PDA

View Full Version : Pentecost: on 37818's self condemnation in an error of his view.



37818
07-25-2015, 07:47 PM
Quick clarification, there was a time that I thought 37818 held views compatible with orthodox Christianity, but in his further attempts to explain himself he is condemning himself, . . .Could you give a specific? Where you perceive an explanation I gave is self condemning. I need to here it from a fresh view. Thanks.

Pentecost
07-25-2015, 08:58 PM
Could you give a specific? Where you perceive an explanation I gave is self condemning. I need to here it from a fresh view. Thanks.

Of course 37818, I will go through to find the precise comment I had in mind, I recall being rather shocked at it, and I know that in the process of crafting a post and the editing involved perhaps you wrote something unlike what you believe, and if I fail to find the comment, or one like it, or if upon closer examination I find that I misread it, I will of course apologize.

Please allow me time to find it.

37818
07-26-2015, 08:56 AM
Of course 37818, I will go through to find the precise comment I had in mind, I recall being rather shocked at it, and I know that in the process of crafting a post and the editing involved perhaps you wrote something unlike what you believe, and if I fail to find the comment, or one like it, or if upon closer examination I find that I misread it, I will of course apologize.

Please allow me time to find it.Thank you.

Pentecost
07-31-2015, 03:51 PM
37818, I owe you an apology. I have gone back to all the threads that I could have read, and did not find it. I made a mistake at some point, and so I apologize for condemning you without evidence. I revert to my previous position: you have unusual beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge hold to the fundamentals in an orthodox manner, and it should not be charity for me to call you my brother.

apostoli
08-01-2015, 12:50 PM
Hi Pentecost,


There was a time that I thought 37818 held views compatible with orthodox Christianity, but in his further attempts to explain himself he is condemning himself..
You may have encountered 37818 on the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" where he was confronted by numerous people for proposing inherently unorthodox views (if not heretical views).

I entered the conversation at post #194 after all but OBP had ceased conversing with him, and finally OBP had had enough of 37818's outlandish statements. OBP concludes post #191 with "Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something".

I just did a very quick browse of the thread only going back to page 11. Imo, Calvin' would have had him burnt at the stake for some of the statements he makes...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6110-Derail-from-Orthodox-Anathema-Service-on-Christology/page11

Pentecost
08-01-2015, 01:30 PM
Hi Pentecost,


You may have encountered 37818 on the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" where he was confronted by numerous people for proposing inherently unorthodox views (if not heretical views).

I entered the conversation at post #194 after all but OBP had ceased conversing with him, and finally OBP had had enough of 37818's outlandish statements. OBP concludes post #191 with "Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something".

I just did a very quick browse of the thread only going back to page 11. Imo, Calvin' would have had him burnt at the stake for some of the statements he makes...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6110-Derail-from-Orthodox-Anathema-Service-on-Christology/page11

I was in that thread too, long before you. I found fault with his beliefs, but by the time I had left I did not consider him an out and out heretic. I do not hold to his beliefs, and I believe that almost anyone he taught them to would wind up a heretic, but he himself had not crossed that boundary last time I checked.

apostoli
08-01-2015, 03:06 PM
I was in that thread too, long before you. I found fault with his beliefs, but by the time I had left I did not consider him an out and out heretic. I do not hold to his beliefs, and I believe that almost anyone he taught them to would wind up a heretic, but he himself had not crossed that boundary last time I checked.I must admit at times he appears to say the right words, but then he slips up...Have a read through my latest conversations with him, they are an eye opener...

Here is a very short list of his unorthodox ideas...

1. The Father, Son and Spirit have always been Father, Son and Spirit (this is an iffy, sounds OK but what he says and means are two different things. He denies the differentiation of the three: Father=unbegotten, Son=begotton of the Father and Spirit=proceeds from the Father alone ).

2. The Father, Son and Spirit are each unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves).

3. The Son was not begotten of the Father. The Father is not the Son's source and cause - the Son is!

4. The Spirit does not proceed from the Father (?). The Father is not the Spirit's source and cause - the Spirit is (?). Not sure what he believes regarding the person of the Spirit.

5. He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.

I'll leave it there for now...
_________________

I figure I am a fairly open guy: I've welcomed into my home and sat with many unorthodox people discussing each others understanding of scripture (eg: JWs, Christadelphians, SDAs, Open Brethren, Mormons & even Muslims (my neighbours - lovely couple. Muslims await the coming of Isa (Jesus) just like us.)). I must admit chatting with 37818 has been a unique experience, but then most "christians" I've talked with have had a good handle on the scriptures...

37818
08-02-2015, 01:36 PM
I must admit at times he appears to say the right words, but then he slips up...Have a read through my latest conversations with him, they are an eye opener...

Here is a very short list of his unorthodox ideas...

1. The Father, Son and Spirit have always been Father, Son and Spirit (this is an iffy, sounds OK but what he says and means are two different things. He denies the differentiation of the three: Father=unbegotten, Son=begotton of the Father and Spirit=proceeds from the Father alone ). You do not understand my view. God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One God. That whosoever/whatsoever is not Self-Existent[Yahweh] is not God.


2. The Father, Son and Spirit are each unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves).False. There is only One Yahweh who is the only God.


3. The Son was not begotten of the Father. The Father is not the Son's source and cause - the Son is!Again false. God the Father is the Source of the Son. The Son is not caused. The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)



4. The Spirit does not proceed from the Father (?). The Father is not the Spirit's source and cause - the Spirit is (?). Not sure what he believes regarding the person of the Spirit. Who is God is uncaused. God is Spirit (John 4:24, etc).


5. He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.Again, false. It is heresy to say the Son or the Holy Spirit are caused.

apostoli
08-04-2015, 10:30 PM
You do not understand my view.Most here at TheologyWeb don't understand your view! Possibly you need to take a breath, slowly working through your propositions, and aim to build a coherent explanation of your view in words and terms commonly understood.


God is YahwehFrom A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).

In anycase, God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...

A quick background: The Jews have had this unfathomable superstition about using the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14). These days some religious Jews won't even write or say the word "God" (they write G-D instead). Likewise, they won't use the word "Lord" (Adonai) instead they refer to "HaShem" (the name). Somewhere between the 6th & 10th centuries the Masoretes (Jewish scribes) entered the vowel points for "Adonai" whenever they encountered the tetragammaton, this indicated "YHWH" was to be read as "Adonai"="Lord". Also, if "YHWH" appears either before or after the word "Adonai" in the Hebrew text, the Masoretes entered vowel points of "Elohim" to indicate that the word "God" is to be read instead of "YHWH".


God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent.YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". Nobody knows exactly what it means, but whatever its meaning it is reflected in the fact that Moses was to reveal to the Israelites that the one who called himself "ehyeh" = "YHWH" is/was the God of their forefathers (Ex 3:14-16). More than likely it means "ever existing" (especially as the message Moses was to deliver to the Israelites was this is the same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob encountered).

What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).


God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One God.Would you explain to me how it is that there is one God when according to your propositions, there are three persons, each of whom is unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves)? As far as I know, only Modalist/Sabellians would support you, assuming you mean one person (hypostasis/ousia), three distinct faces (treis prosopa=three persons).

Is your "one God" a person? Yes or No? If you answer "No", what is it? If you answer "three persons", please explain in what way, though they be three they be one.


That whosoever/whatsoever is not Self-Existent[Yahweh] is not God.Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".

In anycase, consider Jesus' words to the Jews: "[YHWH] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (Jn 10:34-35; Ps 82:6 cp. Isa 41:23). in scripture "God/god" is used of YHWH, men, idols, Satan etc. The idea doesn't require "self-existence", it is just an appellation.


There is only One Yahweh who is the only God.We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.


God the Father is the Source of the Son. The Son is not caused.You can't have a source without causation.


The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).



Not sure what [37818] believes regarding the person of the Spirit.Who is God is uncaused. God is Spirit (John 4:24, etc).According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan...



He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.It is heresy to say the Son or the Holy Spirit are caused.The RCC,EOC,ROC,OOC etc etc all consider belief that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit a requirement for true Christian belief, it explains the homoousios, and with it how the Father, Son and Spirit are the one God to us.

On scriptural grounds alone all of the mainstream Christian Churches would consider your silliness heretical. Possibly, your main problem is your inability or reluctance to know and understand word meanings. For instance: "cause" does not mean "created" as you seem to want. Atheist are happy to say that the universe has cause but also argue that the universe was not created...

tabibito
08-05-2015, 05:03 AM
Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).
Actually, it states that God created all things through the Son - in both references.
However, Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son he says ... 10
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Proverbs 8:30 is part of a passage which in 8:12 identifies (and anthropmorhises) wisdom as the master-craftsman.

37818
08-05-2015, 07:48 AM
Most here at TheologyWeb don't understand your view! Possibly you need to take a breath, slowly working through your propositions, and aim to build a coherent explanation of your view in words and terms commonly understood.Where is the common ground upon which we agree?



From A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?). I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."



In anycase, God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.



A quick background: The Jews have had this unfathomable superstition about using the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14). These days some religious Jews won't even write or say the word "God" (they write G-D instead). Likewise, they won't use the word "Lord" (Adonai) instead they refer to "HaShem" (the name). Somewhere between the 6th & 10th centuries the Masoretes (Jewish scribes) entered the vowel points for "Adonai" whenever they encountered the tetragammaton, this indicated "YHWH" was to be read as "Adonai"="Lord". Also, if "YHWH" appears either before or after the word "Adonai" in the Hebrew text, the Masoretes entered vowel points of "Elohim" to indicate that the word "God" is to be read instead of "YHWH".More quibbling.


YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

Strong's Dictionary:
. . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.



What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).

My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.







Would you explain to me how it is that there is one God when according to your propositions, there are three persons, each of whom is unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves)? As far as I know, only Modalist/Sabellians would support you, assuming you mean one person (hypostasis/ousia), three distinct faces (treis prosopa=three persons).Again, only the Self-Existent is autotheos. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the Self-Existent God.


Is your "one God" a person? Yes or No? If you answer "No", what is it? If you answer "three persons", please explain in what way, though they be three they be one.Read Van Til on this.
The one God is the Person of the Father. And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father. The explanation is called the Trinity.


Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God. Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God. God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick. Since an uncaused existence needs no God. It's uncaused.



In anycase, consider Jesus' words to the Jews: "[YHWH] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (Jn 10:34-35; Ps 82:6 cp. Isa 41:23). in scripture "God/god" is used of YHWH, men, idols, Satan etc. The idea doesn't require "self-existence", it is just an appellation.The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.




We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.


You can't have a source without causation.Oh. Because you say so.



Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30). Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?



According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan... So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?


The RCC,EOC,ROC,OOC etc etc all consider belief that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit a requirement for true Christian belief, it explains the homoousios, and with it how the Father, Son and Spirit are the one God to us.What is caused is not God.


On scriptural grounds alone all of the mainstream Christian Churches would consider your silliness heretical. Possibly, your main problem is your inability or reluctance to know and understand word meanings. For instance: "cause" does not mean "created" as you seem to want. Atheist are happy to say that the universe has cause but also argue that the universe was not created...The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.

tabibito
08-05-2015, 08:50 AM
Where is the common ground upon which we agree?

I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."

You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.

More quibbling.
I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

Strong's Dictionary:
. . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.



My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.





Again, only the Self-Existent is autotheos. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the Self-Existent God.
Read Van Til on this.
The one God is the Person of the Father. And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father. The explanation is called the Trinity.
No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God. Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God. God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick. Since an uncaused existence needs no God. It's uncaused.

The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.


No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.

Oh. Because you say so.

Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?

So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?
What is caused is not God.

The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.

Nicely stated.

apostoli
08-05-2015, 01:41 PM
Where is the common ground upon which we agree?My first instinct was to reply: we have no common ground, your personal ideas are just too unique. However, wishfully thinking on our conversations, I decided to sus out what we might have agreed upon or might agree on...

1. You say you reject Modalism/Sabellianism. If so then we agree that the Trinity does not entail three prosopa (persons = the actors masks), one hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). Do we agree that God is not a person (hypostasis) but three distinct and ever enduring persons (hypostases)?
2. I assume we agree that the Trinity persists as three distinct hypostases, each of whom possesses an identical ousia (essence). We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality), whereby the Son, having been begotten by the Father derives his ousia (essence) from his Father (cp. Heb 1:3).
3. We have agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit. Do we agree there is one name and three persons, each of whom have the same name? Consider John 17:11 "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one" (NIV).
4. I presume we can agree on most things concerning our salvation.

Well, those are the positives, the negatives would take pages to list...



From A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."As I recall, we agree that the YHWH of the OT, is Jesus of the NT. In that regard, have a read of Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” What is that name? Go back a couple of verses to vs10. The name is Jesus Christ!!! Such fits Phil 2:9 perfectly.

In previous posts you advocate that the one God is YHWH. A.Paul tells us at 1 Cor 8:6 and at Ephesians 4:5-6 that to us there is one God=the Father, and one Lord=the Son. In Acts, all the baptism were performed solely in the name of Jesus. A grand curiousity!!!



God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.You make a huge thing about the name "YahweH", so obviously I'm going to call you out on your premises, and correct your glaring errors.

Imo, the triune God, not being a person, is nameless. Though, from Mt 28:19 I perceive that the three distinct persons of the Trinity each possess the same name, and for simplicity's sake are collectively refered to by the name they have in common. As for the name YHWH: The Spokesman of God=the Memra of God=the Word of God gave his name as "ehyeh"="YHWH" to Moses and tells Moses he is the God of the Israelites forefathers. So this YHWH is the God of the Israelite nation only.



YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."
I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

Strong's Dictionary:
. . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.If nobody knows the correct meaning then every proposed meaning is a guess based on religious bias. Strong's Lexicon is no different. If you do some research you'll find there are as many meanings given as there are books on the subject.

As for proving your views wrong, just read the famous medieval scholar Maimonides, who gives what is considered the most authoritative analysis of the Hebrew. I've quoted him for you numerous times. Here is the link to the relevant book...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

What I find enlightening is your need to run away from the clear text of Exodus 3:14-15, whatever the meaning of YHWH it has to tell the Israelites something about him that would make the Israelites take note, the Jews and nations knew of thousands of "self existing" Gods so that idea would have no significance. However, that he was the very same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob encountered is an attention getter. That is why I perceive the name to mean "ever existing" from Abraham to Moses and beyond.



What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).
My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.That is a lengthy non answer. You could have said that some linguist see the text as a question rather than a statement, but that idea seems to have little to no support these days.

Moses is said to have compiled the first five book of the Bible. So, given he knew the name YHWH we can assume he would have applied it in Genesis for the sake of clarity, especially when relating the patriarchs interaction with God. However, YHWH plainly states the patriarch's didn't know him by the name YHWH. YHWH plainly states the patriarchs called him El Shaddai = God Almighty. Such seems to undermine your previous ideas concerning the name.


The one God is the Person of the Father.Finally, something we can agree upon. Though your statement contradicts your previous ramblings.

And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father.Close enough. Though, you seem to have changed your tune. How are the Son of God and the Holy Spirit God with the Father?


The explanation is called the Trinity.As the saying goes: the devil is in the detail. Do you still insist that the Son and the Spirit are autotheos (God of themselves), or do you now accept the orthodox position that they are God in themselves?



Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".
No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God.Interesting. Jesus tells us he has a God and Father (John 20:17), and A.Paul regularly refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (eg: Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:3). So by your definition. the Son has cause and therefore is not God.


Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God.OK. I am aware that philosophers refer to an "uncaused cause", but I've never encountered the term "uncaused existence". Is it an oriental idea?


God whose Name means "Self-Existent"You have yet to prove YHWH means "self existent". It is just your opinion, there are heaps of scholars that would contest your assertion. So we can ignore that silliness.


God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick.Most people would refer to it as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I've just picked up on something. Here you seem to think God is a single person, which is OK if you mean the Father, but elsewhere you advocate that the three persons, Father, Son & Spirit are that God.


The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.Note the bit I bolded. Have you changed your mind and determined that the Father is exclusively your "uncaused existence".



We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.
No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.Would you show me where in scripture the Father, Son and Spirit are explicitly and collectively named YHWH.



You can't have a source without causation.Oh. Because you say so.Nope! Read any book on causation. Philosophers will tell you that you can have a cause without a source, but you can't have a source without a cause (ie: Of what is the source, the source?).


Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?Nope! It is what you are demanding with your stupidities!!! Your opinions when confronted by what scripture states, ultimately lead to the rejection of the Son as God, as you have just made plainly evident by your assumption regarding what I believe.

My opinion is secured by the teaching of Catholic & Orthodox Christianity. Teachings you have said you reject.



According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan...
So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?Nope! Scripture, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (so do the creeds).


What is caused is not God.Prove it! You keep babbling away with this mantra but offer nothing to support your opinion.


The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be. Your problem is you are stuck with a temporal mind and apparently can only understand the seen world. You are trying to make the word "cause" mean formed, shaped etc, all craftsman type analogies.

Here is a Dictionary definition: ('http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause') Cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.

exists in such a way: We read in scripture that God is love, love has consequences...

apostoli
08-05-2015, 02:06 PM
Hello tabibito,

Whether you be friend or foe, it is reinvigorating to have another voice in this conversation...



The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)
Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).Actually, it states that God created all things through the Son - in both references.So I thought I had said...

If you are quibbling about words:

* The Greek of Hebrews 1:2 has "poieō", the KJV,NKJ,NIV,HCSB,NASB,ASV,DBY,WEB,HNV renders "made" (YLT="make"], whilst the NLT,ESV,NET,RSV renders "created". Amoung other things, "poieō" indicates the author, the cause...

* The Greek of Ephesians 3:9 has "ktizō" which most translations render "create". The lexicon suggests that "ktizō" is probably akin to ktaomai (through the idea of proprietorship in manufacturing).

Like most people, I understand the words "make" and "create" as synonymous.


However, Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son he says ... 10
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.Hebrews 1:10-12 echos Psalm 102:25-27. As an observation: from the Greek "poieō" in Hebrews 1:2 the Father is the author and cause of all things, the architect if you will. The Son is the guy that actually gets his hands dirty.

Consider John 5:19 with John 14:10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner". John 14:10: "the Father who dwells in Me does the works"


Proverbs 8:30 is part of a passage which in 8:12 identifies (and anthropmorhises) wisdom as the master-craftsman.in my experience, both the orthodox and non-orthodox consider Proverbs 8 as speaking of the Son as the Wisdom and Power of God. (1 Cor 1:24).

By my estimation the anthropomorphism of Wisdom begins in verse 1. Who is speaking from verse 1? From verse 12 where we encounter the "I", obviously Wisdom.

A curiosity: In the NKJV vs30 is rendered "Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman...". Compare the KJV which renders "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:..". Most translations take the first rendering, or something like it. The KJV,WEB follow the second rendering. DBY has "Then I was by him his nursling".

tabibito
08-05-2015, 05:55 PM
Hello tabibito,

If you are quibbling about words: I leave that activity to others. However, I do make a distinction between those occasions when "God" is used to denote "the Father", and those when "God" denotes the trinity.


Like most people, I understand the words "make" and "create" as synonymous. likewise "fashion", "craft", "produce", "author" etc. Some of these words are interchangable in almost any context, others only in some contexts.


Hebrews 1:10-12 echos Psalm 102:25-27. As an observation: from the Greek "poieō" in Hebrews 1:2 the Father is the author and cause of all things, the architect if you will. The Son is the guy that actually gets his hands dirty. Again, Hebrews 1:2, continuing from 1:1 states that God (none of the major Koine manuscript groups state "Father") created all things through the Son. Whether "the Father" or the trinity is the more valid interpretation of the word "God" may be a matter of opinion, but I do not read it as "the Father."


Consider John 5:19 with John 14:10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner". John 14:10: "the Father who dwells in Me does the works" This would be Jesus, I believe. The one who had given up all his authority to act as God during his sojourn on Earth as a man. Jesus is also considered to be the author of a couple of things - our salvation and our faith at a minimum. (Hebrews 5:9, 12:2)


in my experience, both the orthodox and non-orthodox consider Proverbs 8 as speaking of the Son as the Wisdom and Power of God. (1 Cor 1:24). Again, opinions will vary. 1 Corinthians 1:30 shows that Christ became for us, wisdom, righteousness and sanctification. IMO Any possible correlation between this and proverbs is weak.


A curiosity: In the NKJV vs30 is rendered "Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman...". Compare the KJV which renders "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:..". Most translations take the first rendering, or something like it. The KJV,WEB follow the second rendering. DBY has "Then I was by him his nursling". Which is why we need to take recourse to the Hebrew and Septuagint. The Hebrew for the meaning, and the Koine for determining the Hebrew interpretation of the statement in context.
The Septuagint leaves no doubt about wisdom being present with the one who was involved in the hands on part of creation.
27 When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him; and when he prepared his throne upon the winds:
28 and when he strengthened the clouds above; and when he secured the fountains of the earth:
29 and when he strengthened the foundations of the earth:
30 I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight; and daily I rejoiced in his presence continually.

apostoli
08-05-2015, 10:45 PM
Again, Hebrews 1:2, continuing from 1:1 states that God (none of the major Koine manuscript groups state "Father") created all things through the Son. Whether "the Father" or the trinity is the more valid interpretation of the word "God" may be a matter of opinion, but I do not read it as "the Father."Imo, Hebrews 1:3 makes it obvious that the Father is in focus (=the Majesty on high). Come to think of it Hebrews 1:2 reference to "by his Son" also makes it obvious.


Jesus is also considered to be the author of a couple of things - our salvation and our faith at a minimum. (Hebrews 5:9, 12:2)Imu, the Father is the primary source and primary cause of our salvation (1 John 4:14 etc). Jesus declares he did not come of his own volition (John 8:42).


The Septuagint leaves no doubt about wisdom being present with the one who was involved in the hands on part of creation.No one argues whether Wisdom was present or not. The experts say the Hebrew and Greek is ambiguous, it might refer to it as a co-worker or it might refer to it as a child. The consensus seems to be master workman/craftsman.

tabibito
08-06-2015, 01:44 AM
Imo, Hebrews 1:3 makes it obvious that the Father is in focus (=the Majesty on high). Come to think of it Hebrews 1:2 reference to "by his Son" also makes it obvious. εν υιω doesn't say "his son" - If you look carefully the translation shows his son. Assuming that is, that the translation marks the interpolation.


Imu, the Father is the primary source and primary cause of our salvation (1 John 4:14 etc). Jesus declares he did not come of his own volition (John 8:42). "own volition" might be inferred from the text, but that would pit it in conflict with Philippians 2:6-8, which shows that Jesus submitted himself - that is, his being sent was, on his part, volitional. This is of course a mere quibble.
But John 4:14 shows that the Father sent his Son, Saviour of the world. Of course, various interpolations in translation ("as", "to be") sort of change that in varying degree, and may be valid - depending on whether the Son was Saviour of the world prior to his conception as a human.

apostoli
08-06-2015, 08:00 AM
εν υιω doesn't say "his son" - If you look carefully the translation shows his son. Assuming that is, that the translation marks the interpolation.I figured you would try that on. Read the Greek fully, "his" is implied, otherwise the text doesn't make sense. The alternative requires the text to read εν o υιω.


"own volition" might be inferred from the text, but that would pit it in conflict with Philippians 2:6-8, which shows that Jesus submitted himself - that is, his being sent was, on his part, volitional. This is of course a mere quibble.Notice the bit I bolded. Subconsciously you admit the facts.


But John 4:14 shows that the Father sent his Son, Saviour of the world. Of course, various interpolations in translation ("as", "to be") sort of change that in varying degree, and may be valid - depending on whether the Son was Saviour of the world prior to his conception as a human.(?) Please expand...

I'm aware Mormons teach (at least the ones I've encountered) that the Son volunteered for the task...So did Satan according to them...

37818
08-08-2015, 09:16 PM
My first instinct was to reply: we have no common ground, your personal ideas are just too unique. However, wishfully thinking on our conversations, I decided to sus out what we might have agreed upon or might agree on...A common ground is to be a basis draw agreement where possible. And where not possible, that common ground might prove to be a tool to persuade in the argument. At the very least help identify the actual differences in understanding.


1. You say you reject Modalism/Sabellianism. If so then we agree that the Trinity does not entail three prosopa (persons = the actors masks), one hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). Do we agree that God is not a person (hypostasis) but three distinct and ever enduring persons (hypostases)?Yes, and on the latter. But I also hold that God can be understood as an individual Person, One Person, referring to the first Person of the the three.


2. I assume we agree that the Trinity persists as three distinct hypostases, each of whom possesses an identical ousia (essence).Yes.
We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality), whereby the Son, having been begotten by the Father derives his ousia (essence) from his Father (cp. Heb 1:3).Only in part. I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father. I find the term "begotten" to be misleading and not used in this way in Holy Scripture, and as a concept lead to the error of Arius.


3. We have agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit. Do we agree there is one name and three persons, each of whom have the same name?Not just a Name, but they are the same YHWH.
Consider John 17:11 "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one" (NIV).Because God is His Father. (compare Isaiah 9:6.) Also 17:5 ". . . the glory which I had with thee before the world was. . . ." Also ". . . I will not give my glory unto another. . . ." -- Isaiah 48:11.


4. I presume we can agree on most things concerning our salvation.I would hope so. You do now posses eternal life? Do you not? 1 John 5:12, 20 (John 17:3). Romans 8:9.


Well, those are the positives, the negatives would take pages to list... As far as I knew: There were only two key points where I differed. The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be the Son. And that the preincarnate Son always had two ousia, one which was always the same as His Father, and the other in which He actually changed when He became human in the incarnation. And that both ousia being why He as the very image of God appearing for God even when He was the preincarnate Son (John 1:18; Genesis 12:7; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15).


As I recall, we agree that the YHWH of the OT, is Jesus of the NT. In that regard, have a read of Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” What is that name? Go back a couple of verses to vs10. The name is Jesus Christ!!! Such fits Phil 2:9 perfectly.That does not negate Isaiah 43:10, 11.


In previous posts you advocate that the one God is YHWH. A.Paul tells us at 1 Cor 8:6 and at Ephesians 4:5-6 that to us there is one God=the Father, and one Lord=the Son. In Acts, all the baptism were performed solely in the name of Jesus. A grand curiousity!!!No. The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.


You make a huge thing about the name "YahweH", so obviously I'm going to call you out on your premises, and correct your glaring errors.

Imo, the triune God, not being a person, is nameless. Though, from Mt 28:19 I perceive that the three distinct persons of the Trinity each possess the same name, and for simplicity's sake are collectively refered to by the name they have in common. As for the name YHWH: The Spokesman of God=the Memra of God=the Word of God gave his name as "ehyeh"="YHWH" to Moses and tells Moses he is the God of the Israelites forefathers. So this YHWH is the God of the Israelite nation only.It was the Son who appeared(John 1:18) and spoke to Moses on behalf the the Father.


If nobody knows the correct meaning then every proposed meaning is a guess based on religious bias. Strong's Lexicon is no different. If you do some research you'll find there are as many meanings given as there are books on the subject.Quote one of your sources. Maybe someone who denies Strong's "self-Existent."


As for proving your views wrong, just read the famous medieval scholar Maimonides, who gives what is considered the most authoritative analysis of the Hebrew. I've quoted him for you numerous times. Here is the link to the relevant book...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htmOK? What did you understand hat he said that contradicts what I believe?



What I find enlightening is your need to run away from the clear text of Exodus 3:14-15, whatever the meaning of YHWH it has to tell the Israelites something about him that would make the Israelites take note, the Jews and nations knew of thousands of "self existing" Gods so that idea would have no significance. :no: Name one of those thousands. just one.


However, that he was the very same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob encountered is an attention getter. That is why I perceive the name to mean "ever existing" from Abraham to Moses and beyond.OK. "ever existing" would also have to be "self-Existent" in order to be "ever Existing." The alternate translation, Strong's dictionary gives is "Eternal." James Moffett, as an example, translated God's Name as "Eternal." That would be of little or no difference to mean the same as "ever Existing."


That is a lengthy non answer. You could have said that some linguist see the text as a question rather than a statement, but that idea seems to have little to no support these days.God spoke His Name to Abraham and Jacob. So to have the text say He did not is wrong. And the interpretations that use that contradictory reading does not make sense to me. You want my long explanation?


Moses is said to have compiled the first five book of the Bible. So, given he knew the name YHWH we can assume he would have applied it in Genesis for the sake of clarity, especially when relating the patriarchs interaction with God. However, YHWH plainly states the patriarch's didn't know him by the name YHWH. YHWH plainly states the patriarchs called him El Shaddai = God Almighty. Such seems to undermine your previous ideas concerning the name.What is self existent needs no God. So if it is not God's Name. God is not God. (John 17:3).



And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father.
Finally, something we can agree upon. Though your statement contradicts your previous ramblings.
Close enough. Though, you seem to have changed your tune. How are the Son of God and the Holy Spirit God with the Father?I've not change my position. Maybe you do not what to understand what I am saying. My answer is the one you want to reject. God is YHWH, the Self-Existent, the uncaused existence (compare Acts 17:28).



As the saying goes: the devil is in the detail. Do you still insist that the Son and the Spirit are autotheos (God of themselves), or do you now accept the orthodox position that they are God in themselves?:no: Only YHWH is autotheos, and there is none else.



Interesting. Jesus tells us he has a God and Father (John 20:17), and A.Paul regularly refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (eg: Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:3).The title "the Lord Jesus Christ" refers to Him as the man. Jesus Christ has two natures (essences). Both the divine and not divine. It is your definition: that the Son was caused and therefore would mean that he would not be God.


OK. I am aware that philosophers refer to an "uncaused cause", but I've never encountered the term "uncaused existence". Is it an oriental idea?No. Existence is presumed by all. We experience an existence in space-time. There is an uncased existence. It, the uncaused existence, is either the identity of God or there is no God. And "uncased cause" has two ousia: Uncaused being eternal. Being a cause temporal. (John 1:1-3.)


You have yet to prove YHWH means "self existent". It is just your opinion, there are heaps of scholars that would contest your assertion. So we can ignore that silliness.Tell you what, you prove your God even exists. My God is the uncaused existence. If God is not the uncaused existence then there is no God. You do have eternal life, right? (1 John 5:9-13; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). I'm not saying you do not. I'm am asking you (2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8;9; 1 John 5:1, 12).




Most people would refer to it as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.Again, understanding Jesus as Lord being the man in His incarnation.


I've just picked up on something. Here you seem to think God is a single person, which is OK if you mean the Father, but elsewhere you advocate that the three persons, Father, Son & Spirit are that God. If we are going to refer to God as a single Person, we must understand this to be the Father. Otherwise, the three Persons.


Note the bit I bolded. Have you changed your mind and determined that the Father is exclusively your "uncaused existence".:no: Since I have not changed my mind. The Father can be thought of being exclusively as the "uncaused existence." But then the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same exclusive "uncaused existence" with the Father, not apart from the Father. There is only one uncaused existence.


Would you show me where in scripture the Father, Son and Spirit are explicitly and collectively named YHWH.It is found in proving the Trinity in the OT referencing the NT.



Nope! Read any book on causation. Philosophers will tell you that you can have a cause without a source, but you can't have a source without a cause (ie: Of what is the source, the source?)A cause without a source is the "uncaused cause." You cannot have an effect without a cause. And to say anything is caused is to refer to it as an effect. What is caused is what we call an effect. Both the cause and the effect are temporal. An uncaused cause only has a source of being uncaused.


Nope! It is what you are demanding with your stupidities!!! Your opinions when confronted by what scripture states, ultimately lead to the rejection of the Son as God, as you have just made plainly evident by your assumption regarding what I believe.:no: I'm challenging what you believe. Not making empty accusations. What is caused is not God. The Son of God, on this all Christians agree, is both uncaused God and caused man in His incarnation. You agree on this do you not?


My opinion is secured by the teaching of Catholic & Orthodox Christianity. Teachings you have said you reject.I accept Biblical Christianity as orthodox Christianity. I do reject the RCC & OC as true churches in regard to the written word of God. They both believe they are the true Church. I find the OC preferable over the RCC.


Nope! Scripture, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (so do the creeds).So do you believe the Creeds to be Holy Scripture too (Matthew 4:4)? And the Holy Spirit acting in our world does in fact proceed from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the same ousia as the Father and the Son.



What is caused is not God.Prove it! You keep babbling away with this mantra but offer nothing to support your opinion.No. It would be easier to prove there is no God than to prove there is a caused God. Again, what is caused is not God.


Your problem is you are stuck with a temporal mind and apparently can only understand the seen world. You are trying to make the word "cause" mean formed, shaped etc, all craftsman type analogies.Why use a temporal term "begotten" to mean the eternal Son of God from God the Father? This odd use of the otherwise temporal term "begotten" is the cause of the error of Arius.


Here is a Dictionary definition: ('http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause') Cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.Yes. Produces an effect.


exists in such a way: We read in scripture that God is love, love has consequences...God a metaphor for love. Just as God a metaphor for light (1 John 1:5). God is a Spirit (John 5:24).

apostoli
08-09-2015, 01:11 AM
Hello 37818,

I am glad after all our years of conversation we are making some progress in understanding each other...For now I'll respond to only one item in your post...


The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.No Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes what you propose (the part I have underlined). In fact no Protestant, Reformed, Lutheran etc Christian that subscribes to the Confession of Chalcedon believes what you propose. All consider what you have proposed "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia" to be heresy. Allow me to explain your error...

Below I've quoted the Chalcedon belief for you to examine and reappraise your invention.. Maybe you have simply confused yourself with the terminology. By definition "ousia" is unchangeable, so the Son could not add a human ousia to his divene ousia as you propose. Ousia is the absolute definition of a category of things - what they are!!! Change the definition and you have something entirely different - a new category of thing - in your case some kind of hybrid. An ousia (essence) is an attribute possessed by a hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). A hypostasis can have attributes added to it. Thus Chalcedon belief holds that the Son (a hypostasis) via Mary acquired humanity. Thus the Son has two observable natures (duo physes). Physis/es are the terms used at Chalcedon. Basically physis is what proves an ousia. Unlike ousia which can be determined from metaphysical speculatiion, a physis has observable motion/activity and it is this motion/activity that proves an ousia.

The Confession of Chalcedon

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

tabibito
08-09-2015, 01:38 AM
I figured you would try that on. Read the Greek fully, "his" is implied, otherwise the text doesn't make sense. The alternative requires the text to read εν o υιω. Having given this claim some investigation, I find that the presence or absence of the definite article, as is commonly the case with Koine Greek, does not materially affect the reading. "εν υιω" and "εω τω υιω" can be used interchangably.
1 John 5:20 in particular reads "εν τω υιω αυτου" - the definite article τω is present, and "his (αυτου)" explicitly stated.
There being only one use of the dative υιω without the definite article, it becomes necessary to examine the interplay of other nouns in the dative case.
So then, "in the Spirit"
Ephesians 6:18 - praying in every season in the Spirit - εν πνευματι - no definite article present.
Hebrews 1:1 identifies "o θεος (God)" as speaking to us "εν (in/by) υιω (son)" ... if the phrase were to be expanded as indicating "son of whom" - "εν υιω αυτου (of him)" could equally be "his son", or as "the son of him (God)". I can't see any valid cause to make such an expansion to the text - either way, God is the principal.




[/QUOTE]

apostoli
08-09-2015, 02:45 AM
Having given this claim some investigation, I find that the presence or absence of the definite article, as is commonly the case with Koine Greek, does not materially affect the reading. "εν υιω" and "εω τω υιω" can be used interchangably.
1 John 5:20 in particular reads "εν τω υιω αυτου" - the definite article τω is present, and "his (αυτου)" explicitly stated.
There being only one use of the dative υιω without the definite article, it becomes necessary to examine the interplay of other nouns in the dative case.
So then, "in the Spirit"
Ephesians 6:18 - praying in every season in the Spirit - εν πνευματι - no definite article present.
Hebrews 1:1 identifies "o θεος (God)" as speaking to us "εν (in/by) υιω (son)" ... if the phrase were to be expanded as indicating "son of whom" - "εν υιω αυτου (of him)" could equally be "his son", or as "the son of him (God)". I can't see any valid cause to make such an expansion to the text...Based on vs3 "his Son" is a natural reading, else have "the Son" doesn't matter what-so-ever - his Son is understood by the fact of inheritance (vs2).


either way, God is the principal.Until we get to vs3 onwards...

tabibito
08-09-2015, 04:24 AM
Based on vs3 "his Son" is a natural reading, else have "the Son" doesn't matter what-so-ever - his Son is understood by the fact of inheritance (vs2). That goes to understanding - it doesn't go to what is actually written: "εν υιω" says "in/by the Son". Moreover, the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the Son", without denoting whose son, shows using "the Son" to be valid.
As to the rest: "His" (pronoun) denoting "God's" from "God" as the appropriate antecedent noun. There is no reason to read "God" as an alternative for "Father" in this context, given the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the son of God" throughout the New Testament.

apostoli
08-09-2015, 10:16 PM
tabibito

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove!!!


That goes to understanding - it doesn't go to what is actually written: "εν υιω" says "in/by the Son". Moreover, the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the Son", without denoting whose son, shows using "the Son" to be valid.So what? A.Paul's letters fully disclose God to be the Father of "the Son", and that the Son is the Son of our God and Father!.

Traditionally, since the year dot, Hebrews has been attributed to A.Paul. A.Paul in his letters makes reference to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; Col 1:3) as "our God and Father" (eg: Galatians 1:4; Phil 4:20; 1 Thes 1:3; 3:11,13; 2 Thes 2:16;).


As to the rest: "His" (pronoun) denoting "God's" from "God" as the appropriate antecedent noun. There is no reason to read "God" as an alternative for "Father" in this context, given the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the son of God" throughout the New Testament.You seem to have ignored vs1. Contextually, "the Son" of vs2, is the son of the God who had spoken through the prophets but now speaks to us through his/the Son..

Consider 1 John 4:9 "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him". From this we know God has one and only one Son whom he directly begot.

tabibito
08-10-2015, 03:03 AM
It did get kind of convoluted.




Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).



You seem to have ignored vs1. Contextually, "the Son" of vs2, is the son of the God who had spoken through the prophets but now speaks to us through his/the Son.. Correct - "The Son of God" (were "the Son" to be expanded, it could only be "the Son of God" - there is no reference to the individual "Father" in the passage). God created all things - by/in the Son. This is not a matter of the Father creating all things using the son as the craftsman (which "through" might be said to imply) and which your claim that "the Son is a secondary cause" states. The distinction is demonstrated by the statement that God spoke through the prophets - the prophets being vessels, as it were. Hebrews states that God created, by God the Son: thus, while God did the creating, only the Son was directly involved in the creation.
Lest this be considered mere pedantry, it should not pass without notice that the wording of your explanation lends credence to the Watchtower Corporation's claims.

apostoli
08-10-2015, 06:09 PM
I"The Son of God" (were "the Son" to be expanded, it could only be "the Son of God" - there is no reference to the individual "Father" in the passage). God created all things - by/in the Son. This is not a matter of the Father creating all things using the son as the craftsman (which "through" might be said to imply) and which your claim that "the Son is a secondary cause" states. The distinction is demonstrated by the statement that God spoke through the prophets - the prophets being vessels, as it were. Hebrews states that God created, by God the Son: thus, while God did the creating, only the Son was directly involved in the creation.
Lest this be considered mere pedantry, it should not pass without notice that the wording of your explanation lends credence to the Watchtower Corporation's claims.I doubt you subscribe to patripassianism. All things in scripture are intertwined, so to object to one thing mightcause you to object to another...

I assume you agree that the the Father is the primary cause of our salvation in as much as he sent his only begotten Son to die for us, and the Son is the secondary cause in as much as he was obedient to his Father and actually died for us? By analogy: the Father was the architect, the Son was the workman...

apostoli
08-13-2015, 10:37 PM
Moses is said to have compiled the first five book of the Bible. So, given he knew the name YHWH we can assume he would have applied it in Genesis for the sake of clarity, especially when relating the patriarchs interaction with God. However, YHWH plainly states the patriarch's didn't know him by the name YHWH. YHWH plainly states the patriarchs called him El Shaddai = God Almighty. Such seems to undermine your previous ideas concerning the name.
What is self existent needs no God. So if it is not God's Name. God is not God. (John 17:3).????

Your comment in unintelligible. Please extend your thought/s. Also what has John 17:3 got to do with what name the patriarchs used to address their God?
______________

"self existing": I am observably "self existing", so are you and everybody else but not until the resurrection will we become "ever existing" as is God. Do you comprehend the difference in word usage?

Us humans all have dependency of some type. Unlike us, God is said to have no dependency or need. For instance: he doesn't need us to recognise him as God, but scripture definitely indicates he has aspirations for our well being that requires us to understand Jesus' Father as the only true God... John 17:3 uses a very interesting word in the Greek that directly addresses this point. However, most translations inadequately translate the word as "know", so most people miss what Jesus was actually saying."Ginōskō" indicates the type of knowledge gained from having an intimate relationship with someone. Jesus uses the same word repetitively at John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also".

37818
08-15-2015, 05:46 PM
Hello 37818,

I am glad after all our years of conversation we are making some progress in understanding each other...For now I'll respond to only one item in your post...

The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.
No Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes what you propose (the part I have underlined). In fact no Protestant, Reformed, Lutheran etc Christian that subscribes to the Confession of Chalcedon believes what you propose. All consider what you have proposed "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia" to be heresy. Allow me to explain your error...

Below I've quoted the Chalcedon belief for you to examine and reappraise your invention.. Maybe you have simply confused yourself with the terminology. By definition "ousia" is unchangeable, so the Son could not add a human ousia to his divene ousia as you propose. Ousia is the absolute definition of a category of things - what they are!!! Change the definition and you have something entirely different - a new category of thing - in your case some kind of hybrid. An ousia (essence) is an attribute possessed by a hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). A hypostasis can have attributes added to it. Thus Chalcedon belief holds that the Son (a hypostasis) via Mary acquired humanity. Thus the Son has two observable natures (duo physes). Physis/es are the terms used at Chalcedon. Basically physis is what proves an ousia. Unlike ousia which can be determined from metaphysical speculatiion, a physis has observable motion/activity and it is this motion/activity that proves an ousia.

The Confession of Chalcedon

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

You have falsely accused me for things I did not say in the past. I did qualify my statement by "without changing His divine ousia." Further qualification, that He was made one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. That there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct human ousia, in one hypostasis. Now please explain what you think is heresy here. Thanks.

apostoli
08-17-2015, 12:05 AM
37818, I've responded on the Chalcedon thread.