jewish encyclopedia, only begotten son is simply another title for Messiah. Yes, cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, but God cannot beget God unlress there is more than one God. This is where trinitarians try to convince themselves 3 = 1, by saying God is threee persons one being. They either (a) defy the law of non-contradiciton or (b) equivocate the words "nature' and "being" in this regard. Trinitairans are disingenious polytheists .

best wishes,

Shazard

April 7th 2006, 03:21 AM

Hi S.,

Read the Jewish encyclopedia, only begotten son is simply another title for Messiah. Yes, cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, but God cannot beget God unlress there is more than one God. This is where trinitarians try to convince themselves 3 = 1, by saying God is threee persons one being. They either (a) defy the law of non-contradiciton or (b) equivocate the words "nature' and "being" in this regard. Trinitairans are disingenious polytheists .

best wishes,

Yea, and read you too. "I AM" is the very name of God

And we have just different understanding of word "God". As far as I understand for you God is just another name for Father. Or "title" of Father. In christianity word "God' implies very nature of the beeing. God itself means it is Creator of the universe. And by saying "There is no other gods" it means that there is no other beeing with this nature. You say that angels and saints are called gods. Are they God by nature? Do not mix title with nature. And if something is creator it is God. And if something is God it is creator. And YES there is only one such nature - God. There is no other God's there is no other creators, there is no other source of reality, only one - God.
And John 1:1 says, Word is God and this Word became flesh. New Testament is one which explains Old Testament. New Testament is base for exegesis. So you have to explain book of Malachia using John chapter 1 not otherwise. So basic truth is "Word was God and Word became flesh". And don't forget to read that here we are talking about Creator God, not just "god" as title applied to whatever you like. So how meny creators we have? And is Jesus false god or true god?

Topherlee

April 7th 2006, 12:57 PM

Sparko
No he doesn't. In fact he claims to be God and John claims it too. But I guess you can't read with that blind eye of yours.

A run from the question, but okay. You say Jesus is claiming to be God. In the OT, YHVH says he is God, he does not claim to be indireclty.

Go do a study on "memra" of the old testament. The use of the "Logos" or "Word" for Jesus directly relates to that. Then come back and tell me what you have found out.

Logos means the literal Word of God. It does not mean the Word describes a physical or spiritual person. Jesus is the Word of. Jesus is described as the respresentative of Gods Word. Jesus speaks the thoughts and plans God has intended for us. His God and our God.

YHWH SAYS THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS! HE SAYS IT OVER AND OVER AND IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS JUST SO THERE IS NO CHANCE OF YOU MISUNDERSTANING HIM. BUT YOU SEEM TO DO SO ANYWAY.

The bible seems to contradict your personal view.

How much clearer do you want God to tell you there are no other Gods beside himself? There there were no God before him nor after him nor with him. There is only ONE true God. All others are false gods, like idols or demons.

A false god is NOT A GOD AT ALL. You yourself just said "the one true God" If there is only ONE TRUE GOD, then all others must be false by definition. There can't be both ONE TRUE GOD and TWO TRUE GODS.

Yeah. let me know how that thinking stuff works out. You should actually try it some time.

To keep it short. In the end, who will you answer to? The Father or the Son?

Sparko

April 7th 2006, 01:38 PM

A run from the question, but okay. You say Jesus is claiming to be God. In the OT, YHVH says he is God, he does not claim to be indireclty.

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

Or How about the Father calling Jesus God directly?

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Logos means the literal Word of God. It does not mean the Word describes a physical or spiritual person. Jesus is the Word of. Jesus is described as the respresentative of Gods Word. Jesus speaks the thoughts and plans God has intended for us. His God and our God.

BZZT. Logos means "WORD" - not "Word of God", just Word. there is no "of" there. In John 1:1 it simply says "The Word (logos) was with God and the Word (logos) WAS God."

Now go back and find out what the "memra" was in the old testament.

Actually I bet you won't do it so I will help you out. I wanted you to do it so you would not accuse me of making stuff up. I actually first learned of this from ApologiaNick (thanks Nick)

The "memra" means "word" or "command" of God.

The Jews had a problem with theophanies (That's when God appeared in a physical form, like when he wrestled with Jacob or walked with Adam in the Garden, or met with Abraham, etc. In the Jewish Targums, every time God appears in a theophany, the Jewish scribes would use the word "memra"

For example, Gen 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

The Targums read more or less: "And they heard the Word or memra of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Word or memra of God amongst the trees of the garden."

http://www.bibleword.org/memra.htm

So when John was using the greek equivalent of "memra" which is "logos" - he was actually telling his jewish readers that Jesus WAS indeed God in the flesh, moreso than any theophany in the OT.

here is an entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia on memra too:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

The bible seems to contradict your personal view.

Doing this

:fingersinears:

Doesn't help you Topherlee. The bible supports my view which is not my "personal view" but a plain reading of the text.
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

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

God can't be any more clearer on the topic. He is the only God, there is no other. there will be no other. He is the only God.

To keep it short. In the end, who will you answer to? The Father or the Son?

I will answer to JESUS.

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..." 2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

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

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

Who will YOU answer to Topherlee?

And that brings up another excellent parallel. You see above where it says Jesus will judge between sheep and goats?

Well YHWH said he would do that HIMSELF in the OT.

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

So, If YHWH will be doing the judging and Jesus will be doing the Judging, then they must be the same God.

Pythagoras

April 8th 2006, 12:50 PM

Hi S.,

Yea, and read you too. "I AM" is the very name of God

Then I suppose the blind man in John 9:9 is God.

And by saying "There is no other gods" it means that there is no other beeing with this nature.

On the surface this looks good, but you also believe God is three persons one being which either (a) defies the law of non-contradiciton or (b)equivocates the word being with refrence to person. In the Universe and in the bile, every being is also a person, there is no such thing as one being three persons. It's akin to saying 1 is 3.

You say that angels and saints are called gods. Are they God by nature?

Ofcourse not. And that's my point. Just because Jesus is called God or Theos does not mean he's by nature God.

And if something is creator it is God.

And Jesus is not creator, as already pointed out by the Moses analogy per John 1:3. In addiiton, the bible distinctly says jesus is a creature. Try Col. 1:15 on for size for starters.

And John 1:1 says, Word is God and this Word became flesh.

As I said even humans are called God or Theos in John 10:34. The anarthrous Theos in John 1:1 should tell you something. Origen the Church Father caught on 2000 years ago, why can't you?. Besides John 1:2 says the Word was with God. How can God be with God , unless there is more than one God? In this regard, the one being three persons bit won't work with me, 'cause it's illogical.

New Testament is one which explains Old Testament. New Testament is base for exegesis.

NT is "base" for your 4th century trinitairan eisegesis more like.

best wishes

JAY-PC

April 8th 2006, 02:29 PM

Ofcourse not. And that's my point. Just because Jesus is called God or Theos does not mean he's by nature God.

Try Hebrews 1:3, and Philippians 2:6:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Here Jesus is said to have the nature of God.

Pythagoras

April 8th 2006, 03:59 PM

Hi Jay-Pc,

Try Hebrews 1:3

This verse actually proves Jesus is not God. Trinitairans usually shy away from it, here you're highlighting it. Interesting. Read the following link:

http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm (http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm)

and Philippians 2:6:

Here Jesus is said to have the nature of God.

Nice try. Moprhe means form, outward appearance or shape. Consult a host of lexicons( many of them trinitairan) in this regard. -- Bullinger, Walter Bauer, Kittel , Thayer etc. etc.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 8th 2006, 04:08 PM

I will answer to JESUS.

Better be careful in what way you refer to him as Lord, Lord when you answer him.

Peace in Christ,

JAY-PC

April 8th 2006, 07:12 PM

Hi Jay-Pc,

This verse actually proves Jesus is not God. Trinitairans usually shy away from it, here you're highlighting it. Interesting. Read the following link:

http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm (http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm)

Nice try. Moprhe means form, outward appearance or shape. Consult a host of lexicons( many of them trinitairan) in this regard. -- Bullinger, Walter Bauer, Kittel , Thayer etc. etc.

best wishes,

You’re kidding, right.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Heb 1:3 ESV)

ὑπόστασις

Substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. (BAGD 2nd edition page 847)

God's substantial nature real being, essence.
(Analytical Lexicon page 393)

G5287
ὑπόστασις
(III) Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature (Heb_1:3, "the express image" or exact expression of God's essence or being, i.e., of God Himself). Here it approximates ousía (G3776), existence, substance, and phúsis (G5449), nature. One must be careful to remember that some Latin Fathers rejected the rendering substantia because it was distinct from essentia which they felt conveyed unequivocally the notion of hupóstasis. However, the word "substance" as used in English is quite suitable since it does not bear the subtle difference of the original Latin.
(WordStudy Dictionary)

G5287
hupostasis
Thayer Definition:
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G5259 and G2476
Citing in TDNT: 8:572, 1237
(Thayer's)

2. Hebrews.
The passages in which ὑπόστασις is used in Hb. (1:3; 3:14; 11:1) are essentially
much more difficult to assess. This is especially so in view of the fact that the word
has usually been given different meanings and translations in the three, e.g., “essence”
in 1:3, “steadfastness” in 3:14, and “standing” in 11:1.123
A more or less fixed and developed usage is plainest in 1:3:124 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασµα
τη̂ς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τη̂ς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου̂. Here ὑπόστασις is parallel to δόξα.
Both words are obviously describing God’s essence → IV, 339, n. 5. It is thus
inadvisable to render ὑπόστασις specifically by “essence.” The translation should
rather express the degree to which δόξα and ὑπόστασις denote two special qualities in
God’s nature that are both present in the Son as their ἀπαύγασµα (→ I, 508, 13 ff.)
and → χαρακτήρ.
(TDNT)

Php 2:6: Being in the form of God; he was by nature in the very form of God. Two words are most carefully chosen to show the unchangeable godhead of Jesus Christ. The word which the King James Version translates being is from the Greek verb huparchein (<G5225>) which is not the common Greek word for "being." It describes that which a man is in his very essence and which cannot be changed. It describes that part of a man which, in any circumstances, remains the same. So Paul begins by saying that Jesus was essentially and unalterably God.

He goes on to say that Jesus was in the form of God. There are two Greek words for form, morphe (<G3444>) and schema (<G4976>). They must both be translated form, because there is no other English equivalent, but they do not mean the same thing. Morphe (<G3444>) is the essential form which never alters; schema (<G4976>) is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphe (<G3444>) of any human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schema (<G4976>) is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphe (<G3444>) of humanity, but the outward schema (<G4976>) changes all the time. Roses, daffodils, tulips, chrysanthemums, primroses, dahlias, lupins all have the one morphe (<G3444>) of flowers; but their schema (<G4976>) is different. Aspirin, penicillin, cascara, magnesia all have the one morphe (<G3444>) of drugs; but their schema (<G4976>) is different. The morphe (<G3444>) never alters; the schema (<G4976>) continually does. The word Paul uses for Jesus being in the form of God is morphe (<G3444>); that is to say, his unchangeable being is divine. However his outward schema (<G4976>) might alter, he remained in essence divine.
(Barclay – DSB)

11 sn The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.
(NET Bible notes)

Phi 2:6 -
Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jam_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
(Vincent’s Word Study)

The image of God is Christ, while the μορφη θεου is the garment by which His divine nature may be known.
(TDNT)

“MORPHE implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes.”
J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians pg 110

“None could be EN MORPHE THEOU who was not God… MORPHE, like the Latin “forma, the German “gestalt” signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not “being,” but “mode of being” or better, “mode of existence”; and only God could have the mode of existence of God”
R.C. Trench

“Morphe or form refers to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance.”
W. Hendriksen

“The words EN MORPHE THEOU “in essence God” are really quite simple and straightforward because Paul was not writing to Greek philosophers but to common believers at Philippi. Thus there is no justification for the attempt to read the concepts of Plato and other Greek philosophers into the words EN MORPHE THEOU.

Since the word MORPHE was used in the Septuagint, it has an old testament, i.e., Semitic, background. As the author of The Expositor’s Greek Testament points out:
In LXX MORPHE denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of someone, that by which those beholding him would judge him…the word had come, in latter Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value… to discuss the relation of MORPHE to terms such as ICHE, PHUSES, EIDOS in their philosophical refinements. It is far more probable that Paul uses MORPHE, here “in a loose, popular sense, as we use ‘nature’”
After all the word studies of MORPHE and the contrasts made between it and SCHEMATI “fashion” found in verse 7, nearly all commentators now agree that the word MORPHE refers to the inner essence or nature of something while SCHEMATI refers only to the outward appearance:”
Robert Morey, The Trinity Evidence and Issues pg 337-339

it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phi_2:6-7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...
(Vine's)

Morphḗ in Phi_2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (Joh_17:5) took at His incarnation the morphḗn doúlou (doúlos [G1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. hupárchōn, "being" in the form of God. Hupárchō (G5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. Nothing appeared that was not an obj. reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphḗ) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schḗma) of man. The schḗma, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14). See Sept.: Dan_4:36; Dan_5:6, Dan_5:9-10.
(Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates)

“In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.”
(Robertson’s Word Pictures)

Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it"
(The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament )

"It is not doubtful that Paul thought of Jesus Christ in terms of God. He says of Jesus that he was in the form of God. (Phil. 2:6). He then goes on to say that Jesus was found in human form (Phil. 2:8, RSV), where the AV renders that he was found in fashion as a man. The RSV somewhat misleadingly translates two Greek words by the English word form, whereas the AV correctly distinguishes between them. In the first instance the word is morphe, which means the unchanging and unchangeable essential nature of a thing; the second word is schema, which means the changing and altering external form of a person or a thing. For instance, a man has always the unchanging morphe of manhood; that is what he essentially is; but he will have different schemata, different outward forms, in babyhood, childhood, youth, maturity and old age. A tulip, a rose, a chrysanthemum, a marigold, a daffodil, a delphinium all have the same morphe, the same essential nature, for they are all flowers; but they have very different outward schemata, outward forms. Paul says that Jesus was in the morphe of God; that is to say, the essential nature of Jesus is the same as the essential nature of God; but he says that Jesus was found in the schema of a man; that is to say, he temporarily took the form of manhood upon him. The NEB renders the Greek well here. In translating the word morphe it renders the passage: 'The divine nature was his from the first.' In translating the word schema it says that he was 'revealed in human shape.' This passage leaves us in no doubt that Paul believed that the nature of Jesus is the nature of God."
(William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him)

God bless
JAY-PC

Pythagoras

April 8th 2006, 07:23 PM

Hi,

You’re kidding, right.

God bless
JAY-PC
Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

JAY-PC

April 8th 2006, 07:36 PM

Hi,

Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

?? Did you even read the quotes?

I don't know why I bother talking with you. Maybe someone else would like to discuss these passages.

Go get Alam to help you out.

PaulT

April 8th 2006, 09:46 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

I’ve seen you make the following claim,

Hi S.,

On the surface this looks good, but you also believe God is three persons one being which either (a) defies the law of non-contradiciton or (b)equivocates the word being with refrence to person. In the Universe and in the bile, every being is also a person, there is no such thing as one being three persons. It's akin to saying 1 is 3.

best wishes

a couple of times, yet I’ve never seen how you explain how the doctrine defies of the law of non-contradiction. I don’t see your definition, “every being is also a person”given as a definition of the word “Being”.

The fact that God is unique doesn’t seem like a very good argument, I would suspect the Creator to be unique.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 10:57 AM

Hi Jay-Pc,

?? Did you even read the quotes?

I don't know why I bother talking with you. Maybe someone else would like to discuss these passages.

Go get Alam to help you out.

That's still not a response. Either tackle the arguments presented by the link below or keep your peace. As they say, put up or shut up:

http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm

Please do not use argument by weblink

good luck,

P.S. Regarding morphe only trinitarian sources like Vine and the like think it represents some sort of essential nature leading to oneness of being (and other such mumbo-jumbo). As already noted impartial lexicons give a totally different picture.

Following quote is from a Unitarian link:

"A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many....”

etc.

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 11:10 AM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

I’ve seen you make the following claim,

a couple of times, yet I’ve never seen how you explain how the doctrine defies of the law of non-contradiction. I don’t see your definition, “every being is also a person”given as a definition of the word “Being”.

The fact that God is unique doesn’t seem like a very good argument, I would suspect the Creator to be unique.

Regards,

Paul

A stupid coment like the above was expected of you.

The fact that God is unique doesn't mean he can violate the law of non-contradiciton. No one, not even God can violate the law of non-contradiciton. For example the bible says God cannot lie. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie. To say God lies is to violate the law of non-contradiciton. Similarily, we know from the bible and from the world around us that 3 does not equal 1. To say God is three persons one being is to say 3 =1 which is violating the law of non-contradiction as it relates to simple mathematics. either that or it is to equivocate the words person and being. Observe the violation of logic in the Athanasian creed:

(a) The Father is God.
(b) The Son is God.
(c) The Holy Spirit is God.
(d) All three persons are distinct and separate.
(e) Yet there are not three Gods but one God.

(e) is false in light of (a), (b), (c) and (d) above.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 9th 2006, 01:08 PM

Thank you for your response.

A stupid coment like the above was expected of you.

best wishes,

I trust we won’t see you accusing anyone of ad hominem.

The fact that God is unique doesn't mean he can violate the law of non-contradiciton. No one, not even God can violate the law of non-contradiciton. The fact that God is unique doesn't mean he can violate the law of non-contradiciton. No one, not even God can violate the law of non-contradiciton. For example the bible says God cannot lie. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie. To say God lies is to violate the law of non-contradiciton. Similarily, we know from the bible and from the world around us that 3 does not equal 1. To say God is three persons one being is to say 3 =1 which is violating the law of non-contradiction as it relates to simple mathematics. either that or it is to equivocate the words person and being. Observe the violation of logic in the Athanasian creed:

(a) The Father is God.

(b) The Son is God.

(c) The Holy Spirit is God.

(d) All three persons are distinct and separate.

(e) Yet there are not three Gods but one God.

(e) is false in light of (a), (b), (c) and (d) above.

best wishes,

Something I’ve noticed about your method of argumentation, you assume facts not in evidence. Your implication that the doctrine of the Trinity suggests God is lying because God would be violating the law of non-contradiction is a fact not in evidence. You are assuming the Trinity is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which prompted my question in the 1st place.

Again as appears to be typical of you, you claim certain things without establishing the basis for your claim. I specifically asked you about your definition of the word “Being”. Instead of answering you go on to suggest anyone who doesn’t it see it your way is equivocating. Just because you say something, it doesn’t make it so.

How is it a contradiction in terms to describe a “Being” outside of your limitations to understand? How is it a contradiction in terms to describe a “Being” beyond your ability to comprehend? In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m asking you to substantiate your claim that the definition of the word “Being” necessarily entails “every being is also a person”.

I think what we are about to find out is that you have no answer for if you had you would have undoubtedly given it the 1st time.

Regards,

Paul

Shazard

April 9th 2006, 01:22 PM

Hi Paul,

The fact that God is unique doesn't mean he can violate the law of non-contradiciton. No one, not even God can violate the law of non-contradiciton. For example the bible says God cannot lie. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie. To say God lies is to violate the law of non-contradiciton.
best wishes,

Well I agree

Hi Paul,
Similarily, we know from the bible and from the world around us that 3 does not equal 1.

Here I do not agree. First there is NO similarity.
Second, do not use "we know" it is demagogy. I don't know what about those "we" you meantion, but I can give you plenty of things which are 3 and 1 at tha same time. Ice, Water, Steam all are 3 distinct things with VERY different properties, and still they all are one nature - water. So do not make contradictions where they are none!

Hi Paul,
To say God is three persons one being is to say 3 =1 which is violating the law of non-contradiction as it relates to simple mathematics.
either that or it is to equivocate the words person and being.

And here is your problem. Where do you get that God as beeing is one person. Telling this you are telling something about God's nature. And you are claiming that God's nature is one bijection between nature and personality. This is pure assumtion from empty air. Person and Being is not synonims nor Being implies Persons onness. This is your assumtion and you get circular logic, to proove that there is contradiction you artificially create one.

Hi Paul,
Observe the violation of logic in the Athanasian creed:

(a) The Father is God.
(b) The Son is God.
(c) The Holy Spirit is God.
(d) All three persons are distinct and separate.
(e) Yet there are not three Gods but one God.

(e) is false in light of (a), (b), (c) and (d) above.

best wishes,

No if word "God" is nature. Change Fater, Son, HSpirit with Liquid, Ice, Steam and word "God" with nature - "Water" and you will not get contradiction. DO not create contradictions and try to realize wat word "God" means. God is creator... and when he presents himself to Moses he says - I AM WHAT I AM... "I AM" has sent you. God is revealing something about his nature, and he is NOT saying that he is one person in way people understand. He is something beyond even personality.
But for fun, try even to define term "person" and see what you will get. And try it to define in such a way that Holy Spirit is not person and Evil Spirits are persons... I would like to see such definition of person. :)

What JW can't get around is that Christians does not try to understand nature of God beyond what is revelaed... JW defines God as some overpowered spiritual man! And as they definition is plain wrong, they can't accept something real about God's nature...

Sparko

April 9th 2006, 03:15 PM

just a comment to pythagoras:

I notice you seem to delete a lot of posts. I assume you are changing your mind about what you say. You may not realize it but for those who are subscribed to this thread via email notification, all of your posts get sent to them even if you delete them after posting them.

The proper way to change your posts is to use the EDIT buttion and just change the post.

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 03:48 PM

Hi Paul T,

Something I’ve noticed about your method of argumentation, you assume facts not in evidence.

You're projecting!

Your implication that the doctrine of the Trinity suggests God is lying because God would be violating the law of non-contradiction is a fact not in evidence.

Where did I say such a thing? Your problem is that your reading comprehension is below Grade 5.

You are assuming the Trinity is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which prompted my question in the 1st place.

The trinity is either a violation of the law of non- contradiction or it equivocates words.

Again as appears to be typical of you, you claim certain things without establishing the basis for your claim.

Is it not an established fact that 3 is not 1?

I specifically asked you about your definition of the word “Being”.

Every being is also a person, so that 1 = 1. To say 1 being 3 persons is to say 1 = 3 which is illogical. I suppose 3 could equal 1 in fairy land like in C.S. Lewis's Narnia and the like, but in the real word it does not.

The trinity is a grandma tale which even a bright 5 year old with the ability to count will reject.

How is it a contradiction in terms to describe a “Being” outside of your limitations to understand? How is it a contradiction in terms to describe a “Being” beyond your ability to comprehend?

To describe being as 3 is 1 , as you do, is not "beyond my ability to comprehend", it is simply illogical.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m asking you to substantiate your claim that the definition of the word “Being” necessarily entails “every being is also a person”.

Actually you got the wrong end of the stick! Since every being is also every other person in the Universe, and since you , not me, are saying every being is not necessarily also every other person, it falls upon you , not me, to substantiate this fairy tale.

I think what we are about to find out is that you have no answer for if you had you would have undoubtedly given it the 1st time.

This coming from someone who thinks 1 = 3 and can't count up to three. Good one.

best wishes anyhow,

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 04:27 PM

Hi Sparko,

Thanks for the editing tip. But I want to touch upon something more important :

"

And that brings up another excellent parallel. You see above where it says Jesus will judge between sheep and goats?

Well YHWH said he would do that HIMSELF in the OT.

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

So, If YHWH will be doing the judging and Jesus will be doing the Judging, then they must be the same God.

However it seems you're ignorant of the principle of delegation. In this regard the learned Arian alam perhaps could put things in perspective for you:

"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."

Alam rightly concludes the following:

"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."

Do you get it?

best wishes,

Sparko

April 9th 2006, 08:08 PM

Hi Sparko,

Thanks for the editing tip. But I want to touch upon something more important :

However it seems you're ignorant of the principle of delegation. In this regard the learned Arian alam perhaps could put things in perspective for you:

"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."

Alam rightly concludes the following:

"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."

Do you get it?

best wishes,

I understand delegation. Do you?

Do you understand when someone says "I myself will do something" he is specifically saying that he will do it HIMSELF which kinda eliminates "delegation" eh?

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 09:00 PM

Hi Sparko,

I understand delegation. Do you?

Do you understand when someone says "I myself will do something" he is specifically saying that he will do it HIMSELF which kinda eliminates "delegation" eh?

Well then I guess Moses is God eh? Read Deut. 29:5-8 and Deut, 11:14-15.

We also know that the judgment which Christ enforces in Matt. 25: 31 is a delegated judgment because Jesus Christ says he judges no man :

John 8:15. "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, AND the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (two witnesses). "

Note that Jesus here refutes the trinity doctrine by comparing his activity vis a vis his Father's to that of two humans(men) . Now even someone like you must agree that two men(two persons, two human beings) are also two separate beings. Thus, if the being of God is not like that of two men or two humans, then Jesus was using a misleading comparison here. So this proves that the son is separate from the Father as one man is separate from another man, i.e. they are two spearate beings or two separate persons. Indeed if the trinity doctrine were true Jesus would have here asserted the testimony of three , not two, to be true. Inconceievable that Jesus would have left out the testimony of the third person of the holy trinity if your doctrine were true..

Also you will note that in John 5:22 the Father has entrusted all judgment to Christ. So obviously Christ and the Father are two separate entities. Why? Because we must understand the meanings of words like entrust in their natural , normal , biblical sense. Everywhere in the bible when someone entrusts something to someone else two separate beings are in view. Why should we suddenly discard this interpretative method in favour of trinitarian understanding of two persons of the same being entrusting something to each other? It makes no logical sense at all.

best wishes,

Sparko

April 9th 2006, 09:32 PM

Hi Sparko,

Well then I guess Moses is God eh? Read Deut. 29:5-8 and Deut, 11:14-15.

We also know that the judgment which Christ enforces in Matt. 25: 31 is a delegated judgment because Jesus Christ says he judges no man :

John 8:15. "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, AND the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (two witnesses). "

Note that Jesus here refutes the trinity doctrine by comparing his activity vis a vis his Father's to that of two humans(men) . Now even someone like you must agree that two men(two persons, two human beings) are also two separate beings. Thus, if the being of God is not like that of two men or two humans, then Jesus was using a misleading comparison here. So this proves that the son is separate from the Father as one man is separate from another man, i.e. they are two spearate beings or two separate persons. Indeed if the trinity doctrine were true Jesus would have here asserted the testimony of three , not two, to be true. Inconceievable that Jesus would have left out the testimony of the third person of the holy trinity if your doctrine were true..

Also you will note that in John 5:22 the Father has entrusted all judgment to Christ. So obviously Christ and the Father are two separate entities. Why? Because we must understand the meanings of words like entrust in their natural , normal , biblical sense. Everywhere in the bible when someone entrusts something to someone else two separate beings are in view. Why should we suddenly discard this interpretative method in favour of trinitarian understanding of two persons of the same being entrusting something to each other? It makes no logical sense at all.

best wishes,

1. yes the father is delegating judgement to Jesus. No argument there.

2. The verse in Isaiah says that YHWH will judge the sheep and goats himself. That means no delegation to someone else.

Conclusion: The person speaking in Isaiah was the precarnate Jesus. Jesus was speaking in Isaiah. Jesus is YHWH.

(and regarding your verse about Jesus saying he does not judge anyone. The context was speaking in contrast with the pharisees who were passing judgement on him. Jesus did continue to say

27... "Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

He was not speaking of the end times judgment. If you try to claim that he was speaking of the end times, then you are making a liar out of Jesus)

You really like to take verses out of context to make your points pythagoras. That's the consequences of using antitrinitarian websites for proof texts I suppose.

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 10:16 PM

Hi Sparko,

1. yes the father is delegating judgement to Jesus. No argument there.

Thank you.That should tell you something.

2. The verse in Isaiah says that YHWH will judge the sheep and goats himself. That means no delegation to someone else.

Conclusion: The person speaking in Isaiah was the precarnate Jesus. Jesus was speaking in Isaiah. Jesus is YHWH.

The verse in Ex. 3:8 says God will come down and deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians and into a land flowing with milk and honey.

Conclusion: The person speaking in Ex. 3:8 was the preincarnate Moses. Moses was speaking in Ex. 3:8. Moses is Yhwh . :lol:

(and regarding your verse about Jesus saying he does not judge anyone. The context was speaking in contrast with the pharisees who were passing judgement on him. Jesus did continue to say

27... "Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

In truth that verse about Jesus not passing judgment was saying Jesus does not passe judgment without the Father. Read it again.

He was not speaking of the end times judgment. If you try to claim that he was speaking of the end times, then you are making a liar out of Jesus)

Are you saying Jesus passes judgment without the Father at the end times? Do you not know that without the Father Jesus can do absolutely nothing. If this doesn't render him a delegated authority, then nothing does.

You really like to take verses out of context to make your points pythagoras.

Look who's talking.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 9th 2006, 10:41 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank your for your response.

Hi Paul T,

You're projecting!

Well it isn’t I that is defining a word based on a definition that has not been provided. If when asked to supply a definition, you go on making the same case without providing the definition then you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Hi Paul T,

Where did I say such a thing? Your problem is that your reading comprehension is below Grade 5.

Post #61, “For example the bible says God cannot lie. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie. To say God lies is to violate the law of non-contradiciton. Similarily, we know from the bible and from the world around us that 3 does not equal 1.”

The trinity is either a violation of the law of non- contradiction or it equivocates words.

Again, you are assuming a contradiction based on a definition you have yet to supply. IOW, your argument is based on facts not yet introduced. You need to supply a definition of the word “Being” that backs up your statement, “every being is also a person”

Is it not an established fact that 3 is not 1?

Math is not the issue; the issue is you assuming a definition for a word you have yet to establish.

Every being is also a person, so that 1 = 1. To say 1 being 3 persons is to say 1 = 3 which is illogical. I suppose 3 could equal 1 in fairy land like in C.S. Lewis's Narnia and the like, but in the real word it does not.

I asked this several times now, where are you getting your definition for “Being”. If you definition for “Being” cannot be supported your argument falls.

The trinity is a grandma tale which even a bright 5 year old with the ability to count will reject.

To describe being as 3 is 1 , as you do, is not "beyond my ability to comprehend", it is simply illogical.

Well, as far as I understand the Trinity isn’t describe based on your criteria. Therefore, you need to establish that your criteria are necessarily the case, something which you have either been unable or unwilling to do.

Actually you got the wrong end of the stick! Since every being is also every other person in the Universe, and since you , not me, are saying every being is not necessarily also every other person, it falls upon you , not me, to substantiate this fairy tale.

This coming from someone who thinks 1 = 3 and can't count up to three. Good one.

best wishes anyhow,

I thought I told you I looked up the definition and yours was not in the dictionary, which means you are using a personal definition for the word “Being”. Therefore, it falls upon you to provide evidence that supports your assertions that says “every being is also a person”. Have you been making your definition up?

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 9th 2006, 11:11 PM

Hi Paul,

Well it isn’t I that is defining a word based on a definition that has not been provided. If when asked to supply a definition, you go on making the same case without providing the definition then you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Here it is again. Definition: Every being is also a separate person.

Post #61, “[color=black]For example the bible says God cannot lie. Therefore it is impossible for God to lie. To say God lies is to violate the law of non-contradiciton. Similarily, we know from the bible and from the world around us that 3 does not equal 1.”

How does the above lead you to think the following?:

"Your implication that the doctrine of the Trinity suggests God is lying because God would be violating the law of non-contradiction is a fact not in evidence. You are assuming the Trinity is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which prompted my question in the 1st place."

Are you not able to read simple English?

Again, you are assuming a contradiction based on a definition you have yet to supply. IOW, your argument is based on facts not yet introduced. You need to supply a definition of the word “Being” that backs up your statement, “every being is also a person”

The statement every being is a person is backed up by scripture.
How is this for evidence: Absolutely every single time a person is distinguished from another person, whether spirit (angels) or human, it is always, at the same time, a distinction of BEING.

I asked this several times now, where are you getting your definition for “Being”. If you definition for “Being” cannot be supported your argument falls.

I've given you the biblical definition of being. Where are you getting your definition of being ? Hint: By arguing in circles.:lol:

Well, as far as I understand the Trinity isn’t describe based on your criteria. Therefore, you need to establish that your criteria are necessarily the case, something which you have either been unable or unwilling to do.

What nonsense.

I thought I told you I looked up the definition and yours was not in the dictionary, which means you are using a personal definition for the word “Being”.

Unfortunately the trinitairan definition of being is unbiblical.
The Bible simply makes use of OUR understanding of persons and beings. Trinitarians are arguing from silence and from post-biblical theology. We, on the other hand, argue from clear and repeated expressions of biblical facts, as found in Scripture. Moses is a person and he is a distinct being also, so is Michael the angel, so is Jacob, Issac, Abraham, Jesus, Judas, Paul the Apostle, David, Samson, ed infinitum.

Therefore, it falls upon you to provide evidence that supports your assertions that says “every being is also a person”. Have you been making your definition up?

Nope, the definition every being is also a person is as clearly expressed in scripture as the fact that 3 is not 1.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 10th 2006, 12:46 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

Here it is again. Definition: Every being is also a separate person.

Is this your personal interpretation or based on some dictionary, lexicon? If it is not your personal definition please provide your back-up.

Hi Paul,

How does the above lead you to think the following?:

"Your implication that the doctrine of the Trinity suggests God is lying because God would be violating the law of non-contradiction is a fact not in evidence. You are assuming the Trinity is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which prompted my question in the 1st place."

Are you not able to read simple English?

Another trait when cornered you resort to ad hominem, why is this?

Clearly you’ve implied the doctrine of the Trinity is causing God to lie by violating the laws of non-contradiction and when combining that with your statement God cannot lie, you are suggesting the doctrine equates to God lying about Himself. Your suggestion is inflammatory and not needed.

Hi Paul,

The statement every being is a person is backed up by scripture.

How is this for evidence: Absolutely every single time a person is distinguished from another person, whether spirit (angels) or human, it is always, at the same time, a distinction of BEING.

Well 1st off the explanation you’ve provided is dealing with created beings, not God. Secondly, which gets us back to your view that the Creator who is truly unique can be judged based on principles that distinguish created beings. You are using a definition that applies to angels to define God’s “Being”? This might be a definition, where you got it from, I don’t know, but it doesn’t mean it applies to all “Beings”, only those listed within the confines of the definition.

I've given you the biblical definition of being. Where are you getting your definition of being ? Hint: By arguing in circles.

Well, you say you given me a “Biblical” definition, albeit one that did not include God, but covered men and angels.

Nevertheless, I see you’ve moved on to your second tactic, which is, “when I really don’t have an answer, I’ll just ask another question”. However, the dictionaries I’ve conferred are Webster’s, and Vines, where is your source from. What is missing in both of these recognized authorities is your definition of the word, “Being”.

What nonsense.

The only nonsense is your claim without introducing evidence to support it. IOW, the nonsense is the point of view you are attempting to put over on us.

Unfortunately the trinitairan definition of being is unbiblical.

The Bible simply makes use of OUR understanding of persons and beings. Trinitarians are arguing from silence and from post-biblical theology. We, on the other hand, argue from clear and repeated expressions of biblical facts, as found in Scripture. Moses is a person and he is a distinct being also, so is Michael the angel, so is Jacob, Issac, Abraham, Jesus, Judas, Paul the Apostle, David, Samson, ed infinitum.

Bud, you are too much, you are providing JW material upon which to build your argument. Well at least this time you didn’t use Larry Bird to provide you with your Biblical definitions. All of the individuals in the paragraph you provide are dealing with created beings, not God. Yet this is the basis for your claim that the doctrine of the Trinity violates the laws of non-contradiction and when I point out that God being a unique individual cannot be compared to our understanding of “Being” cast aspersions, give me a break. Your definition of “Being” is not recognized by the common dictionary, which means, the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate the laws of non-contradiction.

Nope, the definition every being is also a person is as clearly expressed in scripture as the fact that 3 is not 1.

best wishes,

Right, right alongside the Easter Bunny, you are too much. Your claims are worthless.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 10th 2006, 01:52 AM

Hi Paul,

Well 1st off the explanation you’ve provided is dealing with created beings, not God. ...Secondly, which gets us back to your view that the Creator who is truly unique can be judged based on principles that distinguish created beings.

Your question was :" You need to supply a definition of the word “Being” that backs up your statement, “every being is also a person.”

I've don'e just that. I've supplied a definition of the word "Being" that backs up my statement from the bible. In the bible, every single time any being is introduced, it is also a distinct person. So it is reasonable to assume this applies also to God. In the same way everytime the bible uses the number 3 it carries the value of 3, and not of 2 or 4, so that it would be reasonable to suppose that 3 carries it's familiar value when applied to God .

You've now moved on to a different argument. You're now saying my definition applies only to created beings and not to God. Why does this definition apply only to created beings and not to God? Because you say God is unique. If a unique God cannot share the attributes of his creation, then why does the bible say there are attributes of God which are shared/possessed by men ?

Remember Paul, man is created in the very image of God. If we do not resemble God in our very being, then we are not created in God's image. Simple as that. Infact the bible tells us Jesus was also a man. If Jesus was not one person one being like the rest of us then he was not like us, and he could not be truthfully called the second Adam, and could not have died as all men die.

best wishes,

Shazard

April 10th 2006, 07:21 AM

Hi Paul T,

Is it not an established fact that 3 is not 1?

Is Ice, Steam, Liquid a Water? Is 3 something 1. Is past, present, future a Time? 3 things which ar one. So your base is wrong. Some meny things can still be one thing. And most funny that meny different things can be one thing by nature. So why can't it be with beeing?

Hi Paul T,
Every being is also a person, so that 1 = 1. To say 1 being 3 persons is to say 1 = 3 which is illogical. I suppose 3 could equal 1 in fairy land like in C.S. Lewis's Narnia and the like, but in the real word it does not.

Again No. This is your assumtion. Try define first term "person". Why there are 2 separate words if they are (as you claim) the same. For example animals are beeings, but they are not persons (in wide accepted view). Demon possessed man is one person and still meny beeings.

The trinity is a grandma tale which even a bright 5 year old with the ability to count will reject.

So 5 year old human is your authority about God's nature?

To describe being as 3 is 1 , as you do, is not "beyond my ability to comprehend", it is simply illogical.

No it is your ability to comprehend or plain ignorance. You are not accepting it because it is not illogical (even when we tell you how it is logical) you just do not believe it. Logic has nothing to do with it. It is your mind you have to use to understand how something 3 can be 1 and something 1 can be 3. Even 5 year old can understand how One book trnaslated into other language is 2 different books and still one book.

Actually you got the wrong end of the stick! Since every being is also every other person in the Universe

You so much love logic. Can you proove me this claim? Or it is your axiom which you get it from.... where?

PaulT

April 10th 2006, 10:16 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

Your question was :" You need to supply a definition of the word “Being” that backs up your statement, “every being is also a person.”

I've don'e just that. I've supplied a definition of the word "Being" that backs up my statement from the bible. In the bible, every single time any being is introduced, it is also a distinct person. So it is reasonable to assume this applies also to God. In the same way everytime the bible uses the number 3 it carries the value of 3, and not of 2 or 4, so that it would be reasonable to suppose that 3 carries it's familiar value when applied to God .

best wishes,

You are kidding, right? The definition you supplied is of your own personal interpretation, or at the outside the group whose teachings you believe personal interpretation. It carries no weight. However, the documents I checked your view against did not include within the definition of the word, “Being” your understanding. I can argue my position based on a definition from a neutral source, apparently you cannot. Therefore your claim that the doctrine of the Trinity defies the laws of non-contradiction fails. Frankly, it is of no value to discuss the matter with you, because the fact you will base your claim on a biased source speaks volumes about your ability to fairly deal with the facts.

Hi Paul,

You've now moved on to a different argument. You're now saying my definition applies only to created beings and not to God. Why does this definition apply only to created beings and not to God? Because you say God is unique. If a unique God cannot share the attributes of his creation, then why does the bible say there are attributes of God which are shared/possessed by men ?

best wishes,

I haven’t moved on to another point, I’ve only pointed out how your “in-house” definition does not apply to the subject at hand. This goes right to the heart of the discussion.

You need to reread the definition you offered; it qualifies itself within the body of the definition. And you accuse me of not having the ability to comprehend the written word, amazing.

Just because man shares in certain attributes of the Creator, doesn’t necessarily mean the Creator possesses attributes that are not shared by man, you do understand this don’t you?

Hi Paul,

Remember Paul, man is created in the very image of God. If we do not resemble God in our very being, then we are not created in God's image. Simple as that. Infact the bible tells us Jesus was also a man. If Jesus was not one person one being like the rest of us then he was not like us, and he could not be truthfully called the second Adam, and could not have died as all men die.

best wishes,

You do understand that “resembling” and being “cloned copies” are two entirely different things, don’t you?

Frankly you have proven your inability to use simple logic over on the Mormon thread. Due to your demonstrated inability to think through the implications of your claims over on the Mormon thread, I was reluctant to engage with you here. However, based on your bold assertions I was compelled to expose how inept your argument is, yet another time. The fact you make a statement casting aspersions about the illogical nature of the doctrine of the trinity based on a “personal” interpretation of the word “Being” is all I needed to fully comprehend how the thought process you use to determine fact from fiction works.

For the record, based on Webster’s definition of the terms “Being” and “Person” the doctrine of the Trinity does not defy the laws of non-contradiction and therefore is not illogical.

Regards,

Paul

Sparko

April 10th 2006, 08:30 PM

2. The verse in Isaiah says that YHWH will judge the sheep and goats himself. That means no delegation to someone else.

Conclusion: The person speaking in Isaiah was the precarnate Jesus. Jesus was speaking in Isaiah. Jesus is YHWH.

The verse in Ex. 3:8 says God will come down and deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians and into a land flowing with milk and honey.
Conclusion: The person speaking in Ex. 3:8 was the preincarnate Moses. Moses was speaking in Ex. 3:8. Moses is Yhwh . :lol:

Again you like to take things out of context. Moses saw the Lord as a theophany (the burning bush) which was speaking to him. The Lord HAD come down. It was the Lord speaking to moses. There was no preincarnate moses. And the LORD did actually deliver his people personally. He led them in a pillar of cloud (another theophany) and was with them on earth the whole way to the new land, guiding Moses and his people. So the person speaking in Ex 3:8 IS the Lord and he DID come down.

In truth that verse about Jesus not passing judgment was saying Jesus does not passe judgment without the Father. Read it again.

in truth he was just saying that he and the father were judging the same, as one will. They are one in purpose and will and judgment. But even if you take it YOUR way, it still makes no difference to my argument. Jesus has been appointed by the Father to do all judgement. I already said that.

My point is that the one speaking in Isaiah must be the Son because he specifically says "I myself will judge..." -- so far all of your spinning has not shown that when God says "I myself will do something" he means "I myself will not actually do it but let someone do it for me"

If he said "I will send my servant to judge the sheep and goats" then you might have a point. But he specifically says he will do it himself. That either makes YHWH a liar or it is Jesus speaking. After all he is the Word of God (see hebrew 'memra' which means the Word or Command of God)

Are you saying Jesus passes judgment without the Father at the end times? Do you not know that without the Father Jesus can do absolutely nothing. If this doesn't render him a delegated authority, then nothing does.

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

You keep trying to separate the Father and Jesus into different beings. They are ONE BEING revealed in three persons. The Father does nothing without the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit does nothing without the Son and the Father and the Son does nothing without the Father and Holy Spirit. They are ONE.

Each person of the trinity has different functions but all of God is involved in all actions.

I eagarly await your next rabbit trail of out-of-context proof texting.

Sparko

April 10th 2006, 08:43 PM

Here it is again. Definition: Every being is also a separate person.

What makes you think that your claiming that makes it true?

And what makes you think the inverse is true, that every person must be a separate being?

And what makes you think what is normal for humans must be normal for God?

I can claim that no person can create a universe. If I define person as human being. And it would be true. That doesnt mean it is true that God can't create a universe or that God isn't a person.

you are just playing with word definitions and expecting everyone else to play along with how you define things. sorry bub.

making bald assertions and using humans as examples of what is true for God is just bad logic on your part.

Topherlee

April 10th 2006, 09:09 PM

Sparko "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Or How about the Father calling Jesus God directly?

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

How many gods do you have if God is speaking to God? If they are one God, is GOd speaking to himself?

BZZT. Logos means "WORD" - not "Word of God", just Word. there is no "of" there. In John 1:1 it simply says "The Word (logos) was with God and the Word (logos) WAS God."

Now go back and find out what the "memra" was in the old testament.

Actually I bet you won't do it so I will help you out. I wanted you to do it so you would not accuse me of making stuff up. I actually first learned of this from ApologiaNick (thanks Nick)

The "memra" means "word" or "command" of God.

The Jews had a problem with theophanies (That's when God appeared in a physical form, like when he wrestled with Jacob or walked with Adam in the Garden, or met with Abraham, etc. In the Jewish Targums, every time God appears in a theophany, the Jewish scribes would use the word "memra"

For example, Gen 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

The Targums read more or less: "And they heard the Word or memra of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Word or memra of God amongst the trees of the garden."

http://www.bibleword.org/memra.htm

So when John was using the greek equivalent of "memra" which is "logos" - he was actually telling his jewish readers that Jesus WAS indeed God in the flesh, moreso than any theophany in the OT.

here is an entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia on memra too:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

You have overeducated your reasoning...

Doesn't help you Topherlee. The bible supports my view which is not my "personal view" but a plain reading of the text.
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

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

God can't be any more clearer on the topic. He is the only God, there is no other. there will be no other. He is the only God.

I will answer to JESUS.

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..." 2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

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

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

Who will YOU answer to Topherlee?

And that brings up another excellent parallel. You see above where it says Jesus will judge between sheep and goats?

Well YHWH said he would do that HIMSELF in the OT.

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

So, If YHWH will be doing the judging and Jesus will be doing the Judging, then they must be the same God.

To keep it simple. You believe that Jesus is YHVH which also makes Jesus the Father and not just the Son. This appears to be in contradiction to the Trinity you support.

Pythagoras

April 10th 2006, 09:29 PM

Hi Sparko,

Again you like to take things out of context.

I'm just using your interpretative method.

Moses saw the Lord as a theophany (the burning bush) which was speaking to him.

Who says Moses saw a theophany of God? Besides , in my opinion, Moses is the second person of the holy trinity, so he could see God and still be God.

The Lord HAD come down.

No He hadn't. Only the Angel of the Lord had come down.

It was the Lord speaking to moses.

So? Moses is the second person of the trinity, he could speak to the first person. Get it?

There was no preincarnate moses.

Who says? The bible tells us God knew Moses from the foundation of the world.

And the LORD did actually deliver his people personally.

No, the Angel of the Lord delivered God's people. Read your bible.

He led them in a pillar of cloud (another theophany) and was with them on earth the whole way to the new land, guiding Moses and his people. So the person speaking in Ex 3:8 IS the Lord and he DID come down.

Sorry. The bible makes it clear that it was the Angel of the Lord who came down and delivered the Israelites. Not God.

My point is that the one speaking in Isaiah must be the Son because he specifically says "I myself will judge..." -- so far all of your spinning has not shown that when God says "I myself will do something" he means "I myself will not actually do it but let someone do it for me"

My point is that the one speaking in Ex. 3:8 must be Moses(the second person of the holy trinity) because Moses specifically says "I led you through the desert" in Deut. 29:3 and in Ex. 3:8 God specifically says He will come down and lead the Israelites to a land flowing with milk and honey. When God says "I will come down and do something" He means "I myself will do something" , ok. So Moses is God.

But he specifically says he will do it himself.

Exactly! And in Deut. 29:3 who do you see come down and lead the Israelites? MOSES! He's God.

That either makes YHWH a liar or it is Jesus speaking.

If Moses is not God, YHWH is a bold faced liar for He says in Ex. that He Himself will come down and lead the Israelites but then come crunch time sends only Moses. No, Moses must be God for YhWH to not be a liar.

You keep trying to separate the Father and Jesus into different beings. They are ONE BEING revealed in three persons.

You keep on separating the Father and Moses into different beings. They are ONE BEING revealed in three persons.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 10th 2006, 09:54 PM

Hi Sparko,

First, do you even acknowledge you , Sparko, are one person one being? YEs or No?

What makes you think that your claiming that makes it true?

I'm not claiming it, the bible is. Every single time a being is in view, like say Moses , he is also a separate person . It works the other way also. Every time a person is in view, he is also a different being. Why should we accept trinitairan special pleading which says only God is three persons one being?

Tell you what. If you can find me just one example of a person who is also not a spearate being (and vice versa) from the bible, I will concede defeat.

And what makes you think the inverse is true, that every person must be a separate being?

Because every time a person is in view in the ibble, he is also a separate being. Do you agree? Maybe you don't?

And what makes you think what is normal for humans must be normal for God?

It's got nothing to do with 'normal' Sparko. It's got to do with the way things are expressed in the bible. For example, everytime the number 12 is used in the bible with refrence to men, it means 12, not 9 or 8. So it must mean 12 when used in relation to God also otherwise the bible becomes a sensible document.. Now if I were like you, I could cast doubt on the value of the number 10 by saying, " what makes you think what is normal for humans must be normal for God? What makes you think 10 is 10 when used in relation to God?" In order for the bible to be a sensible document,we must use biblical words in a consistent fashion whether they apply to men or to God. God uses words which are sensible to humans to express things and to describe Himself.

If I define person as human being.

Nice try. No one is defining person as human being. An angel is also a person for example,a being.

you are just playing with word definitions and expecting everyone else to play along with how you define things. sorry bub.

Look who's talking!

Look Sparko. Jesus Christ is a person, a man right? Is he one person one being like the rest of us? YES or No? ...

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 10th 2006, 09:59 PM

Hi Paul,

I asked this several times now, where are you getting your definition for “Being”. If you definition for “Being” cannot be supported your argument falls.

The Oxford dictionary defines being as anything that exists .
The Oxford dictionary defines a person as a self-conscious or rational being.

I agree.

Pythagoras

April 10th 2006, 11:23 PM

Hi.S,

Is Ice, Steam, Liquid a Water? Is 3 something 1. Is past, present, future a Time? 3 things which ar one. So your base is wrong. Some meny things can still be one thing. And most funny that meny different things can be one thing by nature. So why can't it be with beeing?

The old ice, steam and liquid analogy! Unfortunately, is a case for modalism not trinitarianism, Shazard. -- water in three different modes-; iice, steam and liquid.

Say, when are you going to introduce the egg yoke and egg white analogy?:lol:

Trinitarians!!.

best wishes,

Shazard

April 11th 2006, 01:59 AM

Hi Sparko,
I'm not claiming it, the bible is. Every single time a being is in view, like say Moses , he is also a separate person . It works the other way also. Every time a person is in view, he is also a different being. Why should we accept trinitairan special pleading which says only God is three persons one being?

In logic it is called engineers induction. You see one white rabbit, then you see two white rabbits, latter you find out about 1000 white rabbits and then you make conclusion that all rabbits are white. And if somebody shows you your fallacy by showing that there can be black rabbit you are claiming, that this is not rabbit, coz it is not white as previous 1000 rabbits.

Hi Sparko,
Tell you what. If you can find me just one example of a person who is also not a spearate being (and vice versa) from the bible, I will concede defeat.

Okey. Animals! Are they beings? Are they persons? If they are not beeings then what are they? And if they are persons, then what about animal eating and sacrifices? Go try to find normal well accepted definition of 'being'.

Next. Legion in case of possessed man. One beeing (man) and MENY (legion) persons, btwh which all speak as one person - so in nature Legion was meny beings and still one person as all was speaking as one.

But we know that you won't accept these biblical examples which contradicts your "biblical" definition, coz your definition is tauthology.

Shazard

April 11th 2006, 02:04 AM

Hi.S,

The old ice, steam and liquid analogy! Unfortunately, is a case for modalism not trinitarianism, Shazard. -- water in three different modes-; iice, steam and liquid.

best wishes,

I was not defendint trinity with this claim. I just destroyed your ridicilous base of claiming that something one can't be 3 and something 3 can't be one. I showed you that there are things which are 3 different things and still one thing by nature.

Other example... 3 translations of the book. THey are 3 different separate books and still they are one book - the original they were translated from. So you can even get thousands of books and still they are one book. As for example - Bible... English bible is not the chinese bible. If some alien would compare them he would find out that they are VERY different and throw there also arabic Bible and you get 3 VERY different by shape, direction of reading books and still they are one book! There is one spirit within the books!

I am not prooving you trinity I am disaprooving your logical base for disaprooving Trinity. There is no contradiction in Trinity.

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 10:14 AM

Hi S.,

I was not defendint trinity with this claim. I just destroyed your ridicilous base of claiming that something one can't be 3 and something 3 can't be one. I showed you that there are things which are 3 different things and still one thing by nature.

Modalism doesn't say something 1 can't be 3 or something 3 can't be 1, Modalism says 1 is 1, in 3 different modes ,stupid.

Other example... 3 translations of the book. THey are 3 different separate books and still they are one book - the original they were translated from.

This again is modalism. One translation in three modes.

I am not prooving you trinity I am disaprooving your logical base for disaprooving Trinity. There is no contradiction in Trinity.

I'm not surprised you're a trinitarian because you can't think straight.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 10:27 AM

Hi S.,

In logic it is called engineers induction. You see one white rabbit, then you see two white rabbits, latter you find out about 1000 white rabbits and then you make conclusion that all rabbits are white. And if somebody shows you your fallacy by showing that there can be black rabbit you are claiming, that this is not rabbit, coz it is not white as previous 1000 rabbits.

What nonsense. Say, I want to hear the egg white, egg yoke analogy. How about the scrambled egg one?

Okey. Animals! Are they beings? Are they persons? If they are not beeings then what are they? And if they are persons, then what about animal eating and sacrifices? Go try to find normal well accepted definition of 'being'.

Person is a self-conscious or rational being(Oxford dictionary). What has animal eating and sacrifices got to do with whether animals are persons?

Hey stupid, are you a human (person)?
Are you a being?

Are you a human being? Yes or No?

Next. Legion in case of possessed man. One beeing (man) and MENY (legion) persons, btwh which all speak as one person - so in nature Legion was meny beings and still one person as all was speaking as one.

Another retarded comment. The human(person) being in this case is one being, the demons infesting him are other beings collectively known as legion. They have a different nature. This person was a being possessed by other being, many beings. Is this how the trinitarian God is?

best wishes,

PaulT

April 11th 2006, 11:05 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

The Oxford dictionary defines being as anything that exists .

How perceptive of you to finally check your claim against a standard. Does God exist, answer, yes. Does the dictionary limit the definition to “all beings are persons” answer, no.

Hi Paul,

The Oxford dictionary defines a person as a self-conscious or rational being.

I agree.

The definition of Person in Webster’s also contemplates, “a character or part in play”, meaning the unique role.

Based on the definitions above there would only be a conflict with the laws of non-contradiction if the view of the Trinity was the 1 Person is 3 Persons, or 1 being is 3 beings. However, because the definition of “Being” does not incorporate your definition, it is NOT a violation of the laws of non-contradiction to say that 1 Being comprised of 3 Persons.

According to the dictionary it is logical to speak of 1 Being comprised of 3 Persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, who all while completely equal in “Being” have different roles.

Notice, I have not equivocated on the meanings of the words as defined by the dictionary. Therefore your claims are fallacious.

Regards,

Paul

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 02:48 PM

How many gods do you have if God is speaking to God? If they are one God, is GOd speaking to himself?

Again you show your lack of understanding of the Trinity. One God revealed in three persons. Yes each person in the trinity can talk to the others, not they are not three Gods.

You have overeducated your reasoning...

And you are merely handwaving away any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived heretical notions. You deserve your ignorance.

To keep it simple. You believe that Jesus is YHVH which also makes Jesus the Father and not just the Son. This appears to be in contradiction to the Trinity you support.

To keep it simple: YHWH is the name of GOD. God is revealed in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully GOD, each person is fully YHWH. When YHWH speaks in the Old Testament, it could be any or all of the three persons speaking in the Trinity. I tend to think it is mostly Jesus speaking, since he is the memra, or Word of God.

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 02:51 PM

Hi Sparko,

I'm just using your interpretative method.

Who says Moses saw a theophany of God? Besides , in my opinion, Moses is the second person of the holy trinity, so he could see God and still be God.

No He hadn't. Only the Angel of the Lord had come down.

So? Moses is the second person of the trinity, he could speak to the first person. Get it?

Who says? The bible tells us God knew Moses from the foundation of the world.

No, the Angel of the Lord delivered God's people. Read your bible.

Sorry. The bible makes it clear that it was the Angel of the Lord who came down and delivered the Israelites. Not God.

My point is that the one speaking in Ex. 3:8 must be Moses(the second person of the holy trinity) because Moses specifically says "I led you through the desert" in Deut. 29:3 and in Ex. 3:8 God specifically says He will come down and lead the Israelites to a land flowing with milk and honey. When God says "I will come down and do something" He means "I myself will do something" , ok. So Moses is God.

Exactly! And in Deut. 29:3 who do you see come down and lead the Israelites? MOSES! He's God.

If Moses is not God, YHWH is a bold faced liar for He says in Ex. that He Himself will come down and lead the Israelites but then come crunch time sends only Moses. No, Moses must be God for YhWH to not be a liar.

You keep on separating the Father and Moses into different beings. They are ONE BEING revealed in three persons.

best wishes,

Yeah that really shows what a maroon you are Pythagoras. Nothing to even discuss with you. Nitwit. I was willing to actually have civil and decent discussion with you on the topic but you show your complete ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinion and resort to moronic out of context prooftexts and mocking analogies that show everyone that you have nothing to contribute to a debate and instead of admitting defeat you resort to acting like an idiot.

Well done. :clap:

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 03:06 PM

Tell you what. If you can find me just one example of a person who is also not a spearate being (and vice versa) from the bible, I will concede defeat.

We have been giving you examples of that all along. Jesus and the father are one. Jesus is God, Jesus is the Word, the Word is God, God the father calls Jesus the son, "God", Jesus is the creator, etc etc etc etc.

Creator:
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

First and Last, Alpha Omega:
Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’" Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

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

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

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

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
Jesus is called God:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He (1) appeared in a body (2), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV footnotes: (1) Some manuscripts God -- (2) Or in the flesh

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

==============================

I guess that means you concede defeat?

it's about time.

Shazard

April 11th 2006, 03:39 PM

I guess that means you concede defeat?

it's about time.

He won't !

And I guess we have done here too. We have put meny arguments, each honest reader can read and decide for themselves what to believe. One man can bring a donkey to the river, but even hundred will not be able to force the donkey to drink.

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 08:18 PM

Hi Sparko,

Yeah that really shows what a maroon you are Pythagoras.

Moron or maroon? You could say I'm a moron for Christ, sure thing.

Nothing to even discuss with you. Nitwit.

You take after your boss Holding in the cursing department, that's for sure. Though lately I myself have developed a propensity for calling people with whome I disagree "stupid" , bad habit I picked up from trinitarians like you . That does it.....I'm going to stop using foul language starting right now, cold turkey, before it gets out of control and I end up like you ..

I was willing to actually have civil and decent discussion with you on the topic but you show your complete ignorance and disregard for anyone's opinion and resort to moronic out of context prooftexts and mocking analogies that show everyone that you have nothing to contribute to a debate and instead of admitting defeat you resort to acting like an idiot.

I was just returning the favour Sparko.Why is it "moronic" to suggest Moses is God and not "moronic" to suggest Jesus is God? Both were men, both were prophets of God, both performed miracles, both died, both are called God in scripture, etc.?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 08:36 PM

Hi Paul,

Does the dictionary limit the definition to “all beings are persons” answer, no.

Nice try. We are talking about rational or self-conscious beings. The broad definiton of being as per Oxford dictionary is anything that exists but that's not our concern here genius.

The Oxford dictionary says persons are self-conscious or rational beings, so that means rational beings are persons. Ofcourse a dog , an ameoba, a rock is not a rational being so is not in view here. Sometimes I tend to think the trinitarian is not a rational being, therefore not a person, but that's for another topic.

Oxford dictionary: person as a self-conscious or rational being.

Tell me, was Jesus 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No? Are you 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No?.. Heck , are you a human(person) being or not? The trinity doctrine is so illogical it forces you to deny that you're a human being.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 11th 2006, 09:29 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

I saw this response to Sparko, not that he needs any help,

Hi Sparko,

Moron or maroon? You could say I'm a moron for Christ, sure thing.

You take after your boss Holding in the cursing department, that's for sure. Though lately I myself have developed a propensity for calling people with whome I disagree "stupid" , bad habit I picked up from trinitarians like you . That does it.....I'm going to stop using foul language starting right now, cold turkey, before it gets out of control and I end up like you ..

I was just returning the favour Sparko.Why is it "moronic" to suggest Moses is God and not "moronic" to suggest Jesus is God? Both were men, both were prophets of God, both performed miracles, both died, both are called God in scripture, etc.?

best wishes,

he has been flaying your arguments wide open.
I believe there is a subtle difference in how Moses is viewed in Scripture versus Jesus Christ. I believe the Jews today, (assuming you could get them to answer you, something that appears to be difficult for you, I wonder why that is) would tell you that even as great a prophet as Moses was, as close of a relationship as Moses had with God, he never equated himself with God, because he was still, at the end of the day a created being, a man.
The fundamental difference between the way Moses is portrayed, (someone who grew up and was later in life chosen by God to be His messenger) versus Christ is that Christ is God who became man.

As I’ve thoroughly demonstrated over on the Mormon thread the Jews prosecuted Christ for claiming He was God or at the minimum equal with God. The point the Gospel writers make is that Christ never became god, like Moses did, which brings with it an entirely different meaning of the word, god but Christ always was God, the Creator. Raymond E. Brown in his commentary on John says of Christ, “He is the Word of God who has become man.” Moses as great as he was, was still just a man, a created being picked out by God, unlike Christ who is the Eternal God, I AM, of the same nature, essence and “Being” as the Father. Moses is told by God repeatedly what to say, however Christ taught as one having authority, IOW, He already knew the subject matter. Moses needed God to elevate his status, Christ agreed to become man. The fact you are confusing a creature with the Creator, while perhaps isn’t “moronic” it is certainly absurd. However, don’t take my word for it, go ask the Jews, (assuming they will answer you, which doesn’t seem to be the case does it) over on their threads if Moses was equal to God. Then please come back and report your findings.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 09:45 PM

Hi sparko,

We have been giving you examples of that all along. Jesus and the father are one.

That's the probblem with you, you don't mean what you say. On the one hand you say Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, on the other hand they are one.You keep equivocating the word being in relation to person. No can do.

Jesus is God,

Using your kind of eisegesis, so is moses.

Creator:
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

You forget the context. Read Col. 1:15.

First and Last, Alpha Omega:
Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’" Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

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

Again out of context. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads.

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

Out of context. How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is to be understood spiritually. In Jewish paradigms a servant sent is as the master so that Moses is God sent to Moses. Jesus acts in the same fashion. Read in relation to Mal. 3:1.

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

The concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12). No one believes that Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.”

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Nice try. The KJV says God and our Savior Jesus Christ (KJV).

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
Jesus is called God:

Great God and Saviour was a Roman title . . On the other hand, God here is used as a proper name , so again, sharp's rule doesn't apply. Paul never uses the word God to mean Jesus (and he uses it 500 times) . Furthermore only YHWH is ever called Great God in the bible, Jesus never is, so it's obvious who it's refering to here..

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

I've already beat this horse to death. The anarthrous Theos shows the word is not God.

2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He (1) appeared in a body (2), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV footnotes: (1) Some manuscripts God -- (2) Or in the flesh

This doesn't even show anything.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil(2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

I guess by this reckoning Moses is God 'cause he's called God in Ex. 7:1.

best wishes, and keep fooling yourself.

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 09:59 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

he has been flaying your arguments wide open.
I believe there is a subtle difference in how Moses is viewed in Scripture versus Jesus Christ. I believe the Jews today, (assuming you could get them to answer you, something that appears to be difficult for you, I wonder why that is) would tell you that even as great a prophet as Moses was, as close of a relationship as Moses had with God, he never equated himself with God, because he was still, at the end of the day a created being, a man.

Neither did Jesus equate himself with God . By the way, just like Moses, at the end of the day Jesus was just a man, a created being, who died.

Did Moses become God when God made him God in Ex. 7:1? Ofcourse not. You're twisting the meaning of "equal". As I mentioned earlier , the concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12).

Do you believe Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.” ? YES or NO?

best wishes,

P.S. I'm not holding my breath for a straight answer because trinitarians never comply with a yes or no. That's how I know their doctrine is from the evil one. Jesus says in the bible, "Let your yes be your yes and your no be your no, otherwise it is from the evil one."

best wishes,

Please give the source when quoting from another cite.

PaulT

April 11th 2006, 10:55 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi

Nice try. We are talking about rational or self-conscious beings. The broad definiton of being as per Oxford dictionary is anything that exists but that's not our concern here genius.

“Nice try”, I thought and I’ll bet most of the audience agreed that it was Tweb’s version of “Shock n Awe”. I don’t notice the term, “broad” within the definition of the word “being”. For some reason I don’t seem to find your narrow definition within the confines of the dictionaries definition for the word “Being”.

Thank you for your commentary on my IQ level, most of my friends are not nearly as complementary.

However you were the one that claimed the doctrine of the Trinity defied the laws of non-contradiction, which I’ve shown the doctrine does not, at least as long as we use a neutral source from which to define the words. My concern was to determine if there was/is any validity to your claim. I’ve shown your argument to be fallacious.

The Oxford dictionary says persons are self-conscious or rational beings, so that means rational beings are persons. Ofcourse a dog , an ameoba, a rock is not a rational being so is not in view here. Sometimes I tend to think the trinitarian is not a rational being, therefore not a person, but that's for another topic.

Oxford dictionary: person as a self-conscious or rational being.

I am not disputing the definition of Person, although it has broader definitions than what your provided. I’m disputing that “Person” and “Being” necessarily mean the same thing, they don’t. You do understand what the law of non-contradiction states, don’t you? The “Being” of something has to do with the “What” of them, you know, like the dictionary says, the “essence”, the “Person” has to do with the who or identity. You are attempting to confuse the two words construing them to mean the same thing; they don’t which means your charge is bogus. You are constraining the Creator’s essence to the view from a finite created being. When we are talking about Persons of God we are not talking about finite “persons” as you would attempt to assert.

Tell me, was Jesus 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No? Are you 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No?.. Heck , are you a human(person) being or not? The trinity doctrine is so illogical it forces you to deny that you're a human being.

best wishes,

Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I. The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.

I think it is nice that you have committed to reforming your approach when discussing issues, I only hope now you will reform your approach in making erroneous claims, you know, suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity defies the law of non-contradiction. We’ve shown that the Trinity is not illogical when using standard definitions for the terms from a neutral source. We’ve shown that we don’t need to equivocate on the meanings of the words, to make the Trinity logical. In fact what we’ve shown it is you who needs to equivocate on the meaning of “being” in your attempt to justify your claim, it doesn’t work.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 11:07 PM

Hi Paul,

Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I. The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.

Paul[color=black]

Answer my question: Was Christ a human being like us? Yes or No?

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 11:21 PM

Hi Paul,

Nice try. We are talking about rational or self-conscious beings. The broad definiton of being as per Oxford dictionary is anything that exists but that's not our concern here genius.

The Oxford dictionary says persons are self-conscious or rational beings, so that means rational beings are persons. Ofcourse a dog , an ameoba, a rock is not a rational being so is not in view here. Sometimes I tend to think the trinitarian is not a rational being, therefore not a person, but that's for another topic.

Oxford dictionary: person as a self-conscious or rational being.

Tell me, was Jesus 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No? Are you 1 person and the same 1 being? Yes or No?.. Heck , are you a human(person) being or not? The trinity doctrine is so illogical it forces you to deny that you're a human being.

best wishes,

Let's try a thought experiment. A sci-fi analogy, so to speak.

Suppose in the near future scientists develop a self-aware artificial intelligence - a computer person. And suppose it is rational and self-concious. Now suppose they make several versions of this self-aware artificial person, and name them Hewey, Dewey and Louie. But to save space they are all stored on one mainframe computer.

How many computer persons are there? How many computers?

You would have three [computer] persons in one computer [being].

Pythagoras

April 11th 2006, 11:31 PM

Hi Sparko,

Let's try a thought experiment. A sci-fi analogy, so to speak.

Suppose in the near future scientists develop a self-aware artificial intelligence - a computer person. And suppose it is rational and self-concious. Now suppose they make several versions of this self-aware artificial person, and name them Hewey, Dewey and Louie. But to save space they are all stored on one mainframe computer.

How many computer persons are there? How many computers?

You would have three [computer] persons in one computer [being].

That's a case for modalism Sparkey. One computer or main frame, three modes or versions . Even in the realm of science fiction your analogy fails.

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 11:42 PM

Hi sparko,

That's the probblem with you, you don't mean what you say. On the one hand you say Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, on the other hand they are one.You keep equivocating the word being in relation to person. No can do.

Using your kind of eisegesis, so is moses.

You forget the context. Read Col. 1:15.

Again out of context. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads.

Out of context. How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is to be understood spiritually. In Jewish paradigms a servant sent is as the master so that Moses is God sent to Moses. Jesus acts in the same fashion. Read in relation to Mal. 3:1.

The concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12). No one believes that Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.”

Nice try. The KJV says God and our Savior Jesus Christ (KJV).

Great God and Saviour was a Roman title . . On the other hand, God here is used as a proper name , so again, sharp's rule doesn't apply. Paul never uses the word God to mean Jesus (and he uses it 500 times) . Furthermore only YHWH is ever called Great God in the bible, Jesus never is, so it's obvious who it's refering to here..

I've already beat this horse to death. The anarthrous Theos shows the word is not God.

This doesn't even show anything.

In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil(2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

I guess by this reckoning Moses is God 'cause he's called God in Ex. 7:1.

best wishes, and keep fooling yourself.

blah blah blah. instead of actually engaging any points you merely try to handwave it away by claiming it is out of context without any proof. I will do the same with most of your objections. You are the one fooling yourself pythagoras. If there was only one passage in the bible that seemed to equate jesus with God, then yes you could argue that it was a misinterpretation. Kinda like the ONE passage in the bible that says Moses will be God to the pharoah. But when you have dozens of verses that all keep pointing to the same fact, that Jesus is YHWH, then you have to be blind to keep rejecting it. and that is what you are. You will do anything to ignore all of the evidence. You try to chop it up into small little distinct pieces and handwave each away, not seeing the whole picture. You destroy context to keep your illusion alive.

Wait I will take one of your objections and tear it part specifically.

I quoted Revelations 1:17

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.

You said:

Again out of context. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads.

Now you claim it is "God" speaking there. But the speaker says "I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever" - Was the Father ever dead? No. Only Jesus died on the cross. So if it IS God speaking there, and also Jesus speaking, then I guess that means Jesus is God, eh?

You just admitted that Jesus is God. Nice.

Or maybe you were commenting on Rev 22? Saying that it was God saying that he was the Alpha and Omega?

You would be wrong again. all you need to do is read the whole passage in context to see who is speaking...

12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022&version=31;#fen-NIV-31081a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Verse 12 says "I am coming soon" - We know who is coming soon: Jesus. The Father is not coming, Jesus is. So the speaker is Jesus. This is confirmed by the continuation of the speakers words in verse 16 where he identifies himself. "I, Jesus,"

Again, you are right, it IS God speaking there. and it is Jesus speaking there. Jesus IS God. Jesus IS the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

Sparko

April 11th 2006, 11:46 PM

Hi Sparko,

That's a case for modalism Sparkey. One computer or main frame, three modes or versions . Even in the realm of science fiction your analogy fails.

No. Modalism would be if only one person existed at a time. I am talking about all three computer persons existing on the computer at the same time and being able to communicate with each other.

Pythagoras

April 12th 2006, 01:54 AM

Hi Sparkey,

No. Modalism would be if only one person existed at a time. I am talking about all three computer persons existing on the computer at the same time and being able to communicate with each other.

O.K. However your fairy tale computer still doesn't correspond to the trinity doctrine. All three computer persons exist on the computer , so this is simply a variation of modalism.. But the trinity doctrine says all three persons are fully distinct[ in other words each of your computer persons must be fully computer in every sense yet be totally distinct and independent , yet be one computer and not three computers.] In other words 3 would have to be 1.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 12th 2006, 02:43 AM

Hi Sparko,

I quoted Revelations 1:17

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.

You said:

Now you claim it is "God" speaking there. But the speaker says "I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever" - Was the Father ever dead? No. Only Jesus died on the cross. So if it IS God speaking there, and also Jesus speaking, then I guess that means Jesus is God, eh?

You just admitted that Jesus is God. Nice.

Nice try! You're trying to equate "Alpha and Omega" with "First and Last".
The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). You're making the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the son, they must both be God. However, many same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include “Lord” (Rom. 10:9) and “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “King of kings” (see 1 Tim. 6:14-16) , etc . I guess they are all God right.

Jesus call himself "the first and the last"? Yes, but in a different context and a different sense. He told John: "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17-1 Jesus was raised from death to immortal life directly by his Father. But if Jesus now has "the keys of death and of Hades," he will perform any subsequent resurrections.

[edit]

Or maybe you were commenting on Rev 22? Saying that it was God saying that he was the Alpha and Omega?

You would be wrong again. all you need to do is read the whole passage in context to see who is speaking...

12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022&version=31;#fen-NIV-31081a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Verse 12 says "I am coming soon" - We know who is coming soon: Jesus. The Father is not coming, Jesus is. So the speaker is Jesus. This is confirmed by the continuation of the speakers words in verse 16 where he identifies himself. "I, Jesus,"

Again, you are right, it IS God speaking there. and it is Jesus speaking there. Jesus IS God. Jesus IS the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

[edit] As far as "Alpha and Omega" at Revelation 22:12-13 the speaker here is, not Jesus, but the Father. But some like Sparkey will insist that the Alpha and Omega here is really Jesus. Why? For one thing, Jesus is clearly the speaker a few verses later. ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches." - verse 16) The problem is, there are no quotation marks in the original to indicate where one quotation begins and another ends. Some translations will indicate the above statements to be separate quotations and others won't. Does not the speaker say he is 'coming quiclky'? Is that not Jesus? In fact, Jesus uses those very words in verse 20. Yes, but in the book of Revelation, not only does Jesus come (a second time - Rev. 19:11), but the Father comes down to earth in New Jerusalem. (21:2-3)

best wishes,

You must give a source when citing material

Shazard

April 12th 2006, 06:33 AM

PaulT

April 12th 2006, 07:30 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

Neither did Jesus equate himself with God . By the way, just like Moses, at the end of the day Jesus was just a man, a created being, who died.

Did Moses become God when God made him God in Ex. 7:1? Ofcourse not. You're twisting the meaning of "equal". As I mentioned earlier , the concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12).

Do you believe Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.” ? YES or NO?

best wishes,

best wishes,

As I can see, still up to your old tricks. Your question was something to do with comparing Moses and Christ. My response was clear cut and asked that you inquire with your buddies over on the Jewish threads if Moses was/is equal to God. Did you do that, no, you just respond with a question. Why did you do that? Was it because you already knew the answer?

Your denial of who Christ is nothing more than the same old story that was the reason the Jews killed Christ. Your comparison of Christ, the Son of the Living God to “mere men” is the same error that led to the cross.

The Jews didn’t suggest Christ was equal to Caesar, Herod or the High Priest, they, His accusers said He was claiming to be God.

No, I don’t believe Pharaoh, Joseph, Paul or his opponents are of the same essence as God, they are finite created beings, but then neither were they THE Son of the Living God.

Now, that I’ve answered your question, when can I expect your response regarding your inquiry with the Jews? Do the Jews consider Moses equal with God?

Hi Paul,

P.S. I'm not holding my breath for a straight answer because trinitarians never comply with a yes or no. That's how I know their doctrine is from the evil one. Jesus says in the bible, "Let your yes be your yes and your no be your no, otherwise it is from the evil one."

Still taking stuff out of context, eh? Oh well, what you have demonstrated in the past and maintained here is the penchant for answering a question with another question. Your inability to answer the question is deafening. I will pray that God opens your eyes to the truth and that your reformation doesn’t just end with your method of discourse but that you come to realize who Christ is, and bow to the truth in similar fashion as Thomas who said, “My Lord and my God”.

Regards,

Paul

PaulT

April 12th 2006, 07:36 AM

Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response

Hi Paul,

Answer my question: Was Christ a human being like us? Yes or No?

Starting this all over again I see. I have answered the question, see post #98. Why don’t you do me the courtesy and answer all the questions you’ve failed to address from post #98.

Regards,

Paul

A Cup of No

April 12th 2006, 09:35 AM

To keep it simple. You believe that Jesus is YHVH which also makes Jesus the Father and not just the Son. This appears to be in contradiction to the Trinity you support.

Just to address this bold-faced misinterpretation of Sparko's words:

YHWH does not equal "Father." This passage from Zechariah should demonstrate this well:

6Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. 7Up! Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. 8For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: 9"Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. 10Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and[B] I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. 11And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 12And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem."

Notice the bold text. The LORD (as I'm sure you already know is truly YHWH in the Hebrew) is speaking this entire time, and says that He will come and dwell with the people, and they will know that YHWH has sent him. YHWH is sending YHWH. The Father cannot send himself, so it is impossible to say YHWH = Father.

Also consider these passages:

By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

YHWH here is speaking. In Phillipians, Paul expounds on this passage. Earlier stating that Jesus, already being God, did not consider it something to be used to his advantage, but rather used it as a means to serve humanity,Paul then says :

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In Isaiah all were bowing to YHWH, and in Phillipians all are bowing to Jesus. By giving Jesus the "name at which every knee should bow", YHWH, the Father, is bestowing the name of YHWH to Jesus, which we saw was true of him already in Zechariah. Christ, though already in the form of God, gave himself to servanthood, and now God has exalted him and put him back where he belongs with the name that is properly his.

This exaltation language is from Isaiah.

Behold, my servant shall act wisely, he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astroned at you - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind - so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

The servant who has the name of YHWH is Jesus, sharing the name of the Father, but now bestowed on him solely for the purpose of judging all men.

Also note Isaiah 6

And one called to another and said: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD [YHWH] of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

John 12:41

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him."

Isaiah saw YHWH's glory, and John says that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. In Zecharaiah, YHWH is sending YHWH to dwell with his people. It should be obvious that YHWH does not equal solely the Father, and is used as a name for different members of the Godhead.

Sparko

April 12th 2006, 10:14 AM

Hi Sparkey,

O.K. However your fairy tale computer still doesn't correspond to the trinity doctrine. All three computer persons exist on the computer , so this is simply a variation of modalism.. But the trinity doctrine says all three persons are fully distinct[ in other words each of your computer persons must be fully computer in every sense yet be totally distinct and independent , yet be one computer and not three computers.] In other words 3 would have to be 1.

best wishes,

bzzt wrong again. See, this is why you don't understand the trinity, you keep mixing up "person" and "being"

Maybe it would be clearer if we didn't even use the word "being" in reference to the trinity? Let's use "essence" - God is three persons with one essense or nature. Distinct means they are not the SAME person, not that they are completely independent of each other. The word "distinct" is only added to the trinitarian definitions to delineate it from modalism which says that God takes on roles, that he is the Father for a while, then becomes the Son, then becomes the Holy Spirit. In Modalism there is only one person at a time who changes personalities. In Trinitarianism, there are three persons who exist simultaneously with each other and yet are one essence or nature.

In my example, there are three distinct computer persons, hewey, dewey, and louie. Yet each is fully of the essence "computer" - there is only one piece of hardware, the computer that each has full control over. The computer is their essence, it is their nature. Yet in my example there is only ONE computer, not three. Three persons, one computer. Each exists simultaneous with the others.

And yeah its NOT a perfect analogy. The only purpose of it is to explain to you how there can be three in one, not to be a complete model of the trinity. I am sure you can find many holes in it. Why not complain that God is not made of silicon? Or that the computer is not infinite or all powerful like God is? :lol:

I always get a laugh when someone tries to destroy an analogy by trying to find some area where the analogy fails thinking that destroys the whole point of the analogy. An analogy is just meant to be a simple example of something at one or two points, not a complete one-to-one model of the thing under discussion.

Pythagoras

April 12th 2006, 10:31 AM

Hi Sparko,

Maybe it would be clearer if we didn't even use the word "being" in reference to the trinity?

Lol! fine.

Let's use "essence" - God is three persons with one essense or nature.

O.K. So you have three persons(distinct things), A , B and C with the same nature(or essence).

Distinct means they are not the SAME person, not that they are completely independent of each other.

Here you start equivocating. If they are not completely independent of each other, then they are not distinct or separate persons.

The word "distinct" is only added to the trinitarian definitions to delineate it from modalism which says that God takes on roles, that he is the Father for a while, then becomes the Son, then becomes the Holy Spirit.

Fine.

In Modalism there is only one person at a time who changes personalities.

Yes.

In Trinitarianism, there are three persons who exist simultaneously with each other and yet are one essence or nature.

Yes.

In my example, there are three distinct computer persons, hewey, dewey, and louie.

Sure. I prefer to call them Petrer, Paul and James.

Yet each is fully of the essence "computer" - there is only one piece of hardware, the computer that each has full control over.

If they aretruly distinct then there has to be more than one computer. Gregory of Nyssa saw this problem . Your trinity is basically semi-modalism because it compromises the distinctino between the three persons. Gregory would argue the three persons of the trinity are distinct as threemen are, but having the same human nature. Anything less than this is not true distinctino between the persons unfortunately.

The computer is their essence, it is their nature.

If they are truely distinct , The computer , their essence, should be able to be divisible by threeyet be one, just as three persons are three, yet their essence(human nature) is one..Otherwise you're arguing a variation of modalism. Can't you follow simple logic?

Yet in my example there is only ONE computer, not three.

and that's why you're not arguing the trinity doctrine, but avariation of modalism.

Three persons, one computer. Each exists simultaneous with the others.

If each exists simultaneoulsy within the other, then your have a quarterny.

And yeah its NOT a perfect analogy.

And that says it all.

Even in Narnia land your fantasy fails. That should clue you in.

anyway, I've got to run. If there are spelling errors, I apologize.

best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

best wishes,

Sparko

April 12th 2006, 10:32 AM

Hi Sparko,

Nice try! You're trying to equate "Alpha and Omega" with "First and Last".
The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). You're making the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the son, they must both be God. However, many same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include “Lord” (Rom. 10:9) and “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “King of kings” (see 1 Tim. 6:14-16) , etc . I guess they are all God right.

Jesus call himself "the first and the last"? Yes, but in a different context and a different sense. He told John: "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17-1 Jesus was raised from death to immortal life directly by his Father. But if Jesus now has "the keys of death and of Hades," he will perform any subsequent resurrections.

As far as "Alpha and Omega" at Revelation 22:12-13 the speaker here is, not Jesus, but the Father. But some like Sparkey will insist that the Alpha and Omega here is really Jesus. Why? For one thing, Jesus is clearly the speaker a few verses later. ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches." - verse 16) The problem is, there are no quotation marks in the original to indicate where one quotation begins and another ends. Some translations will indicate the above statements to be separate quotations and others won't. Does not the speaker say he is 'coming quiclky'? Is that not Jesus? In fact, Jesus uses those very words in verse 20. Yes, but in the book of Revelation, not only does Jesus come (a second time - Rev. 19:11), but the Father comes down to earth in New Jerusalem. (21:2-3)

best wishes,

1. What the heck are you doing to screw up your text so badly all the time? Cutting and pasting from some web site and not taking out the html codes?

2. Can you show me where "alpha and omega" are used as titles for Moses or any other man?

3. The Father is not "coming soon" - Christ is. God doesn't set new Jerusalem down on earth till a thousand years AFTER Christ returns to set up his kingdom.

Pythagoras, your silly rationalizations and attempts at handwaving all trinitarian evidence away show that you are not interested in knowing the truth, but just want to force all evidence into the belief you already hold. A truly honest Christian would want to know the truth about God's nature even if it disagreed with what they currently believe.

You instead do this: :fingersinears:

If God was not a trinity, I want to know that. I don't want to believe falsely about who God is. I do keep checking the bible and considering things you and other nontrinitarians say and I keep seeing people who don't really think about what the bible teaches but who keep trying to fit what they beleive into the bible. Instead of letting the bible teach you what the truth is, you guys already have your mind made up and force that back into the bible and use any silly rationalization to handwave away clear passages in the bible that say Jesus is God.

When I stand before God, I can, with a clear conscience tell God that I believe that Jesus is God because the bible clearly teaches that. If God were to tell me that I was wrong and the Trinity was not true, I could honestly tell him that I only went by what was clear in the bible. If he didn't want me to believe Jesus was God, he shouldn't have let it be said so many times and in so many ways in the bible.

You on the other hand, and many other arians, will have to explain to God why you ignored clear passages that say Jesus is God in favor of keeping your own preconceptions alive at the expense of clear teachings in the bible.

Will you pray for God to show you the truth about his nature, even if it turns out that the trinity is true, pythagoras? And will you keep an open mind so God can reveal the truth to you whichever way it goes?

Sparko

April 12th 2006, 10:58 AM

O.K. So you have three persons(distinct things), A , B and C with the same nature(or essence).

Here you start equivocating. If they are not completely independent of each other, then they are not distinct or separate persons.

Trinitarians never say they are "separate" persons. They use "distinct" for a reason.

If they aretruly distinct then there has to be more than one computer. Gregory of Nyssa saw this problem . Your trinity is basically semi-modalism because it compromises the distinctino between the three persons. Gregory would argue the three persons of the trinity are distinct as threemen are, but having the same human nature. Anything less than this is not true distinctino between the persons unfortunately.

No. if they can be three distinct persons on one computer. Say one was Max Headroom and one was Hal9000. Both on the same computer. They would be distinct persons. each would have a mind, and personality.

You try too hard to destroy a simple analogy and still get it wrong. In doing so you show you are either ignorant or dishonest. I am voting for ignorant. You just want arianism to be true so badly that you will ignore any contrary evidence in the bible. You can't even understand a simple analogy without messing it up.

If they are truely distinct , The computer , their essence, should be able to be divisible by threeyet be one, just as three persons are three, yet their essence(human nature) is one..Otherwise you're arguing a variation of modalism. Can't you follow simple logic?

Hewey is fully the computer in essence. All of the hardware of the computer makes up and runs Hewey. But Hewey is not Dewey or Louie. Ditto for the other two persons. Each is fully the computer. The computer is not fully each of them.

and that's why you're not arguing the trinity doctrine, but avariation of modalism.

Bzzt.

If each exists simultaneoulsy within the other, then your have a quarterny.

Bzzt. The computer is not a fourth person. It is the essence of the three persons. The nature of them. Are you two persons Pythagoras? You have a mind in a body. does that make you two persons?

Topherlee

April 12th 2006, 06:13 PM

Sparko, Again you show your lack of understanding of the Trinity. One God revealed in three persons. Yes each person in the trinity can talk to the others, not they are not three Gods.

Can you hear yourself? EACH PERSON can talk to eachother, but they are not three persons. hmmm.

And you are merely handwaving away any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived heretical notions. You deserve your ignorance.

TO understand why Jesus is our Lord is to understand that he has been appointed by JEHOVAH God our Father as our Lord. To honor Jesus is to show that same respect for the Father. We are underserved of God's kindness, hence we must prove to Jesus that we are worthy to have a relationship with him and Jesus will lead us to HIS GOD, THE FATHER, JEHOVAH.

To keep it simple: YHWH is the name of GOD. God is revealed in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully GOD, each person is fully YHWH. When YHWH speaks in the Old Testament, it could be any or all of the three persons speaking in the Trinity. I tend to think it is mostly Jesus speaking, since he is the memra, or Word of God.

Again you misapply the name of Jehovah to belong to a Trinity. Jehovah is the Fathers name. Deut 6:4 says not only that God is one, but the Jehovah is the one God. Jesus speaks of his Father's name, he applies nothing to a Trinity. Jesus never says he is Jehovah but only refers to the Father as such.

Sparko

April 12th 2006, 06:29 PM

Can you hear yourself? EACH PERSON can talk to eachother, but they are not three persons. hmmm.

can you hear YOURSELF?????? I never said they were "not three persons" of course they are three persons. I said they are "not three Gods"

Topherlee until you can even get the words correct you might as well stay out of the conversation. It is no wonder you don't believe in the trinity and that you are polytheistic. You don't even seem to comprehend the words and terminology being used.

A Cup of No

April 12th 2006, 06:47 PM

Again you misapply the name of Jehovah to belong to a Trinity. Jehovah is the Fathers name. Deut 6:4 says not only that God is one, but the Jehovah is the one God. Jesus speaks of his Father's name, he applies nothing to a Trinity. Jesus never says he is Jehovah but only refers to the Father as such.

Can you please address my post (#109), Topherlee, since you continue to say that Jesus cannot be referred to as YHWH?

Pythagoras

April 12th 2006, 10:46 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Trinitarians never say they are "separate" persons.

Lol! Wanna bet!?

They use "distinct" for a reason.

So the persons are distinct but not separate?? You like speaking from both sides of your mouth, don't you? You're bodering on modalism Sparkey. On the other hand, the Eastern type trinity of which Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian fathers were a part of boders on tritheism . An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.

No. if they can be three distinct persons on one computer. Say one was Max Headroom and one was Hal9000. Both on the same computer. They would be distinct persons. each would have a mind, and personality.

You try too hard to destroy a simple analogy and still get it wrong. In doing so you show you are either ignorant or dishonest. I am voting for ignorant. You just want arianism to be true so badly that you will ignore any contrary evidence in the bible. You can't even understand a simple analogy without messing it up.

Hewey is fully the computer in essence. All of the hardware of the computer makes up and runs Hewey. But Hewey is not Dewey or Louie. Ditto for the other two persons. Each is fully the computer. The computer is not fully each of them.

Bzzt.

Bzzt. The computer is not a fourth person. It is the essence of the three persons. The nature of them. Are you two persons Pythagoras? You have a mind in a body. does that make you two persons?

This is more of the same nonsense from you.

Look it: How do you expect me to have a logical discussion with you , if even in the realm of science fiction you cannot properly present your trinity doctrine.?? -- "example is not a perfect analogy". .. If something cannot even make sense in Narnia land, it is truly nonsense.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 12th 2006, 10:56 PM

Hi Sparkey,

2. Can you show me where "alpha and omega" are used as titles for Moses or any other man?

Can you show me where Alpha and Omega are used of Jesus? In Rev. 22:12 it is the Angel speaking . The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. This should clue you in .

If God was not a trinity, I want to know that. I don't want to believe falsely about who God is. I do keep checking the bible and considering things you and other nontrinitarians say and I keep seeing people who don't really think about what the bible teaches but who keep trying to fit what they beleive into the bible. Instead of letting the bible teach you what the truth is, you guys already have your mind made up and force that back into the bible and use any silly rationalization to handwave away clear passages in the bible that say Jesus is God.

You, not me have your mind made up Sparkey. You refuse to use your common sense.

When I stand before God, I can, with a clear conscience tell God that I believe that Jesus is God because the bible clearly teaches that. If God were to tell me that I was wrong and the Trinity was not true, I could honestly tell him that I only went by what was clear in the bible. If he didn't want me to believe Jesus was God, he shouldn't have let it be said so many times and in so many ways in the bible.

Save this pitch for when you meat Jesus. Remember he will judge you by what sense in which you designate him Lord,Lord.

You on the other hand, and many other arians, will have to explain to God why you ignored clear passages that say Jesus is God in favor of keeping your own preconceptions alive at the expense of clear teachings in the bible.

I'm not worried about going to heaven Sparko. If God is a trinity, I never knew him .

Will you pray for God to show you the truth about his nature, even if it turns out that the trinity is true, pythagoras? And will you keep an open mind so God can reveal the truth to you whichever way it goes?

I have an open and rational mind .

BTW., you still haven't answered my question:

Is Jesus a human being like us? YES or NO?

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 12:23 AM

You are fighting straw man. You even don't understand how trinity is understood.

Yeah right...That's what trinitairans say when they can't show their premises to be logically based... It's a non-answer and essentially conceding defeat.

best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

PaulT

April 13th 2006, 09:30 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

I see you are still at it.

Hi Sparkey,

An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.

best wishes,

We’ve shown this is a false claim, yet you keep making it. I thought you were attempting to reform your ways. Please refrain from stating an out in out falsehood. If you disagree, because you can’t comprehend how it works, fine, but to continue to state a falsehood borders on dishonesty.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 09:50 AM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

I see you are still at it.

We’ve shown this is a false claim, yet you keep making it. I thought you were attempting to reform your ways. Please refrain from stating an out in out falsehood. If you disagree, because you can’t comprehend how it works, fine, but to continue to state a falsehood borders on dishonesty.

Regards,

Paul

Answer my question please: Was Jesus Christ a human being? YES or NO?

Remember Jesus said,"Let your yes be yes and your no be no otherwise it comes from the evil one."

But you're unable to answer with a straight yes or no despite repeated requests.

Do you know what happened to the foolish man who coudn't give the Master a straight answer in one of Jesus's parables? He got thrown into the outer darkness. How are you going to answer this question when you stand before the Judge of souls?

best wishes,

PaulT

April 13th 2006, 03:38 PM

Hello Pythagoras,
Thank you for your response,
Hi Paul,

Answer my question please: Was Jesus Christ a human being? YES or NO?

I have answered your question, directly and very specifically on post #98, where I said, “Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I. The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.”

Just to make it clear, when I mean unique, Christ is the ONLY human who ever lived that had both natures that of a man, like you and I and that of God. How is “Christ was a man like you or I” not a direct answer? Was it you didn’t like me throwing in the term “unique”?

However, this wasn’t the issue, was it? Your claim has to do with the Being of God and the Persons of God. I’ve shown that the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate the law on non-contradiction because “Being” and “Person” are not used in the “exact same sense” within the teaching of the Trinity. Even the “Being” of Christ’s dual natures are not used in the same sense, one nature is that of man the other of God.

Hi Paul,

Remember Jesus said,"Let your yes be yes and your no be no otherwise it comes from the evil one."

best wishes,

Thank you for your admonition but I believe the current dilemma is best described by Paul who said, “Professing themselves, (guys like you) to be wise, they became fools” Ro 1:22. Your problem is that because you cannot comprehend how God can be both God and man at the same time, you are denying the very plain teaching of Scripture.

Hi Paul,

But you're unable to answer with a straight yes or no despite repeated requests.

Do you know what happened to the foolish man who coudn't give the Master a straight answer in one of Jesus's parables? He got thrown into the outer darkness. How are you going to answer this question when you stand before the Judge of souls?

Well, if your presupposition that I’m wrong ends up being the case, I will inquire with Christ why He allowed John to mislead me by writing that He, Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, John 1:18. If John is wrong, so be it, but I believe I got a fairly good argument with which to press my case.

However, you on the other hand will have some explaining to do. If John didn’t lie when he wrote John 1:18 then you will need to explain why you overlooked John’s clear teaching, suggesting that John was misled or intentionally wanted to mislead Christ’s Church, because your view is that Christ wasn’t the only BEGOTTEN God, but rather just one of a bunch of gods who were all begotten.

At the end of the day, your issue really isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Your issue is denying who Christ really is, just like the Jews. How are you going to explain to Christ and His Father that you thought they were kidding all this time when they ensured Christ was described as the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD? Is your answer really going to be, "It just didn't make sense"?

Regards,

Paul

Shazard

April 13th 2006, 03:57 PM

Okey guys. This is allready too far. Sending one another to hell and begining judgement on your own is not very wise. I guess all that can be sayed about this matter is allready sayed. Let the readers judge themselves, and as Jesus told - those who are from truth can hear his voice.

Go in peace....

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 06:35 PM

Hi Paul,

I have answered your question, directly and very specifically on post #98, where I said, “Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I.

So does that mean Christ was a human being ? YES or NO?

The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.”

Just to make it clear, when I mean unique, Christ is the ONLY human who ever lived that had both natures that of a man, like you and I and that of God. How is “Christ was a man like you or I” not a direct answer? Was it you didn’t like me throwing in the term “unique”?

However, this wasn’t the issue, was it? Your claim has to do with the Being of God and the Persons of God. I’ve shown that the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate the law on non-contradiction because “Being” and “Person” are not used in the “exact same sense” within the teaching of the Trinity. Even the “Being” of Christ’s dual natures are not used in the same sense, one nature is that of man the other of God.

Thank you for your admonition but I believe the current dilemma is best described by Paul who said, “Professing themselves, (guys like you) to be wise, they became fools” Ro 1:22. Your problem is that because you cannot comprehend how God can be both God and man at the same time, you are denying the very plain teaching of Scripture.

Well, if your presupposition that I’m wrong ends up being the case, I will inquire with Christ why He allowed John to mislead me by writing that He, Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, John 1:18. If John is wrong, so be it, but I believe I got a fairly good argument with which to press my case.

However, you on the other hand will have some explaining to do. If John didn’t lie when he wrote John 1:18 then you will need to explain why you overlooked John’s clear teaching, suggesting that John was misled or intentionally wanted to mislead Christ’s Church, because your view is that Christ wasn’t the only BEGOTTEN God, but rather just one of a bunch of gods who were all begotten.

At the end of the day, your issue really isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Your issue is denying who Christ really is, just like the Jews. How are you going to explain to Christ and His Father that you thought they were kidding all this time when they ensured Christ was described as the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD? Is your answer really going to be, "It just didn't make sense"?

Regards,

Paul

All this beating around the bush... . But I just need a simple yes or no answer. Was Christ a human being? YES or NO?

best wishes,

Sparko

April 13th 2006, 07:30 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Lol! Wanna bet!?

No official definition of the trinity will use the word "separate persons" or "separate beings"

You are welcome to prove me wrong.

So the persons are distinct but not separate?? You like speaking from both sides of your mouth, don't you? You're bodering on modalism Sparkey. On the other hand, the Eastern type trinity of which Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian fathers were a part of boders on tritheism . An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.

This is more of the same nonsense from you.

Look it: How do you expect me to have a logical discussion with you , if even in the realm of science fiction you cannot properly present your trinity doctrine.?? -- "example is not a perfect analogy". .. If something cannot even make sense in Narnia land, it is truly nonsense.

best wishes,

How can anyone have a decent discussion with you if you dont even address the pionts they are making but insist of trying to twist what they say into somethign else? Instead of even trying to understand my viewpoint and using logic and reason to counter my view, you instead insist on misrepresenting what I am saying and accusing me of "modalism" - which is clearly just a tactic to toss a red herring into the mix. If I were modalistic I would gladly say so and argue that view. I am not. you know I am not. But you think that by accusing me of being modalistic you can anger me and use misdirection to keep people from noticing that you have no argument against the trinity.

In fact, all you seem to be able to do is cut and past and plagerize your arguments from other websites and toss about red herrings like accusing people of positions they don't hold or trying to redifine words to fit your preconcieved notions.

Do you realize how scared and silly that makes you look. I get a chuckle reading your every 'reply.'

:haha:--> Pythagoras

Sparko

April 13th 2006, 07:42 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Can you show me where Alpha and Omega are used of Jesus? In Rev. 22:12 it is the Angel speaking . The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. This should clue you in .

So now an angel will be handing out rewards and is called the Alpha and Omega? Your argument is getting WORSE not better. First you say it is the Father speaking and now you say it is an angel speaking?

It is JESUS speaking. He will judge, he will reward, he is the one who is coming soon. The Father is not coming soon, neither is an angel. There is no break in the speech from rev 22:12 on down to 16. It is all speech and it is all from the same person. Verse 16 shows it is Jesus. Why do you kick against the goads, pythagoras? It is clear in the text that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. It is clear in other passages that Jesus is YHWH. You have to jump through so many illogical hoops to deny the clear and plain words of the bible to keep your silly little arianism alive.

I'm not worried about going to heaven Sparko. If God is a trinity, I never knew him .

That is the probably the most profound truth you have uttered on this site so far. You don't know God. I pray that you never hear those words from Him though.

Is Jesus a human being like us? YES or NO? Paul has answered that quite well several times. Jesus was unique. He was YHWH who took on the added nature of a human being. He was fully man and fully God. I am only fully human. I am not sure about you.

best wishes,

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

OU812

April 13th 2006, 08:32 PM

In fact, all you seem to be able to do is cut and past and plagerize your arguments from other websites and toss about red herrings like accusing people of positions they don't hold or trying to redifine words to fit your preconcieved notions.

Do you realize how scared and silly that makes you look. I get a chuckle reading your every 'reply.'

:haha:--> Pythagoras

Yep, that's his m.o. allright. :lol:

"Just answer me 'yes' or 'no', dammnit!!" :bawl:

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

Heck, even if a person only professed to believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, he would accuse that person of being 'trinitarian', such is his paranoia concerning that doctrine...:ahem:

- OU812

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 09:42 PM

Hi Sparko,

So now an angel will be handing out rewards and is called the Alpha and Omega? Your argument is getting WORSE not better. First you say it is the Father speaking and now you say it is an angel speaking?

Stop getting excited.

The expression Alpha and Omega occurs only 3 times. Only in Rev. 22:13 is there even a chance that it's Jesus speaking, and only through the agency of an angel, using the expression in a qualified sense. If Jesus is speaking here, he's not claiming to be God. He is saying, when he does come back to earth, he will fulfill the task to which he is appointed by God. He will stand in place of God, speak for God, and administer judgment. In Jewish thinking a master's servant was as himself . An example : Moses sent to Pharaoh as God (Ex. 7:1) does not make Moses God Almighty. Neither does Aaron, who is Moses's prophet (Ex. 7:1) , is really Moses's prophet, though he's called such. Get it?

It is JESUS speaking. He will judge, he will reward, he is the one who is coming soon.

Exactly. Jesus is acting on behalf of God. As His agent, he is as God just as Moses is God to Pharaoh.

The Father is not coming soon, neither is an angel. There is no break in the speech from rev 22:12 on down to 16. It is all speech and it is all from the same person. Verse 16 shows it is Jesus. Why do you kick against the goads, pythagoras? It is clear in the text that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. It is clear in other passages that Jesus is YHWH. You have to jump through so many illogical hoops to deny the clear and plain words of the bible to keep your silly little arianism alive.

Unfortunately this is trinitarian eisegesis.

That is the probably the most profound truth you have uttered on this site so far. You don't know God. I pray that you never hear those words from Him though.

Sparkey, if God asks you to answer Him with either a yes or no if Jesus is s a human being how will you answer?

Paul has answered that quite well several times. Jesus was unique. He was YHWH who took on the added nature of a human being. He was fully man and fully God. I am only fully human. I am not sure about you.

Why can't you answer with a yes or no? Was Jesus a human being?

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

The only thing I hate is the defilment of God's holy name. I could care less whether I go to heaven, hell or whatnot.

best wishes,

P.S.

This is from a Unitarian site:

" Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. It cannot be strictly literal, because neither God nor Christ is a Greek letter. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, ‘Aleph and Tau.’” [45] (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=150#nullnull)

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4)” [46] (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=150#nullnull) The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation” (pp. 479 and 480)."

I tend to agree.

alam

April 13th 2006, 09:45 PM

Greetings to all,

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):

"[μονογενής θεός] can only mean "an only-begotten God'; to render "an only-begotten, one who is God," is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of Jn., who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression. An only-begotten God corresponds to the weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism. It derives from this, and came into the Egyptian texts by way of its influence on the theology of Alexandria. The original is preserved in the Western text (cf. also 1:13). On this whole matter cf. the exhaustive discussion of the tradition in Zn. J., 703 ff. and Bultmann J., 55 f., who also supports ['ο μονογενής 'υιός]. W. Bauer's preference for [μονογενής θεός] corresponds to his attempt to relate John's Gospel as closely as possible to Gnosticism" (Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol IV; Tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Eerdmans 1967; p. 740 ftn.)

In agreement with NA-27, I believe the reading of "only-begotten God" is correct, but that Theos in that expression does not signify the One God. For, if the Son, being only-begotten, is therefore an only-begotten God, by analogy the Father, who is unbegotten, must be an un-begotten God. The law of non-contradiction requires that ~(Ex)(Ax & ~Ax). Thus one and the same God cannot be both begotten and unbegotten. The only-begotten God and the unbegotten God are not the same God.

Kittel seems to be right in this respect: the phrase in John 1:18 is a weakening of monotheism in its strictest sense, although it weakens monotheism no more than Philo, the leader of the Jews in Alexandria, who described the Logos as a deuteros theos or secondary God, nor any more than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prescribe Melchizedek to the faithful as "your ELOHIM."

In answer to the thread title, Jesus is a God.

God bless,

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 09:51 PM

Hi OU812,

Yep, that's his m.o. allright. :lol:

"Just answer me 'yes' or 'no', dammnit!!" :bawl:

- OU812

Darn right! Matt 5:37 (NIV)

37 "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one"

Is Jesus a human being? Yes or No?

good luck,

Sparko

April 13th 2006, 10:09 PM

You sound like a lawyer who is trying to manipulate a witness on the stand to force them to say only what he wants them to say in order to stop them from telling the whole truth and therefore hurt his case.

You see pythagoras, the problem with your question "is Jesus a human being?" is that it is only half of the question and if answered you will only get half of the truth.

Here is your whole truth:

Is Jesus a human being? Yes.

Is Jesus God? Yes.

He is fully human and fully God. He has a dual nature. God took on flesh.

1 tim 3:16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

If you were to ask: Is Jesus merely a human being? I would answer NO.

Pythagoras

April 13th 2006, 10:29 PM

Sparko,

No official definition of the trinity will use the word "separate persons" or "separate beings"

Lol!. Now it's "official definition".:lol:

As usual, you're speaking from both sides of your mouth . Have you stopped to consider that what one Church considers it's "official definition" of the trinity, you might not. So this is a subjective claim on your part.

In anycase, the Oxford dictionary defines distinct as separate, so you're creating a phoney distinction(no pun intended) between the two words, true to your trinitarian forked tongue.

distinct, (a) not identical; separate; individual.

By now it's clear your words have no meaning. It is also clear you're unable to answer with a simple yes or no. In this regard, you still haven't answered my question: Is Jesus a human being? Yes or No?

best wishes,

Sparko

April 13th 2006, 10:32 PM

Answer yes or no only please...

Is the nature of light a particle?

Is a candy cane red?

Is a traffic light green?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

PaulT

April 14th 2006, 12:06 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

So does that mean Christ was a human being ? YES or NO?

You tell me, if I say the Person of Christ was a man like you and I what do you think I mean? This really is not that difficult.

Hi Paul,

All this beating around the bush... . But I just need a simple yes or no answer. Was Christ a human being? YES or NO?

best wishes,

Do you and I have the nature of a man? Give me a break, I’ve not beat around the bush at all. I’ve answered your question in a very straight forward manner. I notice you didn’t tell me how my statement, “Christ was a man like you and I” was not a direct response. I notice you did not address my question what assuming my view is right and yours is wrong, you will say to God the Father and God the Son?

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 14th 2006, 01:00 AM

Hi sparko,

You sound like a lawyer who is trying to manipulate a witness on the stand to force them to say only what he wants them to say in order to stop them from telling the whole truth and therefore hurt his case.

You see pythagoras, the problem with your question "is Jesus a human being?" is that it is only half of the question and if answered you will only get half of the truth.

Lol! Blame the question.

Is Jesus a human being? Yes.

Finally!

Is Jesus God? Yes.

Then you're wrong when you say 'yes' Jesus is a human being . Why? Because Jesus is a human being plus something. So he's human + something but not human.

He is fully human and fully God. He has a dual nature. God took on flesh.

Then he's not truly human, for true humans (like you and me) do not have a dual God/Man nature, unless ofcourse we are not truly human.

If you were to ask: Is Jesus merely a human being? I would answer NO.

Thank you. If he's not merely a human being then he's a human being + something which means he's not really a human being, just as 1 + something is anything but 1.
If Jesus is fully God and fully human being(man) , then logic dictates he's neither truly God nor is he truly man.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 14th 2006, 01:12 AM

Hi Sparko,

Answer yes or no only please...

As you wish.

Is the nature of light a particle?

No
(This is the only example which is remotely relevant, but...)

Is a candy cane red?

No

Is a traffic light green?

No

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Yes

best wishes,

Sparko

April 14th 2006, 11:48 AM

Hi sparko,

Lol! Blame the question.

Finally!

Then you're wrong when you say 'yes' Jesus is a human being . Why? Because Jesus is a human being plus something. So he's human + something but not human.

Then he's not truly human, for true humans (like you and me) do not have a dual God/Man nature, unless ofcourse we are not truly human.

Thank you. If he's not merely a human being then he's a human being + something which means he's not really a human being, just as 1 + something is anything but 1.
If Jesus is fully God and fully human being(man) , then logic dictates he's neither truly God nor is he truly man.

best wishes,

LOL. "logic dictates"???? You have been watching too many Star Trek episodes Mr. Spock.

Logic dictates no such thing. We have a perfect example of something that is completely two things: Light. It is both wave and particle (photon) - are you saying that 'logic dictates' that light is neither truly wave nor particle? If you think that you would be wrong.

PS. I sent you a Private Message that needs responding to ASAP. Please check your inbox.

PaulT

April 14th 2006, 12:29 PM

Alam,

Thank you for your response,

In agreement with NA-27, I believe the reading of "only-begotten God" is correct, but that Theos in that expression does not signify the One God. For, if the Son, being only-begotten, is therefore an only-begotten God, by analogy the Father, who is unbegotten, must be an un-begotten God. The law of non-contradiction requires that ~(Ex)(Ax & ~Ax). Thus one and the same God cannot be both begotten and unbegotten. The only-begotten God and the unbegotten God are not the same God.

God bless,

I’m not sure I understand your point. John’s prologue begins by explaining God and who the Word was and is. Raymond Brown says the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John is that, “They, (speaking of the Synoptic Gospels) move the story of Jesus back to his conception, but John’s poetic opening takes it back before creation” Within this prologue john identifies God and 2 distinct Persons, the Father and the Word, aka Begotten aka Son. It seems to me the issue in the NASB translation of John 1:18 isn’t speaking to the “Being” of the only “Begotten” but rather the Person. Other translations of John 1:18 refer to the “Begotten” as the “One and Only”, (NIV), “only Son” (NRSV), “only begotten Son” (KJV). Therefore, this isn’t violating the law of non-contradiction, because “Begotten” is identifying a unique characteristic of one of the Persons of God, not describing the “Being” of the Begotten.

Kittel seems to be right in this respect: the phrase in John 1:18 is a weakening of monotheism in its strictest sense, although it weakens monotheism no more than Philo, the leader of the Jews in Alexandria, who described the Logos as a deuteros theos or secondary God, nor any more than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prescribe Melchizedek to the faithful as "your ELOHIM."

In answer to the thread title, Jesus is a God.

God bless,

Clearly, John is speaking of a distinct Person. However, this does not necessarily support the concept that the doctrine of the Trinity violates the laws of contradiction. It seems to me all Kittel’s observation supports is the distinct “Persons” who in other texts are defined as God. My point, the “Being” of God is what of God, the “Persons” are the who of God. The who or "Person" of Christ is a man, the "Being" or what of Christ is God.
Regards,
Paul

Pythagoras

April 14th 2006, 01:43 PM

Hi Sparkey,

We have a perfect example of something that is completely two things: Light. It is both wave and particle (photon) -

Correct.

are you saying that 'logic dictates' that light is neither truly wave nor particle?

No.

Remember, what your question was : "Is the nature of light a particle" . My answer is a firm no . Why? Because the nature of light is both wave and particle so it would have been wrong(lying) of me to say, yes, the nature of light is a particle. Can you not follow a logical train of thought?

By now it's clear that you're wrong when you say, yes , Jesus is a human being. Why? Because you also believe he's God.

This is the type of questioing you'll encounter when you face Jesus..

best wishes,

A Cup of No

April 14th 2006, 01:55 PM

By now it's clear that you're wrong when you say, yes , Jesus is a human being. Why? Because you also believe he's God.

This is the type of questioing you'll encounter when you face Jesus..

best wishes,

I think the problem with the analogy is that light has some of the characteristics of a particle, and some of a wave, but not all of both. Sparko's point is that in Christ the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9), and the fullness of humanity dwells, because he was made like his brothers in every respect (Hebrews 2:17)

So yes, Jesus is a human being. Yes, Jesus is God. Your problem is that you, from what I have read (please correct me if I am mistaken), see these two as mutually exclusive, when the New Testament clearly joins them hand in hand into a beautiful harmony.

Sparko

April 14th 2006, 02:35 PM

actually light has all the properties of being made of particles and all of the properties of being made up of waves. Experiments show that it is both simultaneously. Fully particles and fully waves. It has two natures.

So if I ask is light a particle? the answer is YES.

Is light a wave? the answer is YES

Is light both particles and waves? YES

Is light MERELY a particle? NO.

So it is a very good analogy indeed. Pilgrim was the first to bring it up in another thread and I was under the same impression as cup of no, that it somehow was particles that behaved as waves or had some characteristics of each, but when I went and researched it, I found it was indeed fully both particles and waves at the same time.

in fact all matter is dual in nature, you just can't notice it in ordinary matter because the wavelength is so short.

more info at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Pythagoras

April 14th 2006, 02:51 PM

Hi Cup,

Your problem is that you, from what I have read (please correct me if I am mistaken), see these two as mutually exclusive, when the New Testament clearly joins them hand in hand into a beautiful harmony.

You're mistaken. Nice strawman by the way.

Trinitarians say Christ is fully God and fully man. It's precisely because these two are not mutually exclusive that Christ is neither truly God nor truly human for to have the nature of man and God is not to be merely man nor merely God..

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 14th 2006, 02:54 PM

Hi Sparkey,

actually light has all the properties of being made of particles and all of the properties of being made up of waves. Experiments show that it is both simultaneously. Fully particles and fully waves. It has two natures.

In other words light has the propterties of particles and waves.

So if I ask is light a particle? the answer is YES.

No. Because it is also a wave.

Is light a wave? the answer is YES

No. Because it is also a particle.

Is light both particles and waves? YES

Yes.

Is light MERELY a particle? NO.

Exactly!

Is Jesus merely God? YES or NO?

best wishes,

A Cup of No

April 14th 2006, 06:47 PM

Hi Cup,

You're mistaken. Nice strawman by the way.

Trinitarians say Christ is fully God and fully man. It's precisely because these two are not mutually exclusive that Christ is neither truly God nor truly human for to have the nature of man and God is not to be merely man nor merely God..

best wishes,

If the issue was whether Christ was merely man, no, Christ is not merely man. He is certainly more, but he is certainly not less.

I apologize for attacking the straw man, that's the reason why I inserted the caveat about being mistaken. It was just how I read your post.

A Cup of No

April 14th 2006, 06:47 PM

Sparko

April 14th 2006, 08:30 PM

Is Jesus MERELY God?

No.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Hypostatic union and all that.

Trinitarians say Christ is fully God and fully man. It's precisely because these two are not mutually exclusive that Christ is neither truly God nor truly human for to have the nature of man and God is not to be merely man nor merely God..

LOL Now you are saying they are NOT mutually exclusive and THAT somehow proves that Jesus is not God. :lmbo:

Flip. Flop.

You are right they are not mutually exclusive. Jesus can be both fully God and Fully man. Thank you for conceding the argument.

Therefore your whole argument that Jesus can't be God if he is Man goes down the tubes. You lose.

Pythagoras

April 15th 2006, 11:19 AM

Hi Sparkey,

No.

From the horse's mouth: Jesus is not merely God!! Therefore he is anything but God.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Hypostatic union and all that.

Therefore he's not merely God.

LOL Now you are saying they are NOT mutually exclusive and THAT somehow proves that Jesus is not God. :lmbo:

Flip. Flop.

No flip flop. The problem with you is that you can't read. I'm saying it doesn't make an iota of difference whether they are mutually exclusive or not, you encounter the same problem..

But and to that the answer is
You are right they are not mutually exclusive. Jesus can be both fully God and Fully man. Thank you for conceding the argument.

It's not that Jesus can be fully God and full man, it's that he is fully God and fully man (he has no choice in the matter) and the "two natures" are inseparable, according to the hypostatic union.

Very peculiar this trinity cum hypostatic union hocus pocus. The one says God is three persons one nature the other says God(Jesus) is two natures one person. It's mumbo-jumbo.

Therefore your whole argument that Jesus can't be God if he is Man goes down the tubes. You lose.

Lol.

best wishes,

A Cup of No

April 15th 2006, 03:07 PM

Hey Py,

I'm really trying to understand what problem you are seeing that apparently Sparko and I are not. I think it is that you say that according to the hypostatic union, Christ's two natures, the godly and manly, are inseparable. This is accurate, once the incarnation occurred. He remains the incarnate Word so he can be a faithful high priest for us before God. What exactly is the problem?

Pythagoras

April 15th 2006, 04:07 PM

A Cup of No

April 15th 2006, 05:36 PM

Hi Cup,

It's simple logic really.

Christ is God and man, which means he's not only(merely) God nor is he only man. Example: If you are fully cat and fully man, you're not merely cat nor merely man, you're a cat-man and no matter how much you protest you're not truly a man nor truly a cat.

If you cannot see a logical problem with Christ being God-man, then you have frankly blinded yourself.

.

Py,

Your analogy is flawed, for though I may not be able to be a "cat-man", God is certainly capable of becoming a God-man. Mylimitations are not his. Can you explain Scripturally why this is a problem? And could you please article what exactly it is you believe of Christ, then, if he is not a God-man. What is he to you?

Pythagoras

April 15th 2006, 07:08 PM

Hi Cup,

Your analogy is flawed, for though I may not be able to be a "cat-man", God is certainly capable of becoming a God-man.

The point is that a cat-man is neither truly(merely) cat nor truly(merely) man.... Stop trying to burn a strawman.

The hypostatic union contradicts the trinity doctrine.

The trinity doctrine says God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are of the same nature. The hypostatic union says Jesus has both the nature of man and the naure of God. But both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have the nature of man. Therefore it is a violation of the law of non-contradiction to say Christ Jesus has the same nature as the other two persons of the Holy Trinity because Jesus has an additional , human nature which the other two persons don't have. .

My limitations are not his. Can you explain Scripturally why this is a problem?

Yes, for starters there are many scriptures which say God is not a man and God cannot die.

And could you please article what exactly it is you believe of Christ, then, if he is not a God-man. What is he to you?

Jesus was the long awaited Messiah . He was not God, but a man who was born , who died and who rose again.

best wishes,

A Cup of No

April 16th 2006, 12:16 AM

Hi Cup,

The point is that a cat-man is neither truly(merely) cat nor truly(merely) man.... Stop trying to burn a strawman.

Why must merely = truly?

The hypostatic union contradicts the trinity doctrine.

The trinity doctrine says God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are of the same nature. The hypostatic union says Jesus has both the nature of man and the naure of God. But both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have the nature of man. Therefore it is a violation of the law of non-contradiction to say Christ Jesus has the same nature as the other two persons of the Holy Trinity because Jesus has an additional , human nature which the other two persons don't have. .

There is no problem here logically. If John, Joe, and James all wear green shirts, and John puts on a blue shirt above the green shirt, does that mean he took the green shirt off? No! The Son has always been God, and just because he became a man does not mean he ceased to be God. The problem is that you focus too much on later distinctions on the "what" of God, instead of the "who" of God which early Jewish monotheism focused much more on.

Yes, for starters there are many scriptures which say God is not a man and God cannot die.

When that Scripture was written, God had not yet become a man. As for the Scripture that says that God cannot die, I'd appreciate references so I can study further.

Jesus was the long awaited Messiah . He was not God, but a man who was born , who died and who rose again.

The problem is that the texts that describe the life of Jesus, the long awaited Messiah, portray him clearly as God, putting him in the category of Ruler and Creator (John 1). He is also portrayed as the Wisdom of God incarnate, a definite part of the divine nature for the Jews of the first century. He is not just a man for the gospel writers.

Pythagoras

April 16th 2006, 11:58 AM

Hi Cup,

Why must merely = truly?

If you don't like the word truly, then substitute it with only. Christ is not only God . In other words Christ is God and man, which means he is anything but only God. If Christ is not only God, then it is false to say he is God, just as it would be false to say a cat-man is a cat or a man, he's both, but never one or the other.

You can try to obfuscate, but at the end of the day it boils down to the same thing.

There is no problem here logically.

Logical thinking is not the trinitarian's forte so I'm not surprised by this comment.

If John, Joe, and James all wear green shirts, and John puts on a blue shirt above the green shirt, does that mean he took the green shirt off? No!

Burning another strawman. Nobody is suggesting John(Christ) took off the green shirt(divine nature) when he put on the blue shirt(human nature). I'm saying Christ has two natures, whereelse the other two persons only have one nature, so it is false to say the Father and the Holy Spirit have the same nature as Christ because Christ has a human nature but the Father and Son do not..

Let x= divine nature.

Let z = human nature.

Christ has z nature, but God the Father does not have z nature. So it is false to say both have the same nature , even though they share x nature in common. Just as it is false to say 1 = 1 +(and) 3, even though both sides of the equation possess the numeral 1 in common. .

The Son has always been God, and just because he became a man does not mean he ceased to be God.

Nobody is saying he ceased to be God(assuming the veracity of the trinity doctrine). I'm saying he ceased to be merely God. He became God and something else.

The problem is that you focus too much on later distinctions on the "what" of God, instead of the "who" of God which early Jewish monotheism focused much more on.

What nonsense.

When that Scripture was written, God had not yet become a man.

What nonsense. Scripture says God is not a man. This is a statement of fact which is akin to saying a circle is not a square or a man is not God. Can a man become God or a circle a square? Then why can God become a man?

As for the Scripture that says that God cannot die, I'd appreciate references so I can study further.

Read Hab. 1:12.

The problem is that the texts that describe the life of Jesus, the long awaited Messiah, portray him clearly as God, putting him in the category of Ruler and Creator (John 1). He is also portrayed as the Wisdom of God incarnate, a definite part of the divine nature for the Jews of the first century. He is not just a man for the gospel writers.

All this is trinitarian eisegesis.

The trinitarian position violates the law of non-contradiction . The law demands that no statement is both true and false, so that y cannot be not y . Jesus has the nature of God (y) and at the same time he has the nature of not-God or (not y). He is God and not merely God(i.e. man). If you cannot see this simple logic, you were born to be a trinitarian.

best wishes,

A Cup of No

April 16th 2006, 02:07 PM

Hi Cup,

If you don't like the word truly, then substitute it with [QUOTE=Pythagoras]only. Christ is not only God . In other words Christ is God and man, which means he is anything but only God. If Christ is not only God, then it is false to say he is God, just as it would be false to say a cat-man is a cat or a man, he's both, but never one or the other.

You can try to obfuscate, but at the end of the day it boils down to the same thing.

It seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you be "both", but never "one or the other?" God became a man, and that man was named Jesus. I am not attempting to obfuscate anything. It is not false to say that Jesus is God, and became a man, and will have a human body for eternity.

Logical thinking is not the trinitarian's forte so I'm not surprised by this comment.

Py, I believe I have been courteous with you thus far, I'd wish for the same in return.

Burning another strawman. Nobody is suggesting John(Christ) took off the green shirt(divine nature) when he put on the blue shirt(human nature). I'm saying Christ has two natures, whereelse the other two persons only have one nature, so it is false to say the Father and the Holy Spirit have the same nature as Christ because Christ has a human nature but the Father and Son do not..

Let x= divine nature.

Let z = human nature.

Christ has z nature, but God the Father does not have z nature. So it is false to say both have the same nature , even though they share x nature in common. Just as it is false to say 1 = 1 +(and) 3, even though both sides of the equation possess the numeral 1 in common. .

It is not false to say they have the same nature, because they all share the "x", yet Christ has an additional "y." The Father, Son and Spirit always had "z", yet Jesus took on "y" in his incarnation.

What nonsense.

I'd be hesitant to call what scholarly men of great repute like Richard Bauckham articulate as "nonsense." Their understanding of Second-Temple Judaism has helped express how a high christology and monotheism could go hand in hand for the first Jewish Christians. It is our problem for taking their basketball and taking it into a baseball stadium and trying to play. I would suggest that you study such things before dismissing them.

What nonsense. Scripture says God is not a man. This is a statement of fact which is akin to saying a circle is not a square or a man is not God. Can a man become God or a circle a square? Then why can God become a man?

The purpose of the passage that states "God is not a man" is to show that he cannot lie, as he is not a sinner, like man is. Stating that God is not a man would be obvious to the Jews, such a statement was not necessary. Don't miss the forest 'cause of the trees. Regardless, my point still stands. Why is it impossible for God to take on a human body and be born on this earth?

Read Hab. 1:12.

I did, and I'll quote it in context here. 1The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet saw.

2O LORD, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not hear?
Or cry to you "Violence!"
and you will not save?
3Why do you make me see iniquity,
and why do you idly look at wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.
4So the law is paralyzed,
and justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
so justice goes forth perverted.

5"Look among the nations, and see;
wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
that you would not believe if told.
6For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
who march through the breadth of the earth,
to seize dwellings not their own.
7They are dreaded and fearsome;
their justice and dignity go forth from themselves.
8Their horses are swifter than leopards,
more fierce than the evening wolves;
their horsemen press proudly on.
Their horsemen come from afar;
they fly like an eagle swift to devour.
9They all come for violence,
all their faces forward.
They gather captives like sand.
10At kings they scoff,
and at rulers they laugh.
They laugh at every fortress,
for they pile up earth and take it.
11Then they sweep by like the wind and go on,
guilty men, whose own might is their god!"

12Are you not from everlasting,
O LORD my God, my Holy One?
We shall not die.
O LORD, you have ordained them as a judgment,
and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.
13You who are of purer eyes than to see evil
and cannot look at wrong,
why do you idly look at traitors
and are silent when the wicked swallows up
the man more righteous than he?
14You make mankind like the fish of the sea,
like crawling things that have no ruler.
15He brings all of them up with a hook;
he drags them out with his net;
he gathers them in his dragnet;
so he rejoices and is glad.
16Therefore he sacrifices to his net
and makes offerings to his dragnet;
for by them he lives in luxury,[a]
and his food is rich.
17Is he then to keep on emptying his net
and mercilessly killing nations forever?

Habakkuk is presenting a complaint to the LORD for his apparent silence during the travesties occuring in Israel. The LORD then states that he will send the Chaldeans to judge the land. Habakkuk says "We shall not die. " During the passage, the LORD is referred to as "You" and "He", but not as "We." The verse can only be understood to Habakkuk referring to Israel's continiung existence, that it will survive such a tragedy, and says "We shall not die."

All this is trinitarian eisegesis.

The trinitarian position violates the law of non-contradiction . The law demands that no statement is both true and false, so that y cannot be not y . Jesus has the nature of God (y) and at the same time he has the nature of not-God or (not y). He is God and not merely God(i.e. man).

You did not demonstrate how such a reading was eisegesis, but rather just asserted, as it seems you often do. The incarnation does not violate the law of non-contradiction. The eternal Son took on a human form, retaining his divinity, and took on a human body. Normal humans with bodies are obviously not-God, but God taking on a human body does not negate his divinity.

Py, I think we are not going to make much more progress, so this was my last post to you in this thread. God bless and best wishes, as you say.

If you cannot see this simple logic, you were born to be a trinitarian.

Praise God.

Pythagoras

April 16th 2006, 04:20 PM

Hi Cup,

It seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Look who's talking!

How can you be "both", but never "one or the other?" God became a man, and that man was named Jesus. I am not attempting to obfuscate anything. It is not false to say that Jesus is God, and became a man, and will have a human body for eternity.

Because the law of non-contradiction says something cannot be y and not y at the same time. Take the cat-man example. A cat cannot be not a cat (i.e. a man) in the same person at the same time.

It is not false to say they have the same nature, because they all share the "x", yet Christ has an additional "y." The Father, Son and Spirit always had "z", yet Jesus took on "y" in his incarnation.

The Father does not have nature y , so Jesus does not have the same nature as his Father. The Father only partially shares the nature of Christ since they share only nature x and not nature y..

.

I'd be hesitant to call what scholarly men of great repute like Richard Bauckham articulate as "nonsense." Their understanding of Second-Temple Judaism has helped express how a high christology and monotheism could go hand in hand for the first Jewish Christians. It is our problem for taking their basketball and taking it into a baseball stadium and trying to play. I would suggest that you study such things before dismissing them.

This has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

The purpose of the passage that states "God is not a man" is to show that he cannot lie, as he is not a sinner, like man is.

Text clearly says God is not a man. Your reasoning is faulty because Adam was not a sinner before the fall, so he was not a liar, yet he was a man .

Stating that God is not a man would be obvious to the Jews, such a statement was not necessary.

The bible says alot of things which are obvious to the Jews.

Don't miss the forest 'cause of the trees. Regardless, my point still stands. Why is it impossible for God to take on a human body and be born on this earth?

Because God is not a man and the scripture also says God doesn't change.

12Are you not from everlasting,
O LORD my God, my Holy One?
We shall not die.
O LORD, you have ordained them as a judgment,

Hab. 1:12 says "you(God) shall not die". Go educate yourself.

You did not demonstrate how such a reading was eisegesis, but rather just asserted, as it seems you often do. The incarnation does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Unfortunately there are many clear scriptures which say Jesus cannot be God . Try Hab. 1:12 again,for starters .

The eternal Son took on a human form, retaining his divinity, and took on a human body. Normal humans with bodies are obviously not-God, but God taking on a human body does not negate his divinity.

Keep fooling yourself.

Py, I think we are not going to make much more progress, so this was my last post to you in this thread. God bless and best wishes, as you say.

As you wish.

best wishes,

JAY-PC

April 17th 2006, 01:12 AM

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

The passage clearly teaches that God is not a liar and He will do what He has said He will do and has nothing to do with Jesus being God or the Trinity. Read the scriptures in context.

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 04:24 AM

Jay-pc,

The passage clearly teaches that God is not a liar and He will do what He has said He will do and has nothing to do with Jesus being God or the Trinity. Read the scriptures in context.

Nice try.

Young's Literal Translation

23:19 God is not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do it? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?

In other words God is not a man, neither is he the son of a man. And because God is not a man He does not lie, nor does he repent.

Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19, which clearly , unambigiously states God is not a man nor a son of a man. Two strikes in a row against trinitarians! Jesus was a man and a son of man, therefore those woh make him God preach a false doctrine according to Scripture.

best wishes,

JAY-PC

April 17th 2006, 11:27 AM

Jay-pc,

Nice try.

Young's Literal Translation

23:19 God is not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do it? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?

In other words God is not a man, neither is he the son of a man. And because God is not a man He does not lie, nor does he repent.

Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19, which clearly , unambigiously states God is not a man nor a son of a man. Two strikes in a row against trinitarians! Jesus was a man and a son of man, therefore those woh make him God preach a false doctrine according to Scripture.

best wishes,

Wait a minuet Jesus was a man that’s true no one denies that

Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:24-38, and the son of man, Matthew 8:20 which is a messianic title

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Revelation 1:13, 14:14, so he was also the messiah (Christ). He was also Lord and God,

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

And the son of God Matthew 8:29 (Son of the Most High)

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

And God who took on human flesh John 1:1-18

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Jesus is Lord, Christ, God, Man, High Priest, Lamb of God, Savior, Alpha and Omega, All in all.

Amen, Come Lord Jesus!

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 01:07 PM

Hi Jay-Pc,

Wait a minuet Jesus was a man that’s true no one denies that

Therefore he cannot be God because Numbers 23:19 clearly states God is not a man. It is precisely because of verses like Numbers 23:19 that it was so obvious to the Jews that God is not a man (as you yourself acknowledge) . Where do you think the Jews came up with the notion that God is not a man, if not from scripture? I want you to answer this question next post.

Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:24-38, and the son of man, Matthew 8:20 which is a messianic title

Exactly! Therefore Messiah cannot be God because Numbers 23:19 also says God is not son of man.

Revelation 1:13, 14:14, so he was also the messiah (Christ).

Keep shooting yourself in the foot.

He was also Lord

So is the master in 18:21, etc.. I guess he's God huh?

and God,

So is Moses , Ex. 7:1. And Moses had a prophet to boot ! .Had the NT said Jesus had a prophet trinitarians would have gone amok and made the most of it . They would have used this fact as one of their strongest talking points for the deity of Christ. Only God can have a prophet,therefore Moses is God. It's settled.

And the son of God Matthew 8:29 (Son of the Most High)

Son of God is a Messianic title, chech Matt. 26:63 etc. . Keep shooting yourself in the foot, by the way.

And God who took on human flesh John 1:1-18

Using your type of "exegesis" Moses must be God . At least Moses is not merely son of God, he's God with his own prophet , and he was a flesh a blood human being, and we all know only God has prophets. Get it?

Jesus is Lord,

Even men are called Lord. So I guess the Mormons are right after all.

Christ,

And?

God,

Yep, Moses is God!

Man,

Keep shooting yourself in the foot.

High Priest,

I guess Caiaphas is God!

Savior,

Again you're proving the Mormons right.Check Nem. 9:27 etc.

Alpha and Omega,

Nice try. Only in Rev. 22:13 is there even the slightest possibility that this title refers to Christ, even then it's the angel speaking. So it could just as easily be the Father here. Even if you're rgiht it shows nothing. why? just because Christ shares a title of God doesn't make him God otherwise the peace makers in Mtt. 5:9 are God since they are called sons of God, etc. check Matt. 5:9 , or King Nebuchadnessar and Artaxerses are God because they have the title King of Kings, check Ezra 7:12,Eze. 26:7,Dan. 2:37 etc... And so on.

All in all.

All in all you've managed to riddle yourself with bullet holes.

Amen, Come Lord Jesus!

Remember me when you face Jesus. Remember my advise.. Remember not to call him Lord, Lord in the sense of "Deity" or he will be very angry with you. How would you like it if someone was convinced you were a baked potato and still claimed to be your friend ?

best wishes,

Jeannot

April 17th 2006, 03:45 PM

BTW, Luke calls Adam "son of God."

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 04:55 PM

BTW, Luke calls Adam "son of God."

Excellent point.

Topherlee

April 17th 2006, 05:42 PM

can you hear YOURSELF?????? I never said they were "not three persons" of course they are three persons. I said they are "not three Gods"

Topherlee until you can even get the words correct you might as well stay out of the conversation. It is no wonder you don't believe in the trinity and that you are polytheistic. You don't even seem to comprehend the words and terminology being used.

What is so funny is you whether they are three persons, yet they are one God. Each is different, each is unique, but you dare not call them individuals. But unique and different require them to be individuals. Is each fully God? Or is God fully each person?

According to your theology, God simply role plays as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because yet that they are three persons but not three gods. Your confusion humors me.
Is God an actor in that he role plays as each person?

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 07:34 PM

Hi Topherlee,

What is so funny is you whether they are three persons, yet they are one God. Each is different, each is unique, but you dare not call them individuals. But unique and different require them to be individuals. Is each fully God? Or is God fully each person?

That's right! Sparkey says the persons are distinct but not separate. :lol: He's simply speaking from both sides of his mouth. Check out almost any dictionary and you will immediately discover that the words separate and distinct are used synonymously or interchangeably. Not even too many trinitarians deny the three persons are separate or dispute that the persons are distinct and separate.

According to your theology, God simply role plays as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because yet that they are three persons but not three gods. Your confusion humors me.
Is God an actor in that he role plays as each person?

That's exactly what Sparkey's trinity boils down to, but he isn't smart enough, or (God forbid) honest enough to admit it.

On another note, the trinity doctrine says God has one nature but the hypstatic union says God(Jesus) has two natures. They contradict each other!

Does God have one nature or two natures?

A Cup of No

April 17th 2006, 07:38 PM

Hey Topherlee, did you get a chance to read my response to you by any chance?

PaulT

April 17th 2006, 08:11 PM

Hello Jeannot, Pythagoras,

Quote: Originally posted by Jeannot

BTW, Luke calls Adam "son of God."

Excellent point.

John calls Jesus Christ the “Only” Begotten Son of God, do you think he, meaning John saw a differentiation in the phrase?

I mean, if John says Jesus is the “Only” Begotten yet Luke says Adam was a son of God, does it mean that John was mistaken or just didn’t have the same knowledge Luke did?

Paul

Sparko

April 17th 2006, 08:23 PM

What is so funny is you whether they are three persons, yet they are one God. Each is different, each is unique, but you dare not call them individuals. But unique and different require them to be individuals. Is each fully God? Or is God fully each person?

According to your theology, God simply role plays as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Because yet that they are three persons but not three gods. Your confusion humors me.
Is God an actor in that he role plays as each person?

:duh:

Look topherlee, I never said God was playing roles. It's very humorous that when you can't actually argue against what my beliefs ARE you just make up some beliefs that you attribute to me and then proceed to attack them.

Modalists think God pay acting and playing roles and that the Father became the son and then the holy spirit. Trinitarians like me don't believe that at all. That believe is just as false as your belief that Jesus was another God and that there were two Gods, or Pythagoras' belief that Jesus was only a man and not divine at all.

Perhaps you would like me to attribute some mormon beliefs upon you and then argue against them? That would make as much sense as your arguments against me do.

Let's try:

Topherlee, God cannot be Adam like you beleive he is. God was never a man on another planet who became a God and then created this earth. That belief of yours is silly and incoherent.

(how do you like that?)

Once you actually understand what the Trinity doctrine teaches, then and only then do you have a chance to even try to argue against it. Until then you are just making a fool out of yourself in public.

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 08:33 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Jeannot, Pythagoras,

Quote: Originally posted by Jeannot

BTW, Luke calls Adam "son of God."

John calls Jesus Christ the “Only” Begotten Son of God, do you think he, meaning John saw a differentiation in the phrase?

I mean, if John says Jesus is the “Only” Begotten yet Luke says Adam was a son of God, does it mean that John was mistaken or just didn’t have the same knowledge Luke did?

Paul

Are you now saying the title son of God doesn't mean God almighty?..

PaulT

April 17th 2006, 09:02 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Why is it instead of answering the question,

Hi Paul,

Are you now saying the title son of God doesn't mean God almighty?..

you always follow-up with another question? Was John wrong, was he lying or did he simply not have the same level of knowledge Luke had?

Regards

Paul

Jeannot

April 17th 2006, 09:04 PM

Hello Jeannot, Pythagoras,

Quote: Originally posted by Jeannot

BTW, Luke calls Adam "son of God."

John calls Jesus Christ the “Only” Begotten Son of God, do you think he, meaning John saw a differentiation in the phrase?

I mean, if John says Jesus is the “Only” Begotten yet Luke says Adam was a son of God, does it mean that John was mistaken or just didn’t have the same knowledge Luke did?

Paul

John is obviously making a distinction--that is, making Jesus distinct. As Paul says, tho, Jesus is the "second Adam."

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 10:00 PM

Hi Sparko,

:duh:

Once you actually understand what the Trinity doctrine teaches, then and only then do you have a chance to even try to argue against it. Until then you are just making a fool out of yourself in public.

Why do you fault Topherlee for thinking you a modalist? You don't even believe the three persons are separate. You're not a true trinitarian. It is no exaggeration to term your notions as bodering on modalism.

Here's what real trinitairans believe:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php (http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php)

"The Bible repeatedly teaches that there is only one true God, in contrast to the many warring, conflicting, different gods of heathen idolatry (Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 32:39; Psa. 86:10; Isa. 43:10-13; 44:6-8; 45:5,6,21-23; Matt. 4:10; Mark 12:29)…..

The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate & distinct from one another as individual beings like these various other intelligent beings are separate and distinct from one another. We do not claim the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are physical beings, like humans, though Jesus did have a body on earth. Nor do we claim they are like these other beings in character, authority, etc. We simply say that these other living beings illustrate the concept of separate and distinct individuals or personal beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each an individual, distinct from one another like angels are distinct from one another, etc.

So, the Father is not the same individual being as the Son, the Son is not the same being as the Spirit, etc. However, each possesses all the characteristics and privileges of Deity, so each is part of the Godhead. The one true God, then consists of three separate and distinct individual divine beings."

Sparkey, at the council of Alexandria in 362 (which was chaired by of Athanasius himself), the trinitarians agreed that the three hypostasis subsisted separately in the consubstantial tirad. The trinitarian mantra "one ousia, three hypostasis" is of no effect if the three persons are not truly distinct or separate.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 17th 2006, 10:07 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Why is it instead of answering the question,

you always follow-up with another question? Was John wrong, was he lying or did he simply not have the same level of knowledge Luke had?

Regards

Paul

No, John was not wrong, John was not lying. You simply have no case. Why?Because there is nothing to suggest Only begotten son of God means God Almighty.

Now then, are you going to answer my question or not? Have you abandoned your claim that son of God means God? ...Now it's only begotten son of God? :lol:

best wishes,

PaulT

April 17th 2006, 11:49 PM

Jeannot,
John is obviously making a distinction--that is, making Jesus distinct. As Paul says, tho, Jesus is the "second Adam."
Distinct as what? Paul also said men were the off-spring of God, how can Christ be the only begotten when according to Paul, Adam was God's off-spring?
Regards,
Paul

PaulT

April 18th 2006, 12:14 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

No, John was not wrong, John was not lying. You simply have no case. Why?Because there is nothing to suggest Only begotten son of God means God Almighty.

Why don’t you explain your assertion? If John says Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son, yet Luke says Adam was God’s son, how can this be? Except that John had it wrong, was lying or Luke had superior knowledge. Your answer doesn’t deal with the apparent contradiction. Perhaps Jeannot’s point wasn’t that excellent after all.

Hi Paul,

Now then, are you going to answer my question or not? Have you abandoned your claim that son of God means God? ...Now it's only begotten son of God?

best wishes,

Sure, as soon as you deal with your apparent contradiction. However, if you go back and reread my responses on the Mormon thread you will refrain from suggesting I’m abandoning anything; as usual you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 18th 2006, 12:23 AM

Hi Paul,

Why don’t you explain your assertion? If John says Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son, yet Luke says Adam was God’s son, how can this be? Except that John had it wrong, was lying or Luke had superior knowledge. Your answer doesn’t deal with the apparent contradiction. Perhaps Jeannot’s point wasn’t that excellent after all.

Because both terms , son of God and only begotten son of God in the context used are Messianic titles Genius, as the Jewish Encyclopedia I furnished you also says.Look at the sense of the usage.

Sure, as soon as you deal with your apparent contradiction. However, if you go back and reread my responses on the Mormon thread you will refrain from suggesting I’m abandoning anything; as usual you are assuming facts not in evidence.

There is no "contradiction" . Now if you want some real contradictions, I suggest you look into the hypostatic union.:lol:

.
Answer my question, not that I'm holding my breath.

best wishes anyhow.

PaulT

April 18th 2006, 08:09 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

Because both terms , son of God and only begotten son of God in the context used are Messianic titles Genius, as the Jewish Encyclopedia I furnished you also says.Look at the sense of the usage.

I can see your reformation didn’t last long.

Oh, so Adam was Messiah? Care to make this case? Which people was Adam going to deliver from their oppression? Remember the observation was that Luke called Adam son of God too.

Hi Paul,

There is no "contradiction" . Now if you want some real contradictions, I suggest you look into the hypostatic union.

I believe No and Sparko have already clearly shown “hypostatic” union is not a contradiction in terms.

Hi Paul,

Answer my question, not that I'm holding my breath.

best wishes anyhow.

Well as soon as you make the case that Adam is a Messiah, then I think we can move on. On the other hand, if your position now is that the term “son of God” when used in reference to Adam means something entirely different when used in reference to Jesus the Christ then it would seem that whatever point Jeannot was making wasn’t that excellent.

However, I expect, rather than making your case you will, no doubt answer in obfuscation.

Regards,

Paul

JAY-PC

April 18th 2006, 09:22 AM

Hi Jay-Pc,

Therefore he cannot be God because Numbers 23:19 clearly states God is not a man. It is precisely because of verses like Numbers 23:19 that it was so obvious to the Jews that God is not a man (as you yourself acknowledge) . Where do you think the Jews came up with the notion that God is not a man, if not from scripture? I want you to answer this question next post.

Exactly! Therefore Messiah cannot be God because Numbers 23:19 also says God is not son of man.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot.

So is the master in 18:21, etc.. I guess he's God huh?

So is Moses , Ex. 7:1. And Moses had a prophet to boot ! .Had the NT said Jesus had a prophet trinitarians would have gone amok and made the most of it . They would have used this fact as one of their strongest talking points for the deity of Christ. Only God can have a prophet,therefore Moses is God. It's settled.

Son of God is a Messianic title, chech Matt. 26:63 etc. . Keep shooting yourself in the foot, by the way.

Using your type of "exegesis" Moses must be God . At least Moses is not merely son of God, he's God with his own prophet , and he was a flesh a blood human being, and we all know only God has prophets. Get it?

Even men are called Lord. So I guess the Mormons are right after all.

And?

Yep, Moses is God!

Keep shooting yourself in the foot.

I guess Caiaphas is God!

Again you're proving the Mormons right.Check Nem. 9:27 etc.

Nice try. Only in Rev. 22:13 is there even the slightest possibility that this title refers to Christ, even then it's the angel speaking. So it could just as easily be the Father here. Even if you're rgiht it shows nothing. why? just because Christ shares a title of God doesn't make him God otherwise the peace makers in Mtt. 5:9 are God since they are called sons of God, etc. check Matt. 5:9 , or King Nebuchadnessar and Artaxerses are God because they have the title King of Kings, check Ezra 7:12,Eze. 26:7,Dan. 2:37 etc... And so on.

All in all you've managed to riddle yourself with bullet holes.

Remember me when you face Jesus. Remember my advise.. Remember not to call him Lord, Lord in the sense of "Deity" or he will be very angry with you. How would you like it if someone was convinced you were a baked potato and still claimed to be your friend ?

best wishes,

My point was Jesus has many titles and names applied to Him and the fact is that He has the nature of a man (no one doubts) and he has the very nature of God (you doubt). I have already shown with loads of quotes and research that Phi 2:6 MORPHE THEOU has reference to nature, essence and also Heb 1:3. (go read the TDNT and others)

As for Moses, and the passage that sates “God is not a man” you are guilty of taking scripture out of context. You can say what you like but I have not taken any of the passages I quote out of context.

You have no defense for what you believe unless you take all of scripture out of context.

I can prove that there is no God doing to scripture what you do.

Psa 10:4 …"There is no God."

Psa 14:1…"There is no God."

Psa 53:1 …"There is no God."

Isa 45:5 …there is no God;

Stop taking the scriptures out of context and making them say what you want them to say.

Topherlee

April 18th 2006, 02:04 PM

Sparko :duh:

Look topherlee, I never said God was playing roles. It's very humorous that when you can't actually argue against what my beliefs ARE you just make up some beliefs that you attribute to me and then proceed to attack them.

No, of course you will not say it. If the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the HS, then how are they the same? You yourself say that they are unique. Either you are speaking of a family of gods that make up one God or you're saying God plays the role of the Father, the Son and the HS.
How else can you explain this?

Modalists think God pay acting and playing roles and that the Father became the son and then the holy spirit. Trinitarians like me don't believe that at all. That believe is just as false as your belief that Jesus was another God and that there were two Gods, or Pythagoras' belief that Jesus was only a man and not divine at all.

Trinitarians like you... Are you saying that you are an an absolute of the Trintiy?

Let's try:

Topherlee, God cannot be Adam like you beleive he is. God was never a man on another planet who became a God and then created this earth. That belief of yours is silly and incoherent.

What?!!! Sounds nothing like my belief.

Once you actually understand what the Trinity doctrine teaches, then and only then do you have a chance to even try to argue against it. Until then you are just making a fool out of yourself in public.

I have studied the Trinity doctrine full heartedly. I have gained an understanding in scripture what Trinitarians refuse to believe.

This belief is that The Father is greater than the Son. Trinitarians argue that this is in regards to position which is basically saying that 1. there are positions in being God or 2. that there exist more than one God - a family of gods. 2 is not in scipture.

That the Son does not a thing on his own accord but what he sees the Father do. Basically what the Son has learned from the Father he does, which is scriptural. Jesus learned period.

That the Son is given authority. That he Son is a High Priest and a servant to God. And, that the Son has a God. Using the teachings of Christ himself. How is it that Jesus is a High Priest and to whom? Jesus is a servant to whom? How is it that Jesus being considered God has a God? How is Jesus a true and faithful witness to himself?

How does all of this make the Son the Almighty YHVH God?

Shazard

April 18th 2006, 04:02 PM

Topherlee

April 18th 2006, 05:45 PM

Shazard We did it meny meny meny times.

Yea this is very misterious thing, how something three can still be one and still be three without playing roles!

Just curious. Where does it say that God is a mystery. I understand what He is and how He performs things are a mystery. But not who He is. God is one, he is YHVH.

And yes, trinitarians are not modalists. Do not mix two different things. Just meditate about one simple question how something three can be one and still be three! Great is mistery of Godhead :) It wouldn't be mistery if anybody could undestand it. Faith is not based on understanding. Understanding is based on faith.

This is your misinterpretation of the Godhead. Which really means godhood and was not meant to intepret more than one. And I understand faith is not based on understanding. But the bible teaches that man cannot live by bread alone. The bible speaks of practical wisdom. Without practical wisdom you are easily a target of Satan.

And practical wisdom tells me; How can a true and faithful witness be a witness himself? It is your argument that Jesus is coequal to the Father. But this is not according to scripture and from the words of Jesus.

Become a child to understand. God reaveals himself to children! Be child. Even to the greate fathers of church like St. Augustine understood trinity only after encounter with child in conversation. Children holds the wisdom of God. But I believe you are not able to understand it, coz your god is your mind. If your mind does not understands it does not believes. Just like Thomas! Only Thomas after recognized Christ being God... THE God!

I am a child of God the Father not a child of the Son. If the Son is not the Father as you insist. The Son is my brother as we have been told in John.
I am a child of God in spirit, not a child of man. I do not learn of God as a young child with the lack of knowledge or as a man. I learn as a child of God with the understanding of the Word.
Ask any child how many one is and they will hold up one finger. This is the very wisdom you speak of.
God has given us a mind to obtain knowledge of him and his Word. I do not abandoned this gift for faith alone. Many people have been mislead by this concept. Look at history and you can see this.
Faith is to believe that there is a God and he does exist. Knowledge is to know that God is one and that YHVH is his name. Through the Son will you obtain a relationship with the Father, God. Our God and His God.

apostoli

April 18th 2006, 05:49 PM

Hi Topherlee,

If the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the HS, then how are they the same? You yourself say that they are unique. Either you are speaking of a family of gods that make up one God or you're saying God plays the role of the Father, the Son and the HS.
How else can you explain this?1 Cor 12:12,5,6 gives an indication. As does 2 Cor 13:14.

Consider the story in Exodus. God proved who he was amongst the gods. The important thing, at least in Exodus is understanding what the word means, and not the word itself. Now consider the NT.

Sparko

April 18th 2006, 07:02 PM

No, of course you will not say it. If the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the HS, then how are they the same? You yourself say that they are unique. Either you are speaking of a family of gods that make up one God or you're saying God plays the role of the Father, the Son and the HS.
How else can you explain this?

You tell me. Explain the trinitarian belief for me. I have done so many times and you just ignore me and claim I believe something I do not. So, if as you say below, you have studied the Trinity carefully, then you should know my position and be able to clearly state it without twisting it into something else. If you cannot, they you don't understand the trinity.

Trinitarians like you... Are you saying that you are an an absolute of the Trintiy?

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

What?!!! Sounds nothing like my belief.

AH-HA! Exactly!!! Bingo!!! You get the booby prize! Your claim of what I believe sounds NOTHING LIKE WHAT I BELIEVE. I don't believe that God is merely playing roles. That is modalism, not trinitarianism. Get it right or get lost.

I have studied the Trinity doctrine full heartedly. I have gained an understanding in scripture what Trinitarians refuse to believe.

So you claim to know what we REALLY believe despite the fact that we tell you that it is not what we believe? :lmbo:

Maybe you meant you studied the Trinity doctrine fool-heartedly?

This belief is that The Father is greater than the Son. Trinitarians argue that this is in regards to position which is basically saying that 1. there are positions in being God or 2. that there exist more than one God - a family of gods. 2 is not in scipture.

huh??????

Again, if you can't even accurately understand what we believe, how can you even attempt to repudiate it?

Whatever you have "full-heartedly" learned about the trinity is completely bolluxed up and spoon fed to you from the watchtower who misrepresents trinitarianism in its attempts to deny it. You merely parrot their errors. Study the trinity from trinitarian sources and THEN come back and argue against it.

You are burning straw until then.

Pythagoras

April 18th 2006, 09:47 PM

Hi Paul,

I can see your reformation didn’t last long.

Oh, so Adam was Messiah? Care to make this case? Which people was Adam going to deliver from their oppression? Remember the observation was that Luke called Adam son of God too.

No genius. It just goes to show that the term son of God was applicable to agents of God , or those with intimate relationships with Him. The term carries absolutely no trinitarian notions of equivalency with God what so ever. Even the trinitarian Catholic encyclopedia does not dare to suggest son of God meant God in Jewish paradigms or in the Old Testament usage :

"The title "son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero , a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)" (Job 1:6 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job001.htm#6); 2:1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job002.htm#1); Psalm 88:7 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa088.htm#7); Wisdom 2:13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis002.htm#13); etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) (Deuteronomy 14:50 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/deu014.htm#50)); and of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm), as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq. (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo004.htm#22)).

The leaders of the people, kings, princes, judges, as holding authority from God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), were called sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). The theocratic king as lieutenant of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and especially when he was providentially selected to be a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title "Son of God". "

And here's the clincher and just what I've been stating all along. That son of God was an equivalent term denoting Messiah in Jewish thought. From the horse's mouth:

"But the Messias, the Chosen One, the Elect of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), was par excellence called the Son of God (Ps. ii, 7). Even Wellhausen admits that Ps. ii is Messianic (see Hast., Dict. the Bible", lV, 571).

The devils (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least."

I believe No and Sparko have already clearly shown “hypostatic” union is not a contradiction in terms.

Being that you're not very logical to begin with, your blank , inane opinion means very little to me.

However, I expect, rather than making your case you will, no doubt answer in obfuscation.

You're the consummate obfuscator Paul, after all speaking from both sides of the mouth is the trinitarian's forte. Answer my question: Are you still holding on to the notion that son of God meant God to first century Jews like Caihapas the high priest?

best wishes,

P.S. Only begotten son of God does not mean God as even the Jewish encyclopedia succinctly puts it, but beloved son, chosen servant:

"The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"; see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v.); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one."

ref:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S&search=Son+of+God (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S&search=Son+of+God)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)

mickiel

April 18th 2006, 10:02 PM

God said on many occassions that he is God, and besides him there are no other Gods, Jesus was sitting besides him each time he quoted this.

Peace, Mickiel.

Pythagoras

April 18th 2006, 10:09 PM

Hi Jay,

My point was Jesus has many titles and names applied to Him and the fact is that He has the nature of a man (no one doubts) and he has the very nature of God (you doubt). I have already shown with loads of quotes and research that Phi 2:6 MORPHE THEOU has reference to nature, essence and also Heb 1:3. (go read the TDNT and others)

Phil. 2:6 speaks of morphe which means outer appearance, not essential nature. I've already beath this horse to death. There is absolutely nothing you've shown so far that would lead one to the conclusion that Jesus has the nature of God. Nature of man, sure.

You have no defense for what you believe unless you take all of scripture out of context.

Look who's talking!

I can prove that there is no God doing to scripture what you do.

Let's see your "proof".

Psa. 10:4.. "There is no God"

Psalm. 10:4 doesn't even say there is no God. "In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God."

Psa. 14:1.."There is no God"

Thats not what it says. Psa 14:1 says "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

Psa. 53:1.. "There is no God."

That's not what it says. . "The fool says in his heart, there is on God."

Isa. 45:5.."There is no God."

Again, this one doesn't say there is no God. "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no other."

Num. 23:19 is emphatic:

Young's Literal Translation

23:19 God is not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do it? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?

It starts off by making the assertion that God is not a man. Then it goes on to explain why God is not/ cannot be a man.:wink:

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 18th 2006, 10:10 PM

God said on many occassions that he is God, and besides him there are no other Gods, Jesus was sitting besides him each time he quoted this.

Peace, Mickiel.

God bless you for that observation.

Shazard

April 19th 2006, 03:07 AM

Just curious. Where does it say that God is a mystery. I understand what He is and how He performs things are a mystery. But not who He is. God is one, he is YHVH.

And that's all you can tell about God.
Have you made some research what is his name. 4 letters YHWH are just letters if you don't know meaning behind them. God reavelad to Moses his nature. Telling Name is telling your nature. It is today we use simple phonetic constructions - John, Ivan, Martin etc. names which actually do not have meaning to us, they are just sounds. But in those times name was reflection of ones character. It was description of ones nature. Check out how names are given to different prophets, they are not just simple letters and sounds, they are meanings. The same goes with God. God reavels his name, by it he reveals his nature.
But if it is so simple for you to say that God is YHWH and then you claim you know God, then you do know about God as mutch as ogre about dietic salads.

But don't believe me, try to believe God himself.

1 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 55:8

But if you claim that you know God, who am I to judge you. God himself knows hearts and will judge.

Pythagoras

April 19th 2006, 10:24 AM

Sparkey,

This is what you wrote to Topherlee:

You tell me. Explain the trinitarian belief for me. I have done so many times and you just ignore me and claim I believe something I do not. So, if as you say below, you have studied the Trinity carefully, then you should know my position and be able to clearly state it without twisting it into something else. If you cannot, they you don't understand the trinity.

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

AH-HA! Exactly!!! Bingo!!! You get the booby prize! Your claim of what I believe sounds NOTHING LIKE WHAT I BELIEVE. I don't believe that God is merely playing roles. That is modalism, not trinitarianism. Get it right or get lost.

So you claim to know what we REALLY believe despite the fact that we tell you that it is not what we believe? :lmbo:

Maybe you meant you studied the Trinity doctrine fool-heartedly?

huh??????

Again, if you can't even accurately understand what we believe, how can you even attempt to repudiate it?

Whatever you have "full-heartedly" learned about the trinity is completely bolluxed up and spoon fed to you from the watchtower who misrepresents trinitarianism in its attempts to deny it. You merely parrot their errors. Study the trinity from trinitarian sources and THEN come back and argue against it.

You are burning straw until then.

I'm calling your bluff. Following is the trinity from a trinitarian source and they say the persons are separate and distinct. Maybe this trinitarian source is not "official" ? :lol:

"All who claim to be Christians agree there is only one true God. But how many individuals, "persons," or beings make up the Godhead? Does Deity consist of just one individual Being ("Jesus only"), or are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three separate spirit beings, all possessing Deity? Is God a "Trinity"? Should we be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or is baptism in the name of Jesus only?

The Bible repeatedly teaches that there is only one true God, in contrast to the many warring, conflicting, different gods of heathen idolatry (Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 32:39; Psa. 86:10; Isa. 43:10-13; 44:6-8; 45:5,6,21-23; Matt. 4:10; Mark 12:29).

It is the purpose of this study to show by the Scriptures that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are not the same individual or personal being, but are three separate and distinct living personal beings or individuals.

The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate & distinct from one another as individual beings like these various other intelligent beings are separate and distinct from one another. We do not claim the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are physical beings, like humans, though Jesus did have a body on earth. Nor do we claim they are like these other beings in character, authority, etc. We simply say that these other living beings illustrate the concept of separate and distinct individuals or personal beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each an individual, distinct from one another like angels are distinct from one another, etc.

Many other passages speak of separate persons being "IN" one another. To say one is "in" the other does not prove they are the same individual. For example, Christians are "in Christ" and "in the Father"; and Father and Son abide "in" us - John 14:20,23; 15:4-7; 3:21; 6:56; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 2:20; 3:26-38; Eph. 3:17; Phil. 1:1; 3:8,9; Col. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:14; 1 John 2:6,24; 3:24; 4:12-16. Do these verses prove that we are the same individual or personal being as the Son or the Father?.."

source:
http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php (http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php)

You see Sparkey, this trinitarian source correctly comprehends that unless the three persons truly distinct and separate, they are not truly three hypostasis, which means anyone who denies the three persons to be separate engage a variation of modalism.

Do you still believe the three persons are not separate? Yes or No?

Do you think this trinitarian source is wrong? Yes or No?

best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Sparko

April 19th 2006, 12:10 PM

Sparkey,

This is what you wrote to Topherlee:

I'm calling your bluff. Following is the trinity from a trinitarian source and they say the persons are separate and distinct. Maybe this trinitarian source is not "official" ? :lol:

"All who claim to be Christians agree there is only one true God. But how many individuals, "persons," or beings make up the Godhead? Does Deity consist of just one individual Being ("Jesus only"), or are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three separate spirit beings, all possessing Deity? Is God a "Trinity"? Should we be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or is baptism in the name of Jesus only?

The Bible repeatedly teaches that there is only one true God, in contrast to the many warring, conflicting, different gods of heathen idolatry (Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 32:39; Psa. 86:10; Isa. 43:10-13; 44:6-8; 45:5,6,21-23; Matt. 4:10; Mark 12:29).

It is the purpose of this study to show by the Scriptures that the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are not the same individual or personal being, but are three separate and distinct living personal beings or individuals.

The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate & distinct from one another as individual beings like these various other intelligent beings are separate and distinct from one another. We do not claim the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are physical beings, like humans, though Jesus did have a body on earth. Nor do we claim they are like these other beings in character, authority, etc. We simply say that these other living beings illustrate the concept of separate and distinct individuals or personal beings. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each an individual, distinct from one another like angels are distinct from one another, etc.

Many other passages speak of separate persons being "IN" one another. To say one is "in" the other does not prove they are the same individual. For example, Christians are "in Christ" and "in the Father"; and Father and Son abide "in" us - John 14:20,23; 15:4-7; 3:21; 6:56; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 2:20; 3:26-38; Eph. 3:17; Phil. 1:1; 3:8,9; Col. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:14; 1 John 2:6,24; 3:24; 4:12-16. Do these verses prove that we are the same individual or personal being as the Son or the Father?.."

source:
http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php (http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/persons_godhead.php)

You see Sparkey, this trinitarian source correctly comprehends that unless the three persons truly distinct and separate, they are not truly three hypostasis, which means anyone who denies the three persons to be separate engage a variation of modalism.

Do you still believe the three persons are not separate? Yes or No?

Do you think this trinitarian source is wrong? Yes or No?

best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

:lmbo:

That is about the worse definition of the trinity I ever read! In fact, what they describe is not the trinity at all, but tri-theism. They have three beings who are God. To them God is some office title like president.

That is not some official site for trinitarians, it is someone's private web site for their little non-denomination independent church!

Is that the best you can do?

That is my problem with you and topherlee, pythagoras. You can't honestly debate what we trinitarians really do believe so you spend all of your time making up false beliefs that you assign to us and then proceed to attack them. That is called burning a strawman.

At least give us the courtesy and respect to argue against what we truly believe. Arguing against modalism and tri-theism and claiming that is trinitarianism is just dishonest and stupid of you.

By "official" I meant something from an orthodox major denomination's official writings. Not some rinkydink personal website.

Here is an official document on the trinity from the Southern Baptist Convention: The Trinity. (pdf) (http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enamb%2Enet%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F%7BCDA250E8%2D8866%2D4236%2D9A0C%2DC646DE153446%7D%2FCL%5FTrinity%2Epdf&key=trinity&title=010307+the+trinity&ndx=SBC%2C+IMB%2C+NAMB%2C+ANNUITY%2C+LIFEWAY%2C+WMU%2C+ERLC%2C+SEMINARIES)

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.

Shazard

April 19th 2006, 02:15 PM

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

:thumb:

Good source on trinity to start is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Sparko

April 19th 2006, 06:44 PM

:thumb:

Good source on trinity to start is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

at cursory glance, it looks like a nice article, but who knows who wrote that?

That was why I was insisting that pythagoras use an official definition of the trinity from an orthodox/mainstream denomination. He loves to find wacky out of the way websites by nutjobs who misuse the term "trinity" either accidentally or on purpose and claim that all trinitarians beleive the same thing.

When using a definition from the offical Southern Baptist Convention or perhaps the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Catholic sources eliminates all that wiggle room he likes so much.

mickiel

April 19th 2006, 09:14 PM

:lmbo:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.
[/b]

Greetings,

I would agree that God and Christ are two distinct seperate beings, when Jesus said my Father and I are one, I believe he meant they are one Being each and of themselves, Individually one. What the Holy Spirit is, I really do not know. I could speculate on it, but thats all. I do not see the Father and Christ as co-equals, neither does Christ, Jesus straightened that out by revealing that the Father is greater than him. Nothing can change that statement comming from Jesus, oh people try to change it so that their beliefs can be valid.

One God means there is one Father over and above all, including Jesus. There is no Trinity, in my view. The Holy Spirit, is Different from Jesus and God the Father. Totally different. Although Jesus is in the exact Image of the Father, the Father is still different from Christ in many ways. And they are alike in many ways. The Father has never died, he is uncreated, and all powerful, there is none higher than him. Jesus is not like that. But Jesus has been through things that the Father nor the Holy Spirit has went through, so they also have distinct experiences revealed in their existance. Which also tends away from this co-equal view of them.

Jesus took sin on , became sin for us, the Father hasnot, willnot , do that. The Holy Spirit, whatever it is, it must be a multi-complex being or thing, because it must live in us all who have it. Whatever it is, it obviously comes from the Father and it " Flows", everywhere, through it perhaps comes Gods omnipressence. I don't think Jesus is like that, he is only in one place at a time. The bible never reveals Jesus as omnipressent, at least not that I know of. So there are differences between all three.

Even still, I understand the confusion, because the bible calls Jesus God in a few areas. That doesn't help the matter much. It never calls the Holy Spirit God, and the Father is never refered to as the Holy Spirit. I kind of get from the bible that the Holy Spirit is some kind of Extension of God the Father. But then it reveals that the Father has Seven Spirits, always right there with him in his throne. Well now that doesn't help in understanding all this either.

You know I think we just need more revelation from God, and more time to understand these things.

Peace, Mickiel.

Pythagoras

April 19th 2006, 09:35 PM

Hi Sparkey,

That is about the worse definition of the trinity I ever read!

:lol: Now you're condemning your fellow trinitairans .

In fact, what they describe is not the trinity at all, but tri-theism. They have three beings who are God. To them God is some office title like president.

Dumbo, when that link says three beings it does not mean three different natures but three truly distinct or separate persons. It thus averts the modalism "heresy" to which you're succumbing.:duh: . That link claims to be trinitarian, and it is.

That is not some official site for trinitarians, it is someone's private web site for their little non-denomination independent church!

Spare me the lame excuses.

Is that the best you can do?

Here's another.:lol:

http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Trinity.html (http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Trinity.html)

Scripture indicates that God is both one and three. There are three separate persons. And yet the three are also one. There is only one God. Christianity is monotheistic….The Trinity is one of these mysteries of our faith. We cannot fully understand it and we do not have words adequate to describe it….I believe that Scripture makes it clear that the three members of the Trinity are separate persons, and that each is God. The three members of the Trinity are not different aspects or facets of God, or different ways of looking at God, or different ways in which God manifests himself. They are spoken of as three separate persons, each of whom is God. Our minds may find this hard to grasp, but this is what Scripture says. As I have already noted, sometimes we see these three separate persons all referred to in the same passage as separate individuals.

That is my problem with you and topherlee, pythagoras. You can't honestly debate what we trinitarians really do believe so you spend all of your time making up false beliefs that you assign to us and then proceed to attack them. That is called burning a strawman.

You're the one burning a strawman Sparkey. Just because you believe the link I furnished you is tritheistic doesn't make it so. That's your opinion , which happens to be false. The link itself claims to be trinitairan, and it is. Infact your conception of the trinity boders on modalism.

At least give us the courtesy and respect to argue against what we truly believe. Arguing against modalism and tri-theism and claiming that is trinitarianism is just dishonest and stupid of you.

You fool, I've furnished you two links now which claim to be trinitarian, not tritheistic. Just because you don't think they are trinitarian, doesn't make them not trinitarian. Stop burning a strawman.

By "official" I meant something from an orthodox major denomination's official writings. Not some rinkydink personal website.

How about the writings of the Cappadocian fathers? Are you going to continue to deny Gregory Nyssa saw the trinity as the link I furnished you does, as akin to three men , say John, James, Peter but with the same human nature?

Here is an official document on the trinity from the Southern Baptist Convention: The Trinity. (pdf) (http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enamb%2Enet%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F%7BCDA250E8%2D8866%2D4236%2D9A0C%2DC646DE153446%7D%2FCL%5FTrinity%2Epdf&key=trinity&title=010307+the+trinity&ndx=SBC%2C+IMB%2C+NAMB%2C+ANNUITY%2C+LIFEWAY%2C+WMU%2C+ERLC%2C+SEMINARIES)
[CITE="SBC - A closer look at the Trinity (see link above)"]The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being.

Dumbo, can you show me where the link I furnished you says the three persons have a division(or difference) of nature?

best wishes,

Sparko

April 19th 2006, 11:09 PM

Hi Sparkey,

:lol: Now you're condemning your fellow trinitairans .

Mormons claim they are trinitarians too but they redefine trinity to be three Gods.

Dumbo, when that link says three beings it does not mean three different natures but three truly distinct or separate persons. It thus averts the modalism "heresy" to which you're succumbing.:duh: . That link claims to be trinitarian, and it is.

Spare me the lame excuses.

Here's another.:lol:

http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Trinity.html (http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Trinity.html)

Scripture indicates that God is both one and three. There are three separate persons. And yet the three are also one. There is only one God. Christianity is monotheistic….The Trinity is one of these mysteries of our faith. We cannot fully understand it and we do not have words adequate to describe it….I believe that Scripture makes it clear that the three members of the Trinity are separate persons, and that each is God. The three members of the Trinity are not different aspects or facets of God, or different ways of looking at God, or different ways in which God manifests himself. They are spoken of as three separate persons, each of whom is God. Our minds may find this hard to grasp, but this is what Scripture says. As I have already noted, sometimes we see these three separate persons all referred to in the same passage as separate individuals.

You're the one burning a strawman Sparkey. Just because you believe the link I furnished you is tritheistic doesn't make it so. That's your opinion , which happens to be false. The link itself claims to be trinitairan, and it is. Infact your conception of the trinity boders on modalism.

You fool, I've furnished you two links now which claim to be trinitarian, not tritheistic. Just because you don't think they are trinitarian, doesn't make them not trinitarian. Stop burning a strawman.

How about the writings of the Cappadocian fathers? Are you going to continue to deny Gregory Nyssa saw the trinity as the link I furnished you does, as akin to three men , say John, James, Peter but with the same human nature?

Dumbo, can you show me where the link I furnished you says the three persons have a division(or difference) of nature?

best wishes,

by the way, Happy Birthday Pythagoras.

But I can see you are getting angry because you can't frame a coherent arguement against the trinity and can't even find a decent definition of it.

The last one you posted was pretty close, he just used some careless language in calling them "separate persons" - as I have said before the use of the word "distinct" in official trinitarian definitions (from major denominations) is done on purpose. Yes, you can probably find a dictionary that includes "separate" in the definition of distinct, but that is not its primary meaning. The meaning of distinct in trinitarian doctrine means that the persons of the godhead are not the same person as in modalism, but are distinct from each other in that there are three different centers of personhood that coexist simultaneously and are coequal. That is why the word "distinct" is used instead of "separate" - Separate implies "independent" and they are not independent of each other. They are one.

If you think I border on modalism, then you still do not understand my beliefs or just want to burn more straw men because you can't present a comprehensive argument against what I truly do believe, so you need to fight against something, so it might as well be something you make up and assign to me as my belief. That is incredibly stupid, or dishonest. or both.

Your arguments are starting to sound like peewee herman going around saying "I know you are, but what am I? Nyah Nyah Nyah"

If you think you actually understand the trinitarian position then why don't you argue against THAT instead of against modalism and tritheism and claiming that is trinitarianism?

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 01:41 AM

Hi Sparko,

Mormons claim they are trinitarians too but they redefine trinity to be three Gods.

The author of the link I originally furnished doesn't consider himself to be Mormon Sparkey, nor is he; he is trinatarian and ardently so, and he claims to be trinitarian. You're burning a strawman. Don't you even get it? This is the classic struggle between the Western trinity (your) and the Eastern trinity. Both claim to be champions of the true trinitarian faith, with the western church accusing the eastern of tritheism and the eastern blaming the western for modalistic heresy. Dinoysus of Alexandria is a good example I this regard:

"Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 190-265) is another example of the misunderstanding concerning the discussions of the Triune God. He was strong to oppose Sabellius, but in doing so he appeared to lean to the other extreme and was charged with teaching tritheism."

by the way, Happy Birthday Pythagoras.

Thank you.

But I can see you are getting angry because you can't frame a coherent arguement against the trinity and can't even find a decent definition of it.

Sparkey, the problem with you is that you're ignorant of the evolution and development of the trinity doctrine.

By now it's clear that your thinking is very simplistic and linear.

The last one you posted was pretty close, he just used some careless language in calling them "separate persons" - as I have said before the use of the word "distinct" in official trinitarian definitions (from major denominations) is done on purpose. Yes, you can probably find a dictionary that includes "separate" in the definition of distinct, but that is not its primary meaning. The meaning of distinct in trinitarian doctrine means that the persons of the godhead are not the same person as in modalism, but are distinct from each other in that there are three different centers of personhood that coexist simultaneously and are coequal. That is why the word "distinct" is used instead of "separate" - Separate implies "independent" and they are not independent of each other. They are one.

Sparkey, when will you realize that you're not the one who decides who a trinitarian is and who isn't?? Infact many eastern trinitarians will probably brand you a modalist for not mantaining enough distinction or spearation between the persons of the trinity. Men far more intelligent than yourself have charged even "great" trinitarians like Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysus of Alexandria, Paul of Samasota,and many others of not being trinitarian at all:.

"At various times, Gregory of Nyasa (A.D. 330-395) was attacked both for being modalistic and also for being tritheistic, depending upon what Scriptures he used in expounding the incomprehensible mystery of the Triune God. [39] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism39#modalism39)On the Holy Trinity Gregory of Nyssa says:

They charge us with preaching three Gods …. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us. [40] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism40#modalism40)"

Does that mean Gregory of Nyssa was a tritheist?.Ofcourse not. He believed himself to be a trinitarian.

If you think I border on modalism, then you still do not understand my beliefs or just want to burn more straw men because you can't present a comprehensive argument against what I truly do believe, so you need to fight against something, so it might as well be something you make up and assign to me as my belief. That is incredibly stupid, or dishonest. or both.

Why do you cry foul when I accuse you of modalism but you yourself turn around and accuse a bona fide trinitarian link of tritheism? Aren't you being hypocritical?

Your arguments are starting to sound like peewee herman going around saying "I know you are, but what am I? Nyah Nyah Nyah"

Sparko I've come to the conclusion that you're very dense.

If you think you actually understand the trinitarian position then why don't you argue against THAT instead of against modalism and tritheism and claiming that is trinitarianism?

I understand the trinity doctrine better than you do Sparkey. That's just a fact of life.

And the following says it all:

“Thus the problem of misunderstanding and even outright misrepresentation had again surrounded the struggle to be able to utter the mystery of the Triune God without being placed in a false position by the opposers.” [41] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism41#modalism41)"

best wishes,

ref:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html

Shazard

April 20th 2006, 02:21 AM

Pytagoras I and Sparko are telling you what IS trinity. We are willingly giving you our understanding FROM official church sources we do not make it up, but give you what IS. What you do is all the time saying no it is not, trinity is... bla bla bla... where you put some non-trinity definition or perverted description of it - straw man. Start from the bottom - from offical church understanding and then try 1st to understand what it says and then may be then you will be able to argue against it. Until you don't understand what you are dealing with you are not able to argue against it. It looks like me in the school when I hated chemistry very much and I could argue why the chemistry is stupid science... and I argued not against chemistry but against everything related to chemistry what I don't like personally. My view does not change chemistry.
All the time you are fighting straw man, at the begining you was making straw man up by yourself, later you went to NON offical sites for straw man made allready for you by somebody calling themselves trinitarians. And again in your view comes JW inability to understand when word describes reality and when it is mere title. In this case title "trinitarian" is applied to somebody and you do not judge by their words but by the title they have given to them.
But trinity is defined in offical church, the term comes from church so go to church and ask them what it means. We all the time are telling you WHAT is trinity.

Here is one more definition http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I am not chatolic, I am Lutheran, but I even can give you chatolic source of definition. Stop fighting straw man and try to understand what and how christians understand trinity and how it is defined, IF you care atall. It seams like you just don't want to understand what is trinity, you feel comfortable in company of straw mans coz burning them gives you illusion that your own view is true, and still you let the reality slip through your fingers, coz I admit that knowing reality when you live in illusion is very unpleasant thing.

And church allways claimed that even the definition is clumsy coz we are trying to describe NATURE of God which is impossible a priori by limited human mind. Yes JW and meny anti trinitarians are very uncomfortable when somebody claims their mind limitation to understand God's nature, coz whole WT teaching is based on "obtaining knowledge about God"... and still they are torn apart by reality... reality that does not allow to understand everyghing and WT claims that without this knowledge they are damned and sinners.

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 02:26 AM

Hi S.,

Pytagoras I and Sparko are telling you what IS trinity. We are willingly giving you our understanding FROM official church sources we do not make it up, but give you what IS.

What the heck does "official church source" mean? Was Gregory of Nyssa an "official church" source?

Did you know that Paul of Samasota could take the same "official church source" and interprete differently than you and Sparkey?

What you do is all the time saying no it is not, trinity is... bla bla bla... where you put some non-trinity definition or perverted description of it - straw man.
Start from the bottom - from offical church understanding and then try 1st to understand what it says and then may be then you will be able to argue against it. Until you don't understand what you are dealing with you are not able to argue against it. It looks like me in the school when I hated chemistry very much and I could argue why the chemistry is stupid science... and I argued not against chemistry but against everything related to chemistry what I don't like personally. My view does not change chemistry.
All the time you are fighting straw man, at the begining you was making straw man up by yourself, later you went to NON offical sites for straw man made allready for you by somebody calling themselves trinitarians. And again in your view comes JW inability to understand when word describes reality and when it is mere title. In this case title "trinitarian" is applied to somebody and you do not judge by their words but by the title they have given to them.
But trinity is defined in offical church, the term comes from church so go to church and ask them what it means. We all the time are telling you WHAT is trinity.

Here is one more definition http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I am not chatolic, I am Lutheran, but I even can give you chatolic source of definition. Stop fighting straw man and try to understand what and how christians understand trinity and how it is defined, IF you care atall. It seams like you just don't want to understand what is trinity, you feel comfortable in company of straw mans coz burning them gives you illusion that your own view is true, and still you let the reality slip through your fingers, coz I admit that knowing reality when you live in illusion is very unpleasant thing.

And church allways claimed that even the definition is clumsy coz we are trying to describe NATURE of God which is impossible a priori by limited human mind. Yes JW and meny anti trinitarians are very uncomfortable when somebody claims their mind limitation to understand God's nature, coz whole WT teaching is based on "obtaining knowledge about God"... and still they are torn apart by reality... reality that does not allow to understand everyghing and WT claims that without this knowledge they are damned and sinners.

Boy , you make Sparko sound like a genius.

best wishes,

Shazard

April 20th 2006, 03:14 AM

Hi S.,
What the heck does "official church source" mean? Was Gregory of Nyssa an "official church" source?

The source which describes the term. It is common way of human mind to put some nontrivial concept into words. Word "car" is nothing while you do not describe concept behind it. The same goes with "trinity".

Just simple. Go to source. You can't define words allready defined. So if you want to understand what "trinity" menas go to source where it appears and read what it means. It is like I am saying "bamboocha" is pleasure from Fanta drink. But you argue that no I am wrong and "bamboocha" can't be pleasure atall. So I define some word and put some meaning into it and you say that it is not so. You build your straw man and try to burn it. I say go to source and find out what is trinity first, then argue against it and try to find "contradictions" in it. We allready provided you that in reality there are meny things whcih can be three and one at the same time. Three persons one nature.

Boy , you make Sparko sound like a genius.

If you say so!

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 09:46 AM

Hi S.,

The source which describes the term. It is common way of human mind to put some nontrivial concept into words. Word "car" is nothing while you do not describe concept behind it. The same goes with "trinity".
Just simple. Go to source. You can't define words allready defined. So if you want to understand what "trinity" menas go to source where it appears and read what it means. It is like I am saying "bamboocha" is pleasure from Fanta drink. But you argue that no I am wrong and "bamboocha" can't be pleasure atall. So I define some word and put some meaning into it and you say that it is not so. You build your straw man and try to burn it. I say go to source and find out what is trinity first, then argue against it and try to find "contradictions" in it. We allready provided you that in reality there are meny things whcih can be three and one at the same time. Three persons one nature.

Official definition is the "concept behind the creed".? :lol: You fool, don't you know that conceptual definitions vary from individual to individual and from church to church? Don't you even realize that the eastern church has a different concept on the distinction of the persons than the western church ? The east believes the west doesn't go far enough in drawing out the true distinction or separation of persons(accusation of modalism), conceptually speaking, and the west counters by accusing the east of tritheism, of going too far in the separation , just as Sparkey also accuses the link I furnished of tritheism:bonk:

If you say so!

You still haven't answered my question Dumbo.Was Gregory of Nyssa's rendering of the trinity doctrine an "official definition" ?:lol:

best wishes,

Sparko

April 20th 2006, 11:24 AM

Hi Sparko,

The author of the link I originally furnished doesn't consider himself to be Mormon Sparkey, nor is he; he is trinatarian and ardently so, and he claims to be trinitarian. You're burning a strawman. Don't you even get it? This is the classic struggle between the Western trinity (your) and the Eastern trinity. Both claim to be champions of the true trinitarian faith, with the western church accusing the eastern of tritheism and the eastern blaming the western for modalistic heresy. Dinoysus of Alexandria is a good example I this regard:

"Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 190-265) is another example of the misunderstanding concerning the discussions of the Triune God. He was strong to oppose Sabellius, but in doing so he appeared to lean to the other extreme and was charged with teaching tritheism."

Thank you.

Sparkey, the problem with you is that you're ignorant of the evolution and development of the trinity doctrine.

And it is clear that you dont have a clue what the trinity doctrine truly is. You insist on fighting strawmen and telling me what I believe and know. You quote rinkydink personal websites and claim that they are the "true" definition of what the trinity doctrine is. It makes you look silly. I happen to know what I believe and I happen to know it agrees with all of the majory orthodox Christian denomination's definition of the trinity. I even quoted one for you. If you think I do not believe in trinitarianism but in modalism, would you care to prove it by quoting me and comparing it to the official trinitarian statement of a major orthodox Christian denomination? (that's orthodox with a little "o" btw)

By now it's clear that your thinking is very simplistic and linear.

and its clear that your thinking is nonexistant.

Sparkey, when will you realize that you're not the one who decides who a trinitarian is and who isn't??

NO DUH! Although AS a trinitarian my statement of what I believe is the trinity is at least more reliable than YOUR statement of what I believe. That is why I am insisting you use an official definition of what the trinity is from an official orthodox church statement. I won't force my personal definition on you and I don't want you to hoist your wacky definitions at me. That way we both have an official source to refer to. I agree with the SBC statement I quoted earlier as an official and true statement of the the trinity. Do you?

Infact many eastern trinitarians will probably brand you a modalist for not mantaining enough distinction or spearation between the persons of the trinity.

You don't even have a clue what you are talking about!

Men far more intelligent than yourself have charged even "great" trinitarians like Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysus of Alexandria, Paul of Samasota,and many others of not being trinitarian at all:.

"At various times, Gregory of Nyasa (A.D. 330-395) was attacked both for being modalistic and also for being tritheistic, depending upon what Scriptures he used in expounding the incomprehensible mystery of the Triune God. [39] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism39#modalism39)On the Holy Trinity Gregory of Nyssa says:

They charge us with preaching three Gods …. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us. [40] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism40#modalism40)"

Wow I feel so close to Gregory right now. Because apparently he went through the exact same thing I am going through here. YOU and Topherlee both accuse me of believing in three Gods and when I deny that you accuse me of Sabellism (modalism) when I have publicly shown to you and everyone else that I believe in only ONE God and do not believe in modalism or "role-playing" by God. You do to me exactly what those idiots were doing to Gregory. I guess there really IS nothing new under the sun. You arians use the same dishonest tactics over 1000 years later. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Does that mean Gregory of Nyssa was a tritheist?.Ofcourse not. He believed himself to be a trinitarian.

It just means that there were idiots like you back then too.

Why do you cry foul when I accuse you of modalism but you yourself turn around and accuse a bona fide trinitarian link of tritheism? Aren't you being hypocritical?

They use terms like three separate BEINGS to describe God. To me that sounds like tritheism. Maybe they are just careless in their language. Either way, it is NOT a good definition of the trinity. Why do you fight so hard against using the definition from an official orthodox church source? Are you afraid you can't repudiate that?

Sparko I've come to the conclusion that you're very dense.

:lmbo:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

I understand the trinity doctrine better than you do Sparkey. That's just a fact of life.

A pure example of the Dunning Effect in action, folks.

And the following says it all:

“Thus the problem of misunderstanding and even outright misrepresentation had again surrounded the struggle to be able to utter the mystery of the Triune God without being placed in a false position by the opposers.” [41] (http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html#modalism41#modalism41)"

best wishes,

ref:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html

Dang! Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of my views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling me what I 'really' believe despite my adamant denial of being sabalistic or tritheistic. I even quote an official trinitarian definition from the SBC and say I agree with that and you still accuse me of heresy. I accuse YOU of outright misrepresentation of my views.

PaulT

April 20th 2006, 05:25 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

No genius. It just goes to show that the term son of God was applicable to agents of God , or those with intimate relationships with Him. The term carries absolutely no trinitarian notions of equivalency with God what so ever. Even the trinitarian Catholic encyclopedia does not dare to suggest son of God meant God in Jewish paradigms or in the Old Testament usage :

"The title "son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero , a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)" (Job 1:6 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job001.htm#6); 2:1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job002.htm#1); Psalm 88:7 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa088.htm#7); Wisdom 2:13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis002.htm#13); etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) (Deuteronomy 14:50 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/deu014.htm#50)); and of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm), as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq. (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo004.htm#22)).

The leaders of the people, kings, princes, judges, as holding authority from God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), were called sons of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). The theocratic king as lieutenant of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and especially when he was providentially selected to be a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title "Son of God". "

And here's the clincher and just what I've been stating all along. That son of God was an equivalent term denoting Messiah in Jewish thought. From the horse's mouth:

"But the Messias, the Chosen One, the Elect of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), was par excellence called the Son of God (Ps. ii, 7). Even Wellhausen admits that Ps. ii is Messianic (see Hast., Dict. the Bible", lV, 571).

The devils (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least."

Bud, you shift from the discussion regarding the only “Begotten” to the term son of God. This dispute isn’t the meaning of the term when used to describe men, but whether or not the term when identified as the “Only Begotten” provides a different meaning.

Nevertheless, I take it your inability to answer the question resulting in you providing evidence that has nothing to do with the question means, you cannot show Adam was ever considered “the” or “a” Messiah. IOW, what other “agent” of God was ever called the “Only Begotten Son of God”.

Hi Paul,

Being that you're not very logical to begin with, your blank , inane opinion means very little to me.

The reformation continues I see.

Hi Paul,

You're the consummate obfuscator Paul, after all speaking from both sides of the mouth is the trinitarian's forte.

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

Hi Paul,

Answer my question: Are you still holding on to the notion that son of God meant God to first century Jews like Caihapas the high priest?

Yes, not only I’m I holding to it, but I’ve demonstrated convincingly over on the Mormon thread that this is in fact the Biblical case.

Hi Paul,

P.S. Only begotten son of God does not mean God as even the Jewish encyclopedia succinctly puts it, but beloved son, chosen servant:

"The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"; see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v.); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one."

ref:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S&search=Son+of+God (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S&search=Son+of+God)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm [/QUOTE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm%20%20%5b/QUOTE)]

And you suggest my argument is inane, based on what you’ve provided above, I’m not sure you understand the definition of the word.

In order for you to prop up your argument you resort to a document developed by those who presuppose Christ was not who He said He was, and this is supposed to validate your claims. Did it ever occur to you that the Jews killed Christ, and that admission of what the term meant would validate their ancestors were wrong.

Not surprisingly, BAG, gives a few meanings that cast a completely different rendition of the term. According to BAG, the word monogenes means Only or Unique not beloved. The lexicon goes on to provide the meanings as in an only-begotten, God or a God begotten of the Only One. These meanings convey the view as being of the same substance, nature or attributes, in a similar view as my son carries my genes. The term is only applied to Jesus in the Johannine literature, indicating that Christ is just not an “agent” of God, as you’ve pointed out “son of God” can be used of men in the OT, but rather is God.

Again, I go back to my question, did John get it wrong in stating the Christ was the ONLY Begotten Son of God or was Adam as well Begotten of God. Even using your luricous definition of the word monogenes, are you now saying Adam was not a “beloved” son of God, or did John not understand how the Jews used the term?

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 09:09 PM

Hi Sparkey,

And it is clear that you dont have a clue what the trinity doctrine truly is.

This is a non-answer.

You insist on fighting strawmen and telling me what I believe and know. You quote rinkydink personal websites and claim that they are the "true" definition of what the trinity doctrine is. It makes you look silly. I happen to know what I believe and I happen to know it agrees with all of the majory orthodox Christian denomination's definition of the trinity. I even quoted one for you. If you think I do not believe in trinitarianism but in modalism, would you care to prove it by quoting me and comparing it to the official trinitarian statement of a major orthodox Christian denomination? (that's orthodox with a little "o" btw)

The "official trinitarian definition" is subject to varying interpretations by varying churchs genius. What's the official trinitarian statement anyway? The Athanasian creed?

and its clear that your thinking is nonexistant.

Another non-answer.

NO DUH! Although AS a trinitarian my statement of what I believe is the trinity is at least more reliable than YOUR statement of what I believe. That is why I am insisting you use an official definition of what the trinity is from an official orthodox church statement.

Do you know the eastern church has traditionally accused the western of modalism and the western has accused the eastern of tritheism ?

I won't force my personal definition on you and I don't want you to hoist your wacky definitions at me. That way we both have an official source to refer to. I agree with the SBC statement I quoted earlier as an official and true statement of the the trinity. Do you?

What "official source"?

You don't even have a clue what you are talking about!

Another non-answer.

Wow I feel so close to Gregory right now. Because apparently he went through the exact same thing I am going through here. YOU and Topherlee both accuse me of believing in three Gods and when I deny that you accuse me of Sabellism (modalism) when I have publicly shown to you and everyone else that I believe in only ONE God and do not believe in modalism or "role-playing" by God. You do to me exactly what those idiots were doing to Gregory. I guess there really IS nothing new under the sun. You arians use the same dishonest tactics over 1000 years later. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bingo! You accuse that link of believing in three Gods(tritheism) even though it claims to not believe in three gods.

It just means that there were idiots like you back then too.

Another non-answer.

They use terms like three separate BEINGS to describe God. To me that sounds like tritheism. Maybe they are just careless in their language. Either way, it is NOT a good definition of the trinity. Why do you fight so hard against using the definition from an official orthodox church source? Are you afraid you can't repudiate that?

That sounds like "tritheism" to you because you're misrepresenting them, you're burning a strawman against them. They use terms like separate beings because they wish to draw a proper distinction between the three persons, unlike yourself, yet they do not say the three beings have a different nature. That link claims to be trinitarian but you keep burning a strawman against it, accusing it of tritheism. Can you not follow a simple train of thought, Sparkey?

A pure example of the Dunning Effect in action, folks.

Another non-answer.

Dang! Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of my views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling me what I 'really' believe despite my adamant denial of being sabalistic or tritheistic. I even quote an official trinitarian definition from the SBC and say I agree with that and you still accuse me of heresy. I accuse YOU of outright misrepresentation of my views.

Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of the link's views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling everyone what that link "really" believes despite their adamant denial of being non-trinitarian.

You're a smart one sparkey.:wink: .

best wishes anyhow,

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 09:29 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Bud, you shift from the discussion regarding the only “Begotten” to the term son of God. This dispute isn’t the meaning of the term when used to describe men, but whether or not the term when identified as the “Only Begotten” provides a different meaning.

Nevertheless, I take it your inability to answer the question resulting in you providing evidence that has nothing to do with the question means, you cannot show Adam was ever considered “the” or “a” Messiah. IOW, what other “agent” of God was ever called the “Only Begotten Son of God”.

Your entire thesis in another thread was based upon the assertion that in Jewish paradigms the phrase son of God meant God.

Do you still believe this nonsense? Yes or No?

good luck,

PaulT

April 20th 2006, 11:02 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

Your entire thesis in another thread was based upon the assertion that in Jewish paradigms the phrase son of God meant God.

Do you still believe this nonsense? Yes or No?

good luck,

You misstate my premise on the other thread. My entire premise on the other thread was that the Jews claimed Christ blasphemed God because He equated Himself to God. Yes, I still believe this concept and I’ve I backed up my case to the point you have no response. After all it is hard to argue with the clear text of Scripture, remember John 10:33.

The title Son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology “Only Begotten” aka monogenes. Your silence as evidenced by you inability to address the significance of the issue is deafening. Tell me, is it your position that the men identified in the Bible as sons of God were not beloved by God? If not, then why did John say Christ was the ONLY “beloved” of God? Your argument, based on the bogus explanation provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia is ridiculous.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 20th 2006, 11:51 PM

Hi Paul,

You misstate my premise on the other thread. My entire premise on the other thread was that the Jews claimed Christ blasphemed God because He equated Himself to God. Yes, I still believe this concept and I’ve I backed up my case to the point you have no response. After all it is hard to argue with the clear text of Scripture, remember John 10:33.

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again. Plus your thesis has shifted. You cannot logically say son of God = God and at the same time say son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology "Only Begotten" and still insist son of God on it's own means God. Typical. Furthermore Christ was accused by the Jews at his trial of being son of God, not only begotten son of God, which further highlights the utter impossibility of your position , even granting your silly theory that son of God used in conjunction with begotten son means God.

The title Son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology “Only Begotten” aka monogenes.

You just shot yourself in the foot as usual. The high priest accused Christ of blasphemy in Matt. 26:63 after Christ acknowledged he was son of God, not only begotten son of God. By your own reckoning therefore Christ was not charged with blasphemy for claiming to be God .

Your silence as evidenced by you inability to address the significance of the issue is deafening.

Unfortunately the silence is from you. I've already shown you from the Jewish encyclopedia the title only begotten son of God means beloved son and has no trinitarian connotations of equality with God whatsoever.

Anyway, keep fooling yourself and keep speaking from both sides of your mouth.-- your trinitarian forte. When will you stop believing in mumbo-jumbo three headed father, son ,holy spirit nonsense ? It reminds me of the three headed monsters from Hindu and Greek mythology, with multiple arms , elephant heads, monkey brains and so forth.

best wishes,

mickiel

April 21st 2006, 09:37 AM

Greetings,

I think Christ himself sums up this topic preety well in John 17:3," And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, The Only True God". Jesus called his Father the Only True God, so what does it matter what men are calling Jesus? There is only one true God and Jesus himself defines him here. I think people fail to properly understand who God is, or even Christ for that matter. In Rev.3:14, Jesus is called " The beginning of the creation of God". Again he is called the " Firstborn of all Creation". The Father has no birth of any kind. Jesus said in John 6:57, that he Lives BECAUSE of the Father. He owes his very existance to God, God lives because of no one. Jesus stated in John 8:42 that he proceeded forth and came from God, not of his own will. The Father never does anything based on anyones will but his own.

These are very distinct differences that reveal the Father as equal to none.

Peace, Mickiel.

Sparko

April 21st 2006, 09:53 AM

Hi Sparkey,

This is a non-answer.

The "official trinitarian definition" is subject to varying interpretations by varying churchs genius. What's the official trinitarian statement anyway? The Athanasian creed?

Another non-answer.

Do you know the eastern church has traditionally accused the western of modalism and the western has accused the eastern of tritheism ?

What "official source"?

Another non-answer.

Bingo! You accuse that link of believing in three Gods(tritheism) even though it claims to not believe in three gods.

Another non-answer.

That sounds like "tritheism" to you because you're misrepresenting them, you're burning a strawman against them. They use terms like separate beings because they wish to draw a proper distinction between the three persons, unlike yourself, yet they do not say the three beings have a different nature. That link claims to be trinitarian but you keep burning a strawman against it, accusing it of tritheism. Can you not follow a simple train of thought, Sparkey?

Another non-answer.

Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of the link's views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling everyone what that link "really" believes despite their adamant denial of being non-trinitarian.

You're a smart one sparkey.:wink: .

best wishes anyhow,

well if I can't get you to be honest in your debating, I will just have to use your own tactics....

Yes, I agree with you pythagoras! You are right! God is a trinity. I completely agree with you that the following is a great description of the Trinity doctrine:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.

I am so glad that you are now a trinitarian and believe the above. Thank you.

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 01:14 PM

Hi Sparko,

well if I can't get you to be honest in your debating, I will just have to use your own tactics....

Yes, I agree with you pythagoras! You are right! God is a trinity. I completely agree with you that the following is a great description of the Trinity doctrine:

I am so glad that you are now a trinitarian and believe the above. Thank you.

Didn't even address a single point from my last post! I think this is your way of conceding the points ..

Here's the bottom line Sparkey:

You accuse a link which claims to be trinitarian of tritheism but cry foul when someone else says your trinity boders on modalism.

(a) you're a hypocrite.
(b) you're not logically consistent.

As I mentioned in an earlier post trinitairan premises cannot find equilibrium because they are inherently illogical The centuries old battle between east and west is ample testimony in this regard.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 01:21 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again.

You are delusional. I’ve never spoken from both sides of my mouth.

Hi Paul,

Plus your thesis has shifted.

You need to reread the discussion in the Mormon thread. My thesis has not shifted.

Hi Paul,

You cannot logically say son of God = God and at the same time say son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology "Only Begotten" and still insist son of God on it's own means God. Typical. Furthermore Christ was accused by the Jews at his trial of being son of God, not only begotten son of God, which further highlights the utter impossibility of your position , even granting your silly theory that son of God used in conjunction with begotten son means God.

We’ve already demonstrated ad nausea your inability to reason, so your view of what is and is not logical means nothing.

You are too much, did you just say on post #174, “Because both terms , son of God and only begotten son of God in the context used are Messianic title” ? Even you apparently recognize that terminology takes on different connotations based on the context. The fact that you cannot provide 1 insistence of where the term used of Adam = Messiah, disproves your point, regarding the meaning of the term “Son of God” as Messianic related, however it does support my view that the term can take on different meanings based on the context. I do thank you for your assistance in helping me prove my case.

Christ was accused at His trail of blasphemy because He claimed to be the “Son of God”. Based on the Jewish reaction not only Matt, but other texts, like John 10:33, clearly they took the meaning that He was claiming to be equal with God. We’ve argued this to the point of your capitulation on the Mormon thread.

Hi Paul,

You just shot yourself in the foot as usual. The high priest accused Christ of blasphemy in Matt. 26:63 after Christ acknowledged he was son of God, not only begotten son of God. By your own reckoning therefore Christ was not charged with blasphemy for claiming to be God .

Again, your ability to determine who is shooting who in the foot has been demonstrated to be problematic.

You’ve already capitulated on your point that claiming Messiah would be considered blasphemy, now you ask us to accept, claiming to be man with a “special” relationship would be construed as blasphemy. Neither of your 2 views is supported by the Biblical definition of blasphemy. However, we’ve clearly demonstrated that Jews accused Christ of blasphemy because while being a man He made Himself God.

Unfortunately the silence is from you.

I’m sorry, I believe I have answered each and every one of your questions; you on the other hand remain mute on the subject.

Unfortunately the silence is from you. I've already shown you from the Jewish encyclopedia the title only begotten son of God means beloved son and has no trinitarian connotations of equality with God whatsoever.

Again your failure to address the logical following of your argument goes to show how, what did you call it, “inane” your argument truly is. Will you ever answer, “Tell me, is it your position that the men identified in the Bible as sons of God were not beloved by God? If not, then why did John say Christ was the ONLY “beloved” of God? Your argument, based on the bogus explanation provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia is ridiculous.” undoubtedly no, eh? Again, who is shooting who in the foot?

Do you have any thoughts on why BDAG doesn’t agree with the definition of your source.

· 1. pertaining to the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, including Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:5; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son […] Hebrews 11:17. Of an only son […] Luke 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter […] of Jairus 8:42 […]

· 2. pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category […]. The renderings only, unique may be adequate for all occurrences here […] John 3:16 […]. verse 18; John 1:14 […].[…] See also on verse 18 an only begotten one, God (according to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective see John 10:33-36) […] Some […] prefer to regard [monogenēs] as somewhat heightened in meaning in John and 1 John to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on [to be born of God] (John 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to [prōtotokos (first-born)] (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 al.) […]

Based on the above understanding of the word it would be understandable for the Jews to view Christ’s claims as blasphemy. However, we’ve previously shown on numerous occasions how truly void of reason your argument is.

Anyway, keep fooling yourself and keep speaking from both sides of your mouth.-- your trinitarian forte. When will you stop believing in mumbo-jumbo three headed father, son ,holy spirit nonsense ? It reminds me of the three headed monsters from Hindu and Greek mythology, with multiple arms , elephant heads, monkey brains and so forth.

Why do you keep denying who Christ is?

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 01:26 PM

Hi M.,

I think Christ himself sums up this topic preety well in John 17:3," And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, The Only True God".

Yep! This kills trinitarianism instantly. According to Jesus the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

What else could Jesus have said in as many words had he wanted to show people he didn't believe in trinitarian philosophy?

Jesus succinctly said what we non-trinitarians say using many more words. As a non-trinitarian I would say stuff like this, "The son and the holy spirit are not really God, only the Father is truly God. No other person is God, except God. .." Jesus said it better than I.

best wishes,

mickiel

April 21st 2006, 01:42 PM

Hi M.,

Yep! This kills trinitarianism instantly. According to Jesus the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

What else could Jesus have said in as many words had he wanted to show people he didn't believe in trinitarian philosophy?

Jesus succinctly said what we non-trinitarians say using many more words. As a non-trinitarian I would say stuff like this, "The son and the holy spirit are not really God, only the Father is truly God. No other person is God, except God. .." Jesus said it better than I.

best wishes,

Greetings,

Yes Jesus showed it right there for all to see, they see, but they do not understand. Going about within their own understanding, they have not submitted themselves to the Righteous understanding of God. But it is not because they don't want to, we cannot forget that. People want to understand, but they have been given a faulty understanding literally from Birth. So they have built upon that error, as if it were truth.

Jesus is the Image of God, not God himself, so he looks to be God in their understanding. Notice Col.1:15," He , Jesus, is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation." The Father is Literally invisible to humanity, so humans relate to Christ as being God, because they cannot see God the Father, so they hold to Christ Image of him, I understand that, we need to hold to something. Verses 16-18 explain all that Jesus is, and Verse 19 explains that Jesus is those things BECAUSE of the Fathers good Pleasure, or will. Which also means that Jesus wouldNOT be those things if it were not Gods will, which means The Father is vastly Superior to him. Verse 26 calls true Spiritual Understanding, A Mystery, and vs. 27 plainly shows its the Father who must will that these mysteryies be understood in the human mind. This is why Jesus said no one can even come to him unless the Father draws them first, because the Father is predominant in all things.

Peace to you, Mickiel.

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 03:30 PM

Hello Mickiel,

Greetings,
Yes Jesus showed it right there for all to see, they see, but they do not understand. Going about within their own understanding, they have not submitted themselves to the Righteous understanding of God. But it is not because they don't want to, we cannot forget that. People want to understand, but they have been given a faulty understanding literally from Birth. So they have built upon that error, as if it were truth.

Jesus is the Image of God, not God himself, so he looks to be God in their understanding. Notice Col.1:15," He , Jesus, is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation." The Father is Literally invisible to humanity, so humans relate to Christ as being God, because they cannot see God the Father, so they hold to Christ Image of him, I understand that, we need to hold to something. Verses 16-18 explain all that Jesus is, and Verse 19 explains that Jesus is those things BECAUSE of the Fathers good Pleasure, or will. Which also means that Jesus wouldNOT be those things if it were not Gods will, which means The Father is vastly Superior to him. Verse 26 calls true Spiritual Understanding, A Mystery, and vs. 27 plainly shows its the Father who must will that these mysteryies be understood in the human mind. This is why Jesus said no one can even come to him unless the Father draws them first, because the Father is predominant in all things.
Peace to you, Mickiel.
Any thoughts on why Christ did not correct Thomas misunderstanding in John 20:28?
Regards,
Paul

Sparko

April 21st 2006, 03:35 PM

Hi Sparko,

Didn't even address a single point from my last post! I think this is your way of conceding the points ..

Here's the bottom line Sparkey:

You accuse a link which claims to be trinitarian of tritheism but cry foul when someone else says your trinity boders on modalism.

(a) you're a hypocrite.
(b) you're not logically consistent.

As I mentioned in an earlier post trinitairan premises cannot find equilibrium because they are inherently illogical The centuries old battle between east and west is ample testimony in this regard.

best wishes,

What? Now you are accusing me of being a trinitarian? I thought you told me I was modalist?

Please make up your mind.

:ahem:

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 03:46 PM

What? Now you are accusing me of being a trinitarian? I thought you told me I was modalist?

Please make up your mind.

:ahem:

No genius. I'm saying your trinity boders on modalism just as you think the trinitarian link I furnished boders on tritheism. That's all.

best wishes,...

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 05:30 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Mickiel,

Any thoughts on why Christ did not correct Thomas misunderstanding in John 20:28?
Regards,
Paul

(a) Same reason YHWH didn't correct Himself when He called Moses God in Ex 7:1. I guess Moses is YHWH right? . :lol:

(b) There are those who think it's doubtful if the portion my God was even addressed to Christ. For example, when Ghandhi was shot he cried out to his assasin , "Oh my Rama". Was Gandhi's killer Rama?

(c) Supposing you're right and Thomas was indeed calling Jesus God Almighty in a fit of exuberance, does Jesus's silence means he's God? If someone called you an old Turkey in a fit of excitment, do you correct them or just let it pass?...Is that all you got for the Deity of Christ? -- argument from silence.:lol:

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 05:52 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

You are delusional. I’ve never spoken from both sides of my mouth.

You need to reread the discussion in the Mormon thread. My thesis has not shifted.

We’ve already demonstrated ad nausea your inability to reason, so your view of what is and is not logical means nothing.

You are too much, did you just say on post #174, “Because both terms , son of God and only begotten son of God in the context used are Messianic title” ? Even you apparently recognize that terminology takes on different connotations based on the context. The fact that you cannot provide 1 insistence of where the term used of Adam = Messiah, disproves your point, regarding the meaning of the term “Son of God” as Messianic related, however it does support my view that the term can take on different meanings based on the context. I do thank you for your assistance in helping me prove my case.

Christ was accused at His trail of blasphemy because He claimed to be the “Son of God”. Based on the Jewish reaction not only Matt, but other texts, like John 10:33, clearly they took the meaning that He was claiming to be equal with God. We’ve argued this to the point of your capitulation on the Mormon thread.

Again, your ability to determine who is shooting who in the foot has been demonstrated to be problematic.

You’ve already capitulated on your point that claiming Messiah would be considered blasphemy, now you ask us to accept, claiming to be man with a “special” relationship would be construed as blasphemy. Neither of your 2 views is supported by the Biblical definition of blasphemy. However, we’ve clearly demonstrated that Jews accused Christ of blasphemy because while being a man He made Himself God.

I’m sorry, I believe I have answered each and every one of your questions; you on the other hand remain mute on the subject.

Again your failure to address the logical following of your argument goes to show how, what did you call it, “inane” your argument truly is. Will you ever answer, “Tell me, is it your position that the men identified in the Bible as sons of God were not beloved by God? If not, then why did John say Christ was the ONLY “beloved” of God? Your argument, based on the bogus explanation provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia is ridiculous.” undoubtedly no, eh? Again, who is shooting who in the foot?

Do you have any thoughts on why BDAG doesn’t agree with the definition of your source.

· 1. pertaining to the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, including Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:5; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son […] Hebrews 11:17. Of an only son […] Luke 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter […] of Jairus 8:42 […]

· 2. pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category […]. The renderings only, unique may be adequate for all occurrences here […] John 3:16 […]. verse 18; John 1:14 […].[…] See also on verse 18 an only begotten one, God (according to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective see John 10:33-36) […] Some […] prefer to regard [monogenēs] as somewhat heightened in meaning in John and 1 John to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on [to be born of God] (John 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to [prōtotokos (first-born)] (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 al.) […]

Based on the above understanding of the word it would be understandable for the Jews to view Christ’s claims as blasphemy. However, we’ve previously shown on numerous occasions how truly void of reason your argument is.

Why do you keep denying who Christ is?

Regards,

Paul

Here's the bottom line:

You failed in your original thesis to show that in Jewish paradigms son of God means God.
Now you're claiming son of God must be used in conjunction with only begotten son of God to mean God.

So show some evidence for tihs modified theory. Show where in Jewish paradigms only begotten son of God means God?

You're wasting my time Paul. Go back to the drawing board and return when you have something concrete. You're clutching at straws, as usual.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 06:24 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

Here's the bottom line:

You failed in your original thesis to show that in Jewish paradigms son of God means God.

best wishes,

You attempt at disproving the obvious, (my superior argument on the Mormon thread) isn’t working. Your capitulation on that thread speaks to whether or not I failed. You were backed into a corner and instead of answering threw in the towel.

Hi Paul,

Now you're claiming son of God must be used in conjunction with only begotten son of God to mean God.

best wishes,

I’m claiming the same thing you are; context is what dictates the meaning of the word. I thank you for helping to make my case. At some point I would think you would start thinking through the implications of your argument, I mean how many times are you going to have your own stuff used against you?

So show some evidence for tihs modified theory. Show where in Jewish paradigms only begotten son of God means God?

best wishes,

1st it isn’t a modified theory, second I’ve already shown, John 1:18, which says Christ is the Only begotten God. Additionally I’ve beaten you unmercifully on the Mormon thread validating my view of the Jewish paradigm and the implications of Christ’s claim.

You're wasting my time Paul. Go back to the drawing board and return when you have something concrete. You're clutching at straws, as usual.

best wishes,

No my friend, it is you that is wasting time. Instead of answering questions that are a result of you illogical arguments you move on to, “hey what about this”. I still haven’t seen you address the Adam = son of God = Messiah theory, does your silence mean you’ve thrown in the towel on this? If so, does this then mean Jeannott’s observation was NOT that “excellent” of a point? Your inability to keep the arguments straight speaks to your reasoning ability. You would think after the thrashing you’ve taken on this thread and over on the Mormon thread you would move on, yet you persist. Wonders never cease.

Regards,

Paul

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 06:44 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

I’m a bit surprised you chose to answer a question directed at Mickiel, I think at least he would be in a position to offer a better response.

Hi Paul,

(a) Same reason YHWH didn't correct Himself when He called Moses God in Ex 7:1. I guess Moses is YHWH right? .

best wishes,

Again, rather than answering the question you ask another? Is this the best dodge you have? I find it interesting that you analogy places God on the same level as His created being, Thomas. Your analogy is ridiculous.

Hi Paul,

(b) There are those who think it's doubtful if the portion my God was even addressed to Christ. For example, when Ghandhi was shot he cried out to his assasin , "Oh my Rama". Was Gandhi's killer Rama?

best wishes,

This sounds very similar to your appeal to Larry Bird for theological insight. Was Thomas shot, or was Thomas validating a claim? If this is the best you have, you ought not to respond. Your response is a further embarrassment to your already weakened argument.

Hi Paul,

(c) Supposing you're right and Thomas was indeed calling Jesus God Almighty in a fit of exuberance, does Jesus's silence means he's God? If someone called you an old Turkey in a fit of excitment, do you correct them or just let it passbest wishes,

Calling me an “old Turkey” would not be considered blasphemy; however in the Jewish paradigm claiming someone was God Almighty was either true or blasphemy and therefore punishable by death. Christ as a Jewish rabbi would be duty bound to correct the misunderstanding with His follower, that is, unless it was true.

Let’s see, we’ve pointed out that your view causes the Apostle John to become a liar and now Christ to become incompetent. Remember my advice about thinking through the implications of your responses prior to making them.

Hi Paul,

Is that all you got for the Deity of Christ? -- argument from silence.

best wishes,

Given how weak you response is, it would seem I wouldn’t need anything more. I trust, Mickiel, who the question was originally intended for, will make a better case than you.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 06:46 PM

Hi Paul,

You attempt at disproving the obvious, (my superior argument on the Mormon thread) isn’t working. Your capitulation on that thread speaks to whether or not I failed. You were backed into a corner and instead of answering threw in the towel.

What?

I’m claiming the same thing you are; context is what dictates the meaning of the word. I thank you for helping to make my case. At some point I would think you would start thinking through the implications of your argument, I mean how many times are you going to have your own stuff used against you?

Another non-answer.

1st it isn’t a modified theory, second I’ve already shown, John 1:18, which says Christ is the Only begotten God. Additionally I’ve beaten you unmercifully on the Mormon thread validating my view of the Jewish paradigm and the implications of Christ’s claim.

Arguing in circles. You're assuming only begotten son of God means God in John 1:18. But this is your interpretation of John 1:18 which is neither here nor there. Remember your original claim was that in Jewish paradigms son of God meant God to the Jews. Support this claim or keep your peace.

No my friend, it is you that is wasting time. Instead of answering questions that are a result of you illogical arguments you move on to, “hey what about this”. I still haven’t seen you address the Adam = son of God = Messiah theory, does your silence mean you’ve thrown in the towel on this? If so, does this then mean Jeannott’s observation was NOT that “excellent” of a point? Your inability to keep the arguments straight speaks to your reasoning ability. You would think after the thrashing you’ve taken on this thread and over on the Mormon thread you would move on, yet you persist. Wonders never cease.

Another non-answer.

And that's the way the trinitarian cookie crumbles.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 21st 2006, 07:00 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Paul,

Let’s see, we’ve pointed out that your view causes the Apostle John to become a liar and now Christ to become incompetent. Remember my advice about thinking through the implications of your responses prior to making them. Given how weak you response is, it would seem I wouldn’t need anything more. I trust, Mickiel, who the question was originally intended for, will make a better case than you.....

etc.

As usual, you were unable to process the argument. My point in this regard was that even if we accept your unlikely theory that Thomas was calling Jesus God Almightry in28, it is an argument based on silence because Jesus doesn't affirm it.

Besides we already have clear testimony from Jesus himself that the Father is the only true God. .. So to say Thomas was calling Jesus God Almighty is to make Jesus a liar, for starters.

Where does the truth lie? In Jesus's clear words that the Father is the only true God or in your trinitarian mis-representation of Thomas's words which are not even seconed by Christ?

best wishes,

mickiel

April 21st 2006, 07:12 PM

Hello Mickiel,

Any thoughts on why Christ did not correct Thomas misunderstanding in John 20:28?
Regards,
Paul

Greetings,

No, I don't have any thoughts as to why he didnot correct him. I don't know. But I do know Jesus never taught them that he was their God, only their Savior. That is what we can go by, should go by, it was never taught that he was their God, men start teaching themselves that.

And I think eventually what we teach ourselves, becomes more powerful than what the bible teaches.

Peace, Mickiel.

Sparko

April 21st 2006, 09:02 PM

No genius. I'm saying your trinity boders on modalism just as you think the trinitarian link I furnished boders on tritheism. That's all.

best wishes,...

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?

You also claimed that the Eastern Orthodox church disagreed with the Western/Roman Churches definition, but that is not true either. There are some slight variances on how each defines the relationship between the Father/Son/HolySpirit but all orthodox Christians agree (western and eastern) on the basic definition of the trinity, that there is only one God and that he is revealed in three persons, who coexist with each other and are NOT one person playing roles, or three beings/gods.

The Trinity

As is evident from the discussion of the development of the Eastern Orthodox church, differing understandings of the role of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the other parts of the Trinity figured prominently in the schism between East and West. The West accepted the addition of the Filoque clause to the Nicaean Creed, giving assent to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. In opposition to this, Eastern Orthodoxy asserts that while both Son and Spirit are divine and one in nature with God the Father, they each have a unique relationship with and to Him. This difference of relationship may be expressed in the statement that the Son is eternally generated by the Father, while the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father [16]. In the Eastern Orthodox conception of the Trinity, the emphasis is on the distinct personalities within the God-head. The West has tended to emphasize the unity within the God-head. It is imperative to keep in mind that neither side has denied that the Trinity is one divine nature expressed in three persons. The difference between the two is one of emphasis and not of content

[emphasis mine]

From the official Greek Orthodox church site:

The Orthodox Church believes that God is one in substance and Triune in three Persons or Hypostases. The Church pronounces in its lucid liturgical confession: "I confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, Trinity consubstantial and undivided".

The only difference in the two doctrines that make any difference is that the Eastern Orthodox claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and the Roman church claims that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son also.

I don't have an opinion on that matter, so I can truthfully say I agree with the trinity doctrines of both the eastern and the western church.

So far all you have done is dodge, insult people, and misrepresent what they believe in order to defeat strawmen. Can't you stop your hatred and actually have a discussion with us on what we actually believe?

You love to try to turn every thread you are in into a trinitarian thread, but when trinitarians actually try to have a decent discussion with you, you just fold up and start calling them names and claiming they are modalists and so on. Your whole argument seems to revolve around those tactics and bringing up the same tired old argument that God called moses "god" when we have already defeated that argument dozens of times in dozens of thread. Out of context arguments like that just make you sound silly.

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 09:46 PM

Hello Mickiel,

Thank you for your response.

Greetings,

No, I don't have any thoughts as to why he didnot correct him. I don't know.

Peace, Mickiel.

Thank you for your honest answer. This is a fair response.

Greetings,

But I do know Jesus never taught them that he was their God, only their Savior. That is what we can go by, should go by, it was never taught that he was their God, men start teaching themselves that.

Peace, Mickiel.

I think that if you went over to the Jewish web-site and asked the question “who is your Savior”, you would find out that it is their God, one and the same. Nevertheless, your statement seems to be problematic at best given your previous response.

John begins his Gospel by explaining the Word of God, is indeed God who was manifest in the flesh, chapter 1, just like His name which means God with us. John moves on in the middle of his book, chapter 10 to set up the confrontation between the Jews that the issue between them and Christ is that He being a man was His claiming to be God. John then closes his book by giving us Thomas observation that indeed Christ is both Lord and God. Clearly John is sending us a message.

Regarding your observation what the Christ taught of Himself, Christ says in John 10:17, 18 that it was He who had power over His life, something God controls. The fact that He is honoring His Father by following through with His Father’s desire only goes to show how close the relationship is, but this doesn’t mean Christ is not God.

And I think eventually what we teach ourselves, becomes more powerful than what the bible teaches.

Peace, Mickiel.

I don’t believe there is anything more powerful than the Word of God, nevertheless, men’s minds are truly corrupt. The Jews killed Christ because they believed He was making Himself equal with God, this same crime occurs today by those who deny His divinity.

Perhaps your issue is assuming that a difference in function necessitates an inferior nature, it does not. Just because I believe Christ is God does not mean that I dishonor the Father in any way shape or form. I just recognize that the Father and His Son have different functions which reveal their unique personalities while like Thomas recognize Christ as my Lord and God.

Regards,

Paul

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 10:11 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

As usual, you were unable to process the argument.

best wishes,

Your observation presupposes you made an argument, you did not. It is hard to process something that does not exist.

My point in this regard was that even if we accept your unlikely theory that Thomas was calling Jesus God Almightry in28, it is an argument based on silence because Jesus doesn't affirm it.

best wishes,

Your assumption that the self authenticating God would then need to affirm that He is God is in and of itself ridiculous. I guess you’ve never heard of the phrase, “your silence is deafening” meaning silence is indeed an answer, but this assumes your observation to be correct which it is not.

The Jews did not believe so they accused Him of blasphemy, chapter 10. Christ’s response is that Thomas did believe, verse 29.

Besides we already have clear testimony from Jesus himself that the Father is the only true God. .. So to say Thomas was calling Jesus God Almighty is to make Jesus a liar, for starters.

Where does the truth lie? In Jesus's clear words that the Father is the only true God or in your trinitarian mis-representation of Thomas's words which are not even seconed by Christ?

best wishes,

The doctrine of the Trinity is not inconsistent with Christ’s saying in John 17:3. The only view with makes Christ acceptance of Thomas statement a lie would be to assume Christ is not God, the same thing the Jews prosecuted Him with the charge of blasphemy, which if I’m not mistaken is your view. In answer to your question the truth lies in the doctrine of the Trinity, which honors Thomas’ expression and Christ’s acceptance of his expression as well as Christ’s statement in John 17:3, thanks for asking.

Regards,

Paul

mickiel

April 21st 2006, 10:15 PM

[

Perhaps your issue is assuming that a difference in function necessitates an inferior nature, it does not. Just because I believe Christ is God does not mean that I dishonor the Father in any way shape or form. I just recognize that the Father and His Son have different functions which reveal their unique personalities while like Thomas recognize Christ as my Lord and God.

Regards,

Paul

Greetings Paul,

I understand. But don't get me wrong, If and when I see Christ, I will bend to my knees to him, and bow to him in complette submission, no doubt in my mind about that. I just do not see him as God, I see him as the Son of God. I see Jesus, like his Father sees him. The Father God does not view Jesus as being God himself. Jesus always spoke of not giving himself Glory. Wouldn't you think that if someone claimed to be God, that certainly can be interpited as them giving themselves Glory.

I agree with you that Just because one views Christ as God, that doesnot mean they disrespect God the Father. Certainly God himself takes no anger in not being reconized by humanity, neither would he be angry if we view him or Christ in inncorrect manners. Without his help, we couldnot anyway. I myself hold no issue with anyone for whatever they believe, I see in you belief, I honor that. I simply view things differently than you.

The real issue is, is Jesus a God. The Father said he is God, and there is no other Gods. The Father said He is God and beside him there is no other God, and Jesus was sitting next to him when he Spoke this. I believe in what the Father has said, others tend to believe in the few biblical writers who called Jesus a God. I understand that.

Jesus is the Son of A God, does that make him a God, not according to the Father God. Once the Father has Spoken something, it does not matter what men speak on it. I am convinced by the Father, that is all the explination I will ever need. I know that Next to God, Jesus is the most powerful, Glorious, Holy Being Alive. If I find out he is a God, it won't bother me none. But I am like you. simply posting what I see. I cannot see all of what Jesus is, or the Holy Spirit, but I can see a little of what they are not.

Much language is involved. What does God mean, what does Lord mean? What does it mean if a biblical writer calls Jesus God, or just records someonelse calling Jesus their God, does that mean he is? I'm not really sure, but I am open to learning.

Peace then, Mickiel.

Pythagoras

April 22nd 2006, 10:21 AM

Hi Paul,

Your assumption that the self authenticating God would then need to affirm that He is God is in and of itself ridiculous. I guess you’ve never heard of the phrase, “your silence is deafening” meaning silence is indeed an answer, but this assumes your observation to be correct which it is not.

This is not even an attempt at addressing the issue.

Christ’s response is that Thomas did believe, verse 29.

Nice try! What did Thomas believe verse 29? That Jesus had risen. Christ's response here was actually sadness that Thomas had to see physical proof in order to believe in his resurrection.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not inconsistent with Christ’s saying in John 17:3. The only view with makes Christ acceptance of Thomas statement a lie would be to assume Christ is not God, the same thing the Jews prosecuted Him with the charge of blasphemy, which if I’m not mistaken is your view. In answer to your question the truth lies in the doctrine of the Trinity, which honors Thomas’ expression and Christ’s acceptance of his expression as well as Christ’s statement in John 17:3, thanks for asking.

How can the doctrine of the trinity be consistent with John 17:3? Jesus clearly says the Father is the only true God. In other words the Son cannot also be the true God, if words have meaning .
...I would like to see your explanation of 17:3 to fit the trinity doctrine. Go on make a fool of yourself, explain how 17:3 is not inconsistent with the trinity doctrine. ...I'm gonna sit back and have a big laugh .:lol:

best wishes

Pythagoras

April 22nd 2006, 10:33 AM

Hi Sparkey,

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?

That's right Genius. Same way the trinitairan link I furnished mantains it's trinity aligns perfectly with the Athanasian creed.

You also claimed that the Eastern Orthodox church disagreed with the Western/Roman Churches definition, but that is not true either. There are some slight variances on how each defines the relationship between the Father/Son/HolySpirit but all orthodox Christians agree (western and eastern) on the basic definition of the trinity, that there is only one God and that he is revealed in three persons, who coexist with each other and are NOT one person playing roles, or three beings/gods.

You say it's not true that the Eastern Orthodox church disagrees with the Western church but in the very next sentence you say they disagree to a slight degree. As usual you're speaking from both sides of your mouth. What you term slight variances are actually irreconcilable differences between east and west . For instance, the Nicean and his clique have been convicted by many in the west of bodering on tritheism, just as you also accuse the link I furnished(an orthodox perspective of the trinity) of the same.

Go do your homework Sparkey . You're beginning to bore me .

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 22nd 2006, 10:58 AM

Hi Paul,

1st it isn’t a modified theory, second I’ve already shown, John 1:18, which says Christ is the Only begotten God. Additionally I’ve beaten you unmercifully on the Mormon thread validating my view of the Jewish paradigm and the implications of Christ’s claim.

You're frustrating to deal with. I hesitate to call you stupid because Christ commanded us not to call anyone stupid. But I can barely contain myself. God forgive me.

Paul, if you assume the very premise you’re trying to prove, you are “begging the question.” This fallacy is also known as “arguing in a circle,” or “circular reasoning.” The purpose of deductive reasoning is to get from one point in an argument (the premise) to another (the conclusion) in a logical manner. But a circular argument does not allow this progression. If the premise or beginning of the argument is identical to its conclusion, the argument doubles back on itself and becomes barren. Do you understand? You're begging the question by using your trinitarian eisegesis a la John 1:18 to show only begotten son of God means God in Jewish paradigms.

I've furnished you a Jewish source, the Jewish Encyclopedia , to show that only begotten son of God does not mean God, not my own interpretation of John 1:18. Present proof such as I have or hold your peace.

best wishes,

PaulT

April 22nd 2006, 11:37 AM

Hello Mickiel,

Thank you for your response.

Greetings Paul,

I understand. But don't get me wrong, If and when I see Christ, I will bend to my knees to him, and bow to him in complette submission, no doubt in my mind about that. Peace then, Mickiel.

It is not my intention to be rude, and if you take the following question as rude I apologize, but nevertheless I am compelled to ask you the following. If you deny who He is during this life how do you know you will not receive the same greeting the Pharisees will receive, Matt 7:23?

I just do not see him as God, I see him as the Son of God. I see Jesus, like his Father sees him. The Father God does not view Jesus as being God himself. Jesus always spoke of not giving himself Glory. Wouldn't you think that if someone claimed to be God, that certainly can be interpited as them giving themselves Glory.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I think it a bit problematic that you see Christ the same way God the Father sees Him. 1st the Father has called the Son God, 2nd your perspective is that of a created being, God’s thoughts are infinitely superior to our thoughts therefore making it impossible for man to fully grasp/understand what God is. We only know what has been revealed to us about God, there are still elements of God that we cannot comprehend or fully understand. It would seem your presupposition is that those passages that clearly equate Christ with God the Father are not God the Father’s thoughts.

Regarding your question, I’m not sure I follow. Christ’s function was to express the Glory of God to man. As I’ve previously said, a difference in function does not equate to and inferiority in nature.

I agree with you that Just because one views Christ as God, that doesnot mean they disrespect God the Father. Certainly God himself takes no anger in not being reconized by humanity, neither would he be angry if we view him or Christ in inncorrect manners. Without his help, we couldnot anyway. I myself hold no issue with anyone for whatever they believe, I see in you belief, I honor that. I simply view things differently than you.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I think I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day, there is truth. If we deny the Son, which would seem to indicate the what of Him as well as the who of Him, then we also deny the Father. This is truth, and I don’t believe it is accurate to assume a denial of the what of Christ will go unnoticed.

I don’t follow you statement that God takes no anger in not being recognized by humanity. The wrath of God was poured out on Christ to rectify humanities lack of recognition of God.

The real issue is, is Jesus a God. The Father said he is God, and there is no other Gods. The Father said He is God and beside him there is no other God, and Jesus was sitting next to him when he Spoke this. I believe in what the Father has said, others tend to believe in the few biblical writers who called Jesus a God. I understand that.

Peace then, Mickiel.

Truly this is the issue, the same issue the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy over. If there are no other “Gods” beside the Father how is it the Father called Christ God? If your answer is the same as that of Pythagoras, we need not go there because clearly Heb 1:8 is an explanation of Ps 45:6,7. Again, if both Christ and the Father are God, yet we know there is only one God, how do we solve this apparent dilemma?

Jesus is the Son of A God, does that make him a God, not according to the Father God. Once the Father has Spoken something, it does not matter what men speak on it. I am convinced by the Father, that is all the explination I will ever need. I know that Next to God, Jesus is the most powerful, Glorious, Holy Being Alive. If I find out he is a God, it won't bother me none. But I am like you. simply posting what I see. I cannot see all of what Jesus is, or the Holy Spirit, but I can see a little of what they are not.

I think you meant to say Jesus is the Son of God, not “A” God. I understand your view, the issue for you is that this view cuts out so much Scripture on the who and what of God, the who and what of Christ. If you find out that you have been denying Christ all this time, how do you not expect to receive the same reception as those Christ spoke of in Matt chapter 7?

Much language is involved. What does God mean, what does Lord mean? What does it mean if a biblical writer calls Jesus God, or just records someonelse calling Jesus their God, does that mean he is? I'm not really sure, but I am open to learning.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I appreciate your openness and questions. I trust I have not offended you, if I have, I truly apologize. God is the creator who is far, far, far above our thoughts. God has revealed Himself through 3 distinct Personalities who are coequal and coeternal. How this works I don’t know, but then me being a created man, understand that I will never fully comprehend God, after all I’m the clay and He is the Potter. I just bow to the teaching of His revealed Word.

Regards,

Paul

PaulT

April 22nd 2006, 11:55 AM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

You're frustrating to deal with. I hesitate to call you stupid because Christ commanded us not to call anyone stupid. But I can barely contain myself. God forgive me.

best wishes,

Is this your attempt at maintaining a façade of reformation? Nevertheless, I find you as well very frustrating to deal with due to your penchant for never answering the question but rather addressing the question with another question.

Hi Paul,

Paul, if you assume the very premise you’re trying to prove, you are “begging the question.” This fallacy is also known as “arguing in a circle,” or “circular reasoning.” The purpose of deductive reasoning is to get from one point in an argument (the premise) to another (the conclusion) in a logical manner. But a circular argument does not allow this progression. If the premise or beginning of the argument is identical to its conclusion, the argument doubles back on itself and becomes barren. Do you understand? You're begging the question by using your trinitarian eisegesis a la John 1:18 to show only begotten son of God means God in Jewish paradigms.

best wishes,

Thank you for the lesson in “begging the question” but I believe I’ve established a basis for all of my conclusions. The translation of John 1:18 is not eisesgesis but rather a legitimate translation of the passage, further more it makes complete sense given that John starts off in John 1:1B by saying the same thing he concludes with in John 1:18.

Perhaps, if you engaged in a dialogue where in you answer questions and deal with the ramifications of your ludicrous arguments you would find your suggestion that my argumentation is circular, would evaporate. However, this fact which is not lost on me is why you continue to spray false accusations, you recognize if you have to deal with the facts of the matter you will end up capitulating like you did on the Mormon thread.

Hi Paul,

I've furnished you a Jewish source, the Jewish Encyclopedia , to show that only begotten son of God does not mean God, not my own interpretation of John 1:18. Present proof such as I have or hold your peace.

best wishes,

And I have rebutted your source, IOW blown your evidence out of the water, deal with the rebuttal and the evidence I provided, answer the questions.

Regards,

Paul

PaulT

April 22nd 2006, 12:26 PM

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

This is not even an attempt at addressing the issue.

Your ignorance does not mean that my response did not address the issue, it just indicates you don’t have an understanding that silence can very well be an answer.

Hi Paul,

Nice try! What did Thomas believe verse 29? That Jesus had risen. Christ's response here was actually sadness that Thomas had to see physical proof in order to believe in his resurrection.

best wishes

What Thomas believed is not hidden in the passage he said, “my Lord and my God”. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. Additionally what is not lost on most, expect apparently you, is that this statement, which is not duplicated in the Synotpic Gospels, is at the end of the same Gospel that declares Christ God in the 1st chapter. You will note that this is a literary style of reinforcing your message called “book ends”.

How can the doctrine of the trinity be consistent with John 17:3? Jesus clearly says the Father is the only true God. In other words the Son cannot also be the true God, if words have meaning .

...I would like to see your explanation of 17:3 to fit the trinity doctrine. Go on make a fool of yourself, explain how 17:3 is not inconsistent with the trinity doctrine. ...I'm gonna sit back and have a big laugh .

best wishes

The doctrine of the Trinity says God is the ONE TRUE GOD, not partially God or multiple Gods. The only folks laughing are those who realize how ridiculous my answer made you look. I think Sparko is right, you really don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Regards,

Paul

Pythagoras

April 22nd 2006, 05:38 PM

Hi Paul,

The doctrine of the Trinity says God is the ONE TRUE GOD, not partially God or multiple Gods. The only folks laughing are those who realize how ridiculous my answer made you look. I think Sparko is right, you really don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nice try.

The doctrine of the trinity says the Father is true God, the Son is true God, the Holy Spirit is true God , all three persons are true God, with these three persons being one triune God. . But Jesus says only the Father is true God, which directly contradicts the trinity doctrine.

best wishes

Pythagoras

April 22nd 2006, 05:40 PM

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Is this your attempt at maintaining a façade of reformation? Nevertheless, I find you as well very frustrating to deal with due to your penchant for never answering the question but rather addressing the question with another question.

Thank you for the lesson in “begging the question” but I believe I’ve established a basis for all of my conclusions. The translation of John 1:18 is not eisesgesis but rather a legitimate translation of the passage, further more it makes complete sense given that John starts off in John 1:1B by saying the same thing he concludes with in John 1:18.

Perhaps, if you engaged in a dialogue where in you answer questions and deal with the ramifications of your ludicrous arguments you would find your suggestion that my argumentation is circular, would evaporate. However, this fact which is not lost on me is why you continue to spray false accusations, you recognize if you have to deal with the facts of the matter you will end up capitulating like you did on the Mormon thread.

And I have rebutted your source, IOW blown your evidence out of the water, deal with the rebuttal and the evidence I provided, answer the questions.

Regards,

Paul

It's obvious by now that you don't a shred of evidence that in Jewish paradigms only begotten son of God, let alone son of God , means God.

best wishes,

apostoli

April 22nd 2006, 07:22 PM

Hello PaulT,

Forgive my intrusion. But from a trinitarian view there are a couple of errors in your post to Mickiel regarding John 20:28 that should be clarified.

John begins his Gospel by explaining the Word of God, is indeed GodActually John 1:1 doesn't call the Logos God, the meaning in Greek basically says whatever you conceive God as, the Logos is. The NEB has "what God was, the word was".

You might say, that is the same thing but this is the basis of the "homoosian" vs "homoios" debate throughout the 4th century. Arius himself believed in what he called the triad and believed Jesus to be God, but he thought the Son was made from nothing and not begotten of the Father.

just like His name which means God with us.Jesus means YHWH is salvation. Immanuel means God with us, which is an appellation that would be applied. We get Jesus from the latin, the closest English equivalent of the actual Aramiac/Hebrew name is Joshua.

Of interest, regarding the archangel Michael, his name means - who is like God.

John then closes his book by giving us Thomas observation that indeed Christ is both Lord and God. Clearly John is sending us a message.In the end of the book, superceding the account of Thomas, John makes his message very clear "these [things] are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

The significance of this Sonship. That the only begotten Son was sent, is highlighted in 1 John 4:9 & 5:20.

In theological trinitarianism, Jesus is not God himself, but the true Son of of the Father, begotten in the ousia of the Father.

To comprehend the phrase "three persons one being" one has to understand what the Greek word ousia indicates. Ousia has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides. Ousia is the feminine present participle of the verb `to be'; it has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated `being' or `beingness'. Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.
http://www.formalontology.it/substance.htm

Now I'm sure someone will do some homework and retort God is not a species. Indeed that is true, in philosophy God cannot be thought of as consisting as any type of aggregate - including his qualities and works. But in faith, that is the only way, via the scriptures we conceive and perceive God. On the weight of scripture, believing in the pre-existence of the Son/Logos and believing he become flesh, dwelt amongst us and was caused to be our Christ, the scriptures attribute to the Son those things we conceive and perceive of God. Arius and the Homoosians at least agreed on this point.

All the best

ps: Py, at one time, and I assume still holds, a position which, in polite society, we should respect seems. However, imo, Pys opinion seems very close to that held by Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, mid 3rd century).

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Paul.S denied that the Son/Christ had pre-existence. Paul.S believed that the Son/Logos is without hypostasis, being merely the wisdom and science of God, which is in Him as reason is in a man. As for the Son/Christ: The Logos as Wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus and worked in Him as inspiration, teaching Him and being with Him, and was united with Him not substantially (or essentially, ousiodos), but qualitatively (kata poioteta).

Imo, it is rather futile to use catechal argument with anyone coming from such an angle - there is little likely hood, anyone can persuade such a one that the Trinity, either economic or ontological is scriptural truth, let alone Jesus is of the essence and nature of God. (Heb 1:3)

mickiel

April 23rd 2006, 01:44 AM

[color=black]I appreciate your openness and questions. I trust I have not offended you, if I have, I truly apologize. God is the creator who is far, far, far above our thoughts. God has revealed Himself through 3 distinct Personalities who are coequal and coeternal. How this works I don’t know, but then me being a created man, understand that I will never fully comprehend God, after all I’m the clay and He is the Potter. I just bow to the teaching of His revealed Word.

Regards,

Paul

Greetings Paul,

I am not offended in any manner. I understand differently than you. In John 14:28, Jesus plainly states that the Father is Greater than he is, I see no co-equal in that. Not at all, Jesus said it because he foreknew of this effort to make him equal to God would be made by men. In 15:20, Jesus stated that the servant is not greater than his Lord. Do I need to prove that Christ is the servant of his Father? I mean I can do that, but I would hope that at the least, that is understood. Jesus came to earth because he was sent by God, 1John 4:14, to do the Fathers will, not his own, John 8:42. There is no co-equal in this. These verses, these very statements of Christ convince me as to how to believe. What men teach is meaningless to me.

Peace then, Mickiel.

alam

April 23rd 2006, 04:57 AM

Hello Paul,

I’m not sure I understand your point.

It was this statement from the TDNT ("Μονογενής", vol. IV, 737-741, Büchsel),

"[μονογενής θεός] can only mean "an only-begotten God'; to render "an only-begotten, one who is God," is an exegetical invention" (above (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1458525&postcount=129)).

When the Son is called a μονογενής θεός, where μονογενής modifies the noun θεός, μονογενής to that extent describes the Son as θεός.

Presumably μονογενής does not describe the Father as θεός. However, if They were the same θεός, then the one would not differ from the other as θεός in any respect. To the extent They differ in this way, they are not the same θεός.

At least, this seems to be the reasoning behind the TDNT calling the reading of μονογενής θεός a "weakening of monotheism". I figure it is also why many versions try to split the expression by translating μονογενής as substantive, so that instead of a μονογενής θεός, we have [someone] who is both θεός and a μονογενής.

"God the One and Only" (NIV)

"The only Son, who is truly God" (CEV)

"the only One, who is God" (ESV ftn.)

"it is an only Son, God" (NRSV ftn.)

This is the thing the TDNT calls "an exegetical invention". An adjective with a noun of the same case, gender, and number is normally understood to modify that noun. This is the case in John's parallel expressions where μονογενής modifies υιός (Son), John 3:16,18.

John’s prologue begins by explaining God and who the Word was and is. Raymond Brown says the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John is that, “They, (speaking of the Synoptic Gospels) move the story of Jesus back to his conception, but John’s poetic opening takes it back before creation” Within this prologue john identifies God and 2 distinct Persons, the Father and the Word, aka Begotten aka Son.

No problem there.

It seems to me the issue in the NASB translation of John 1:18 isn’t speaking to the “Being” of the only “Begotten” but rather the Person.

Perhaps there is an analogy between the Bible's use of the words for "God" and its use of the Hebrew word "Adam," which, according to Gesenius, can mean "the first man made", "a man" or "any one", or "the human race". As individual persons, two human beings are not the same Adam (man), but as respects their nature, they are both instances of Adam (humanity).

Other translations of John 1:18 refer to the “Begotten” as the “One and Only”, (NIV), “only Son” (NRSV), “only begotten Son” (KJV).

There is some dispute over the original wording of John 1:18. The KJV translates from the Textus Receptus' ο μονογενής υιός (the only-begotten Son), not the expression μονογενής θεός.

In respect of the versions which neglect to translate the -γενής suffix, the same article from TDNT states:

"In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is monogenes as the only begotten....

It is not wholly clear whether μονογενής in Jn. denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it probably does, Jn. calls Jesus ο γεννηθείς εκ του θεου 1 Jn. 5:18. Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipient of God's love. It is to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus. For this reason μονογενής probably includes also begetting by God" (ibid. 741).

Justin Martyr understood "μονογενής" to denote the generation.

"For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten (μονογενής) of the Father of all things, being begotten (γεγενημένος) in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs" (Dial. Tryph. 105 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm)).

Hopefully that clears up what my point was. If it doesn't let me know.

Therefore, this isn’t violating the law of non-contradiction, because “Begotten” is identifying a unique characteristic of one of the Persons of God, not describing the “Being” of the Begotten.

If those other readings are correct, you may be right. But my earlier post had a particular focus: the relevance of the reading μονογενής θεός, specifically as translated by the NASB, to the question posed in the thread title. Whether the Trinity itself violates non-contradiction, is not something I can discuss at this time.

Btw- sorry for the late response.

Regards,

Pythagoras

April 23rd 2006, 04:10 PM

Greetings apostoli,

Peace in Christ.

However, imo, Pys opinion seems very close to that held by Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, mid 3rd century).

Yo're sounding like the priest Malchion. Where's the substance in your accusations?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Paul.S denied that the Son/Christ had pre-existence.

Not exactly. He believed Jesus was two persons, only one without pre-existence!. Perhaps alam could verify or amend this. I certainly do not hold to the notion that there are two persons in Christ Jesus, which Paul of Samasota did. . .

Paul.S believed that the Son/Logos is without hypostasis, being merely the wisdom and science of God, which is in Him as reason is in a man.

Paul's doctrine is in some fundamental ways close to the dynamistic Monarchiansim of Theodotus. Mine isn't in the least. I also do not belive the Logos is God's Wisdom.

As for the Son/Christ: The Logos as Wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus and worked in Him as inspiration, teaching Him and being with Him, and was united with Him not substantially (or essentially, ousiodos), but qualitatively (kata poioteta).

I believe nothing of the sort.

Imo, it is rather futile to use catechal argument with anyone coming from such an angle - there is little likely hood, anyone can persuade such a one that the Trinity, either economic or ontological is scriptural truth, let alone Jesus is of the essence and nature of God. (Heb 1:3)

Scripture does not teach the trinity. Therefore I cannot accept it . Nothing personal.

P.S. Immanuel is a theophoric name , God with us, and does not mean the one in possession of such a name is God.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 23rd 2006, 04:24 PM

alam

April 23rd 2006, 07:43 PM

Greetings Alam,

God bless you richly.

Two brothers and their close friend, the Cappadocian fathers, took it unto themselves to preserve Nicene orthodoxy. These three, adhering to the official definition of the trinitarian creed, emerged a doctrine of the trinity which tethered on tritheism , according to many trinitarians in the west . Could you please, at your leisure, furnish examples of western trinitarians who accused the Cappadocians, and indeed the whole eastern church of tritheism? And if possible, the eastern church leaders who branded the westerners as thinly disguised modalists.

Greetings Pythagoras,

Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/epitomes.html), considered the Western filioquist view 'semi-Sabellian'. The following link, Excerpts from The Orthodox Church, by Kallistos Ware (http://www.aroundomaha.com/sschool/Orthodox_Church_Worship.html), explains some of the problems the EO see with the western view. "But western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father to the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn, or rather some semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102, 289B)."

The Cappadocians themselves are considered saints and their teachings orthodox by the Catholic church. The following link explains the worries a Western adherent (in this case Paul L. Owen) might have about the eastern view: "...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. Furthermore, by making the one ousia which is shared by the three persons abstract, and locating it in the person of the Father, the Eastern view confuses divine substance (Deity) with divine nature (Divinity), and hence leaves the door open to tritheism" (Reflections on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Part 2 (http://www.irr.org/mit/trinity2.html)).

In the West something closer to the Cappadocian view has gained ground under the name 'social trinitarianism.' There is much discussion on it online, for and against. Here is a criticism of that view by Michael C. Rea (http://www.nd.edu/~mrea/Online%20Papers/Polytheism%20and%20Christian%20Belief%20_revisedfinal_.pdf), which recently appeared in The Journal of Theological Studies (http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/1/133).

Hope this helps. God bless

Pythagoras

April 23rd 2006, 08:16 PM

Hi alam,

That greatly helped. Thanks . I hope Sparkey begins to understand now....

The peace of Christ, alam,

apostoli

April 23rd 2006, 10:35 PM

Greetings Pythagoras,

Peace.

I apologise if I have misrepresented you.

I've always been confused what your actual belief is. Knowing only that you are dead against the trinity. The operative words in my post were "imo, Pys opinion seems. Not worth a grain of salt unless substantiated. And so it has proved as you have corrected me.

In an earlier discussion you had questioned the "pre-existence of the Son". So I admit to various speculations. Though I vaguely remember that you said to Alam, you are open on the question.

Thanks for your clarification.

Even the Gregories and Basil had their disagreements. Friendship can take many forms, so I hope we remain friends.

All the best.

Pythagoras

April 23rd 2006, 11:19 PM

Sparkey re-visited:

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?

"In what way" he asks in all earnesty? He doesn't even comprehend how his trinity is seen to be modalistic in the eyes of the eastern church!:sigh:

"The filioque leads either to ditheism or to semi-Sabellianism (Sabellius, a heretic of the second century, regarded Father, Son, and Spirit not as three distinct persons, but simply as varying ‘modes’ or ‘aspects’ of the deity). If the Son as well as the Father is an arche, a principle or source of Godhead, are there then (the Orthodox asked) two independent sources, two separate principles in the Trinity? Obviously not, since this would be tantamount to belief in two Gods; and so the Reunion Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-1439) were most careful to state that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son ‘as from one principle,’ tanquam ex (or ab) uno principio. From the Orthodox point of view, however, this is equally objectionable: ditheism is avoided, but the persons of Father and Son are merged and confused. The Cappadocians regarded the ‘monarchy’ as the distinctive characteristic of the Father: He alone is a principle or arche within the Trinity. But western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father to the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn, or rather some semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102, 289B)."

You also claimed that the Eastern Orthodox church disagreed with the Western/Roman Churches definition, but that is not true either. There are some slight variances on how each defines the relationship between the Father/Son/HolySpirit but all orthodox Christians agree (western and eastern) on the basic definition of the trinity, that there is only one God and that he is revealed in three persons, who coexist with each other and are NOT one person playing roles, or three beings/gods.

As I mentioned in an earlier post the differences between east and west are not trivial. But Sparkey disagrees. It is air-headed comments like these that lead me to the conclusion that Sparkey doesn't know what he's talking about. Here again is some food for thought from the EO link:

"Yet there is one point in the doctrine of God the Trinity over which east and west part company — the filioque. We have already seen how decisive a part this one word played in the unhappy fragmentation of Christendom. But granted that the filioque is important historically, does it really matter from a theological point of view? Many people today — not excluding many Orthodox — find the whole dispute so technical and obscure that they are tempted to dismiss it as utterly trivial. From the viewpoint of traditional Orthodox theology there can be but one rejoinder to this: technical and obscure it undoubtedly is, like most questions of Trinitarian theology; but it is not trivial."

best wishes,

ref:

http://www.aroundomaha.com/sschool/Orthodox_Church_Worship.html (http://www.aroundomaha.com/sschool/Orthodox_Church_Worship.html)

Sparko

April 23rd 2006, 11:38 PM

Pythagoras, would you like me to get some eastern orthodox members to come on here and tell you that you are full of crap and that my beliefs are not modalistic?

You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and Son is not something I have a staked opionion on. so exactly WHAT is your reason for calling me a modalist?

HMMMMMM??????

Your strawman is smoking a great deal. Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time seeing the truth?

Pythagoras

April 24th 2006, 12:08 AM

Even the Gregories and Basil had their disagreements. Friendship can take many forms, so I hope we remain friends.

All the best.

Ofcourse apostoli.

God bless,

Pythagoras

April 24th 2006, 12:23 AM

Hi sparkey,

Pythagoras, would you like me to get some eastern orthodox members to come on here and tell you that you are full of crap and that my beliefs are not modalistic?

Bring them on. But if they are like you what's the use? Your IQ is at the same level as Paul. Look it. Photius, the patriatch of Constantinople regarded the Western trinity to be Sabelliastic. Do you really think I'm going to give more weight to your air head orthodox members than to his opinion ?

You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque.

It's filioque not filoque genius. If you're a Baptist or in any way alligned to the Western trinitarian perspective, then you hold to the filioque, if you don't then you cannot truthfully call yourself a baptist or a western trinitarian .You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again, which is your forte. If you have no comment regarding the filioque then you are neither here nor there and have an incomplete trinitarian doctrine.

In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it.

Typical.

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and Son is not something I have a staked opionion on. so exactly WHAT is your reason for calling me a modalist?

What trinitarian denomination do you belong to?

Your strawman is smoking a great deal. Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time seeing the truth?

Empty .

best wishes,

Pythagoras

April 24th 2006, 02:24 AM

Oh,...Lest I forget :

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?...

.

(a) The SBC statement and definition of the trinity has a position on the filioque clause. Tell us what it is!

(b) Do you believe in the Nicene creed? Yes or No?

(c) Do you believe in the Athanasian creed? Yes or No?

best wishes,

Sparko

April 24th 2006, 10:24 AM

Oh,...Lest I forget :

(a) The SBC statement and definition of the trinity has a position on the filioque clause. Tell us what it is!

(b) Do you believe in the Nicene creed? Yes or No?

(c) Do you believe in the Athanasian creed? Yes or No?

best wishes,

OK Pythagoras, just to stop this rabbit trail, I will state that I agree with the SBC statement of faith and accept the filioque. I will admit that in the past and perhaps in the present, some Eastern Orthodox might take that as being partially modalistic. But they were/are WRONG.

I categorically deny believing that God is modalistic in any way. The three persons in the trinity are distinct and exist simultaneously as three persons who are one God. At no point does the Father become the Son, or the Holy Spirit. The Father is not playing roles.

Now you KNOW my position and you know I am not modalistic. If you can't accept my word then you are nothing more than a troll who has no desire to have a decent conversation and just wants to play word games and burn straw men. If you do accept my word on what I believe then can we continue on with a debate about the trinity and Christ's diety?

The choice is yours.

Pythagoras

April 24th 2006, 08:09 PM

Hi Sparkey,

OK Pythagoras, just to stop this rabbit trail, I will state that I agree with the SBC statement of faith and accept the filioque..

Not two posts ago you said the following:

"You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it." :lol:

You need to stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

best wishes,

Sparko

April 24th 2006, 09:12 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Not two posts ago you said the following:

"You still have not said nor proven how my stated beliefs are modalistic since I never made any commitment in my posts whatsoever regarding the filoque. In fact I stated that I have no opinion regarding it." :lol:

You need to stop speaking from both sides of your mouth.

best wishes,

So your answer is to just keep trolling instead of having an honest discussion?

I thought so. You just want to troll. Let me try once again.

It SEEMS to me that you can't meet me head on in a discussion about the trinity so you just try to mischaracterize what I believe and attack that. Now perhaps that is not what you are doing, but it seems so to me.

That is why I am trying to get me and you to agree on a common definition of the trinity so that we can then move on to discussing it. Once we have an agreed upon definition then we have the common ground we need to actually debate the topic. For that purpose I said I agree with the SBC definition of the trinity. It explains the trinity in clear and consise language and I accept it as stated.

Do you accept it as a valid definition of the trinity for the purposes of discussion?

Let me repeat it:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.
It defines what the trinity is, who the persons are and it refutes modalism and tritheism.

If you will accept that as the definition of the trinity, then we can continue.

I agree with its statements. That is how I think of the trinity. I assume the filioque statment is the word "coequal" in your mind. I definitely think they are coequal in power and nature. So if that is the filioque then yes I agree with it. I see nothing about the holy spirit proceeding from both the father and son though.

I am really trying to be civil and have a decent discussion with you pythagoras. But you just keep being nasty and beating around the bush.

If you want to have a discussion about the trinity with trinitarians, here is your chance. If not, then don't expect anyone to take your accusations and arguments seriously in the future.

Its your choice.