Taking Apart an Anti-Trinitarian

[jpholding]

http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Truth-Human-Tradition-Catholic-Protestant/dp/1425948324/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/002-9514294-7835222

I gave this guy a Screwball Award for invincible ignorance and challenged him to debate me here. He's too chicken to do so, but said:



I may try to look at some of the materials on your site and offer some comments when I get a chance. But it will take me some time to get to that. Until then, I challenge you to read the first chapter available on the first page of my website. I also have chapter 5 ("The 'I am' statemtns of the Gospel of John') posted on my resources page.

Oh, he "challenges" me to do this huh? Well, he has a copy online at:

http://members.shaw.ca/homechristian/docs/trinity/toc_new.htm

So we'll analyze that first chapter here starting next Monday. In the meantime anyone else who wants some fresh meat can check it out and offer their thoughts.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I have two days off next week. I might do so then. I hope he comes by to play though.

[jpholding]

I'll sign off with this sampler of his invincible ignorance in an email he sent me:


This comes from the conclusion of one of your articles:

"Jesus claimed to be God the Son. No matter how hard we try to dissect it or explain it away, the evidence points directly to that most special claim made by Jesus. One must now answer His question: "Who do you say that I am?"

Note two points.

(1) Jesus never claimed to be "God the Son." The title and concept of "God the Son" is foreign to the Scriptures. It is, in fact, a theological invention.
(2) Peter explicitly answered Jesus question "Who do you say that I am?" in Matthew chapter 16. Jesus approved of the answer Peter gave. But Peter did not idetify Jesus as "God the Son." I myself affirm, along with Peter, that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament accounts is the Messiah (annointed one), the Son of the living God. I reject the notion that Jesus is God the Son because it is unbiblical; it is, for a fact, a human tradition, not a divinely revealed truth.


(1) Of course, is just a bunch of mouth-running.
(2) Aside from being more mouth-running, if this is typical of the sort of silliness this man argues with, we're in for some laughs here. The logic is that if Peter does not identify Jesus as X, then Jesus can't be X.

Back Monday, at the latest, with Ch. 1. I gave Loudmouth the URL to this thread so maybe he'll show up and entertain us. He's one of the passive-aggressive arrogant sorts, so be prepared for him to write tickets for a guilt trip if you make him need a band-aid.

****

Oops! He signed up already. :hehe: Looks like he can't resist after all.

[PatrickNavas]

Hello Everyone,

The link that was given for my book on the Trinity is to the unrevised draft. The official version can be read at my website:

http://divinetruth.homestead.com/

Also, on the resource page, you can read chapter 5 of my book: The 'I am' statements of the Gospel of John.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

patrick_navas@yahoo.com

[P-Dunn]

Well hello there, Patrick. Fancy that...That's my name too!

Glad you showed up!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hello Everyone,

The link that was given for my book on the Trinity is to the unrevised draft. The official version can be read at my website:

http://divinetruth.homestead.com/

Also, on the resource page, you can read chapter 5 of my book: The 'I am' statements of the Gospel of John.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

patrick_navas@yahoo.com

Let's start by defining our terms. I hope that comes before chapter 5. Two questions.

First off, when you use the word "Trinity" what do you think it means? I don't want a creedal statement. I want your interpretation of it.

Secondly, when I say "Jesus is God" what do you think I'm saying?

[PatrickNavas]

First off, when you use the word "Trinity" what do you think it means? I don't want a creedal statement. I want your interpretation of it.

The "Trinity" is a reference to God as defined by classical orthodoxy. It is the belief that God, the Almighty, is a being that is eternally shared by three distinct "persons," Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three persons are coequal and coeternal. According to the Trinity, God is not ultimately defined as "the Father," but as "the Father, Son and Spirit," three persons, one God.


Secondly, when I say "Jesus is God" what do you think I'm saying?

Well, I can't say for sure since I have never talked to you before. But if you hold to the classical orthodox teaching, when you say "Jesus is God" you mean that Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father. That is to say, although Jesus is a distinct "person" from the Father (i.e., Jesus is not the Father), he nevertheless partakes of the same divine essence as the Father and is therefore equally God. That is the sense that Jesus is considered God according to the traditional doctrine.

Patrick Navas

[ApologiaPhoenix]

First off, when you use the word "Trinity" what do you think it means? I don't want a creedal statement. I want your interpretation of it.

The "Trinity" is a reference to God as defined by classical orthodoxy. It is the belief that God, the Almighty, is a being that is eternally shared by three distinct "persons," Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three persons are coequal and coeternal. According to the Trinity, God is not ultimately defined as "the Father," but as "the Father, Son and Spirit," three persons, one God.


Secondly, when I say "Jesus is God" what do you think I'm saying?

Well, I can't say for sure since I have never talked to you before. But if you hold to the classical orthodox teaching, when you say "Jesus is God" you mean that Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father. That is to say, although Jesus is a distinct "person" from the Father (i.e., Jesus is not the Father), he nevertheless partakes of the same divine essence as the Father and is therefore equally God. That is the sense that Jesus is considered God according to the traditional doctrine.

Patrick Navas

I'm a bit iffy on the defining as a being shared by three persons. However, I think we can proceed from here. I would recommend learning how to use the quote tags. They'll make things easier. When wanting to quote what someone has said and X is the poster's name it's like this.

You start with QUOTE=X and put that in brackets and at the end you put /QUOTE in brackets as well.

On to the question. Why do you believe the Christians have it wrong?

[jpholding]

Also, on the resource page, you can read chapter 5 of my book: The 'I am' statements of the Gospel of John.


This is some of the saddest stuff I've read in a long time.

He plays the same game Farrell Till does -- he just quotes positions without any comparative analysis as if this proves anything.

There's a simple lesson you need to learn here, sonny....it's not enough to say, "Duh ah, C. B. Williams rendered this 'I am' in John as 'I am Christ'. So duh, this proves something." You need to get down to WHY Williams thought this was valid and show that it is better than other reasoning. "Christ" sure as heck isn't in the original language of the texts in questions, so he obviously didn't make the choice on a linguistic basis. Also, if he didn't answer arguments of others, he's twice as worthless for your case.

Based on the work of the likes of David Mark Ball ('I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications, a work of the sort you never soil your hands with, and would be too hard for you anyway), the conclusion can only be reached that there are a cluster of I AM statements that are allusions to the use of ani hu in the latter part of Isaiah. You don't answer this; instead all you did was rape commentaries and books that said what you wanted to hear, regardless of whether they presented an informed argument on the subject, and regardless of whether they'd have awareness of up to date scholarship. Your uncritical nature is proven by your use of commentaries that are hundreds of years old.

Pitiful, sonny. Absolutely pitiful.

[jpholding]

On to the question. Why do you believe the Christians have it wrong?

He'll get back with us later. He forgot to put that in his book. :bonk:

[PatrickNavas]

Why do you believe the Christians have it wrong?

I believe that the majority of professed Christians have this doctrine wrong because it was not taught by Jesus or his apostles. It is a doctrine deduced by the way certain theologians interpret the Scriptures, not a clearly-set-forth biblical doctrine.

There's a simple lesson you need to learn here, sonny....it's not enough to say, "Duh ah, C. B. Williams rendered this 'I am' in John as 'I am Christ'. So duh, this proves something." You need to get down to WHY Williams thought this was valid and show that it is better than other reasoning.

In each case where I discuss the “I am” statements of Jesus, I explain, rather clearly, why the context supports a meaning like “I am the Christ” or “I am who I say I am,” or “I am the Son of Man.” Each “I am” statement may have a slightly different nuance but overall it is quite evident that Jesus was making reference to his Messiaship. This is entirely harmonious with John’s explicitly stated purpose for writing his Gospel: “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Based on the work of the likes of David Mark Ball ('I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications, a work of the sort you never soil your hands with, and would be too hard for you anyway), the conclusion can only be reached that there are a cluster of I AM statements that are allusions to the use of ani hu in the latter part of Isaiah. You don't answer this…

I do discuss all of the major “ani hu” texts in Isaiah and explain, very clearly, why the connection Trinitarians attempt to make does not hold. Just because I don’t deal with one particular author doesn’t mean much. I can’t know about and read every author that you think should be answered. But, again, the line of argumentation is consistent in all Trinitarian apologetics. So, I’d suggest reading the last portion where I discuss the “ani hu” statements of Isaiah. I do in fact address this common line of argumentation.

; instead all you did was rape commentaries and books that said what you wanted to hear, regardless of whether they presented an informed argument on the subject, and regardless of whether they'd have awareness of up to date scholarship. Your uncritical nature is proven by your use of commentaries that are hundreds of years old.

This language does nothing to establish your case. I did not “rape” commentaries. I simply use evidence to show that even respected evangelical scholars (past and present) agree with my own conclusions. The age of a commentary or book has no bearing on its truth value. Truth is truth. I will refer to a commentary or book of any age, as long as it is insightful and accurate. I do, however, quote from several modern sources, including the New English Translation footnotes (produced by Dallas Theological Seminary), from Millard J. Erickson and from D. A Carson in the Pillar commentary. And again, I not only quote from various scholarly sources (both old and new), but I explain exactly why the contexts of the “I am” statements (and the New Testament as a whole) support my critical conclusions.

Patrick

[jpholding]

Why do you believe the Christians have it wrong?

I believe that the majority of professed Christians have this doctrine wrong because it was not taught by Jesus or his apostles. It is a doctrine deduced by the way certain theologians interpret the Scriptures, not a clearly-set-forth biblical doctrine.

Wow, there's a non-answer if there ever was one. :lolo: You raise and keep mulberry bushes, I take it.



In each case where I discuss the “I am” statements of Jesus, I explain, rather clearly, why the context supports a meaning like “I am the Christ” or “I am who I say I am,” or “I am the Son of Man.”

No you don't. You just blindly accept what some commentator you agree with says without any critical analysis whatsoever of the opposing interpretation. Nor do you explain, ever, why something like an ani hu allusion to Isaiah is excluded. If something that is a quality of a divine Jesus is able also to be a quality of the Messiah (divine or non-divine) merely showing that "Messiah" works doesn't help you one bit.

"Son of Man" is itself a divine title, and I am sure your treatment of it is just as shabby, given that you seem to think sources like Arthur Pink are as complex as you need to get.



I do discuss all of the major “ani hu” texts in Isaiah and explain, very clearly, why the connection Trinitarians attempt to make does not hold.

No, you don't. You once again simply rape commetataries that say what you want them to say, with little or no critical analysis whatsoever.


Just because I don’t deal with one particular author doesn’t mean much. I can’t know about and read every author that you think should be answered. But, again, the line of argumentation is consistent in all Trinitarian apologetics.

This statement merely proves your invincible ignorance and that you are a sufferer of Dunning's Syndrome.



This language does nothing to establish your case. I did not “rape” commentaries.

Yes, you did.


I simply use evidence to show that even respected evangelical scholars (past and present) agree with my own conclusions.

While stridently avoiding critical analysis to show that their conclusion stands up to scrutiny.


The age of a commentary or book has no bearing on its truth value.

It has every bearing when critical discoveries have been made regarding the social, literary, and cultural world of the Bible since that period. The gist of this is that you are so ignorant that you'd pretend you could write an authoritative paper on the beliefs of the Essenes while making no mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls.


I will refer to a commentary or book of any age, as long as it is insightful and accurate.

In other words, as long as they reflect your personal genius and say what you want to hear.


I do, however, quote from several modern sources,

So do cult apologists for the Mormons and JWs. Isn't that special.


And again, I not only quote from various scholarly sources (both old and new), but I explain exactly why the contexts of the “I am” statements (and the New Testament as a whole) support my critical conclusions.

No, you don't. The problem is that you think pompous assertion is "support". It isn't. You need to perform critical analysis and answer competing views. You don't do this anywhere I have yet seen. You merely try to confuse readers with pages of cites that parrot what you want to be true, in the hopes that no one will notice that you never actually argue your case.

Pathetic, sonny. The atheists do this sort of thing and you ought to hide your face in shame for being such a careless deceiver of the flock and using their tactics.

[PatrickNavas]

Well James,

Since you have refuted all of my points so effectively, so decisively, and with such profound logic, I am at a lost for words.

You have clearly won this debate.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

[PatrickNavas]

Oh...sorry. "I am at a loss for words." (spelling correction)

[jpholding]

Loudmouth wants us to believe that he's done a good job with ani hu in Isaiah, does he? Ha! In his "draft" it takes up all of seven pages (including spaces). Literally volumes have been written on this subject; entire monographs in fact (like Ball's) and he wants us to think he's refuted the whole deal in seven narrow pages, much of which is non-controversial explanation and Bible quotes. There's arrogance for you.

Actual arguments are as locatable as the lost continent of Mu. Here's the first closest such thing to an argument:



In order to properly understand the significance of the use of ani hu/ego eimi in this text (whether it is taken as ‘I am he’ or ‘I am the same’), it is helpful to keep in mind that previous to the “I am he” statement, two questions were asked by the God of Israel: “Who raised up the righteous one from the east?” and, “Who has planned and done it, calling forth the generations from the beginning?” Immediately following the second question, the God of Israel proceeds with an answer: “I Jehovah am the first and the last; I am he,” or perhaps, “I am the one” (New English Translation ) (New Century Version has ‘I, the Lord, am the one.’) Here, ani hu/ego eimi functions as a simple means of self- identification; the predicate “he” evidently referring to “Jehovah, the one calling forth the generations from the beginning.” Contrary to the argument made by some, the phrase “I am he” is not another way of expressing the divine name (or the significance of the name) itself. The phrase simply functions, in this particular case, as an emphatic answer to the question asked by Jehovah himself. He is the one who “raised up the righteous one from the east.” He is the one “who has planned and done it, calling forth the generations from the beginning.”

Yeah, well, here's a hint, Loudmouth -- you know what MIDRASH is? Go look it up somewhere, if you ever finish reading your Little Golden Book of Bible Exegesis. Jesus' use of ego eimi/ani hu in specific cases are clearly midrashic allusions to Isaiah. So it doesn't matter that ani hu in Isaiah was in answer to a specific question or not. Atomistic use of the Scriptures was par for the course. The only question is whether any of Jesus' uses correspond to proper allusory use of ani hu, and that is indeed the case, most notably in the John 8 usages, in which eg, his authority and his identity are the questions at issue. In such contexts a mere "self-identification" is useless and irrelevant.


Or, the phrase may mean, as C. K. Barrett observed in his commentary: “In the Isaiah passages the meaning of the Hebrew is apparently ‘I am (for ever) the same’…”

Which fits just as well in the contexts Jesus uses the words. Know anything about statements of self-identity in dyadic, collectivist societies, sonny? Because people took their identies from what OTHER people said, self-made statements of identity were usually allusory, so as to avoid seeming to honor yourself overmuch. The use of ani hu by Jesus suits this restriction to a T.


In his examination of this text, Claus Westermann observed the following with respect to the divine declaration, “that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am he…”:

Wow. Sounds like Jesus in John....


In the circumstances in which the Israelites were placed at the time, the words meant exactly what is detailed in the clauses that follow.

Yooo hoo.....midrash.



In none of the aforementioned texts of Isaiah does the phrase “ani hu/ego eimi” function as a “euphemism” for God’s name. Every time the phrase “ani hu/ego eimi” occurs it is used as a means of self-identification (the identity clearly implied or expressed directly in the passage itself); or, possibly, as an indication that the subject will remain “the same.”

Suits me fine, sonny boy. I don't need for it to be a euphemism to work as a claim of divine self-identity.


for Jesus, “I am he” generally referred to the fact that he really was the long awaited Christ/Messiah or (Messianic) Son of man (‘that I am the one I claim to be’ John 8:24, NIV).

Exactly as I stated, a case of your illicit logic. You just plug in "Messiah" or "Son of Man" (even though that contradicts your case, as you'd hardly know) to defuse the reference. 8:24 doesn't work without divine identity in view, since only God can prevent death from sins. How convenient that Jesus happened to use a phrase from Isaiah that indicates divinity to indicate he had none at all.

What appalling amateurishness. Try to do better by the time I get back, and try to answer Nick (AP) with something that's actually an answer and not a mulberry bush.

[jpholding]

Since you have refuted all of my points so effectively, so decisively, and with such profound logic, I am at a lost for words.


It would have helped if you had actually made some.

You had it right when you said "lost".

[PatrickNavas]

Hello Everyone,

When I referred to "all of my points" I was referring primarily to the points made in my book.

My last post was intended to be my final one. James is unwilling to carry on a discussion without name calling and disrespect.

There is way too much hostility and mean-spiritedness here. I've never encountered this at such an extreme level. James is beginning to scare me.

Thank you for your time.

Patrick

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why do you believe the Christians have it wrong?

I believe that the majority of professed Christians have this doctrine wrong because it was not taught by Jesus or his apostles. It is a doctrine deduced by the way certain theologians interpret the Scriptures, not a clearly-set-forth biblical doctrine.

Eh. This doesn't answer the question of it's true or not. You also say the majority have this doctrine wrong. Does that mean that there's a minority that has it right? Is it those of us that do know that Jesus did not go around saying "God is triune" that have it right then?

I don't care if the idea came in 30 A.D. or 2,000 A.D. I just care about this. Is it true?

[PatrickNavas]

No. The Bible does not teach that the one God the "the Trinity," but the Father (John 8:6; John 17:3). Jesus is God's Son and Messiah.

[PatrickNavas]

Excuse me again. The Bible does not teach that the one God is "the Trinity."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So when applied to Jesus, what does the term "Son of God" mean?

[PatrickNavas]

So when applied to Jesus, what does the term "Son of God" mean?

To me, "Son of God," as it applies to Jesus, is a self-explanatory expression. He is God's Son. "God" is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Father's Son.

If we look at the Old Testament for a background, we will find that "son of God" applies to Adam (according to Luke), the first human child of God. It applies to angels (divine spirits who dwell in heaven) and, in certain cases, to the annointed king of Israel. In the hellenistic context the idea of "son of God" probably carried the idea of "someone who is uniquely blessed by God (or the gods)," or one with divine favor or the like. So, if we start with these basic facts as a backgound, we will see that in no case does the term "son of God" ever denote the idea of "one who is God." As Colin Brown states in light of these facts, "Indeed, to be son of God one has to be one who is not God." (paraphrase)

In addition, an examination of the entire New Testament will show that Jesus always spoke of God as if God was his own Father, which, I believe, he was. This only reinforces the obvious point that Jesus is described as "son of God" in the New Testament not to suggest that he is God, but to clearly indicate that God is his Father.

However, if we say that "son of God" (when applied to Jesus) means "God" or "God the Son," we unfortunately have no biblical or historical/contextual precedent to base this on. Even more significant, perhaps, we have no text in the New Testament dictating to us that this is what the term means or implies. You can argue for this meaning, but the argumenation will go beyond normal and easy-to-recognize principles of biblical and historical analysis.

With respect to the Father-Son relationship as presented in the Gospel of John, it was pointed out by Professor Marianne Thompson (Proferssor of NT interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary):

Of all the functions and activities of God, the one that defines God as Father is that of giving life. God is the one who, as Father, gives life to and through the Son. Or, put differently, the designation of God as Father indicates that God is the source and origin of the life of the one who is designated as Son (e.g., 5:25-26). Because God is ‘Father’ in relationship to the Son, that relationship constitutes God’s very identity as Father in the Gospel of John. God is known as Father through the Son, and God is known as the Father of the Son…The Father-Son relationship underscores the fundamental portrayal of God in the Gospel of John as the living God and creator of all life (1:1-3; 6:57)…God is the living God and source of life and is known through the life-giving work of the Son, who himself has life from the Father (5:25-26).

Thompson also goes on to point out the following:

The conviction that God is uniquely and distinctly the Father of Jesus undergirds the predications in the Gospel that link Father and Son together. Their ‘kinship’ as Father and Son becomes the basis for a number of claims made for Jesus, including his authority to judge, to give life, to mediate knowledge of the Father and to reveal him, to do the works and will of the Father, and therefore to receive honor, as even the Father does…it is not a particular characteristic of God that shapes understanding of God as Father, but rather the fundamental reality that a father’s relationship to his children consists first in terms of simply giving them life. What it means to be a father is to be the origin or source of the life of one’s children. For John, this pertains particularly to the way in which the Father has given life to the Son, and through the Son has mediated life to others, who become ‘children of God.’ (1:12; 11:52; see 1 John 3:1-2)…When Jesus calls God ‘Father,’ he points first to the Father as the source or origin of life, and to the relationship established through the life-giving activity of the Father. Yet once again these terms apply differently to those ‘born of God,’ and to Jesus as the only Son of God. Since he is the Son, Jesus’ very life and being are to be found within the Father. He has life because ‘the living Father’ (6:57) gives it to him; in fact, he has ‘life in himself’ just as the ‘Father has life in himself’ (5:26), a remarkable statement that simultaneously affirms that the Son derives his life from the Father and yet has life in a distinct way, as the Father has it. [These] are essential to understanding John’s delineation of God as Father and Jesus as Son…In coining the phrase ‘the living Father’ John actually joins two very similar ideas into one: as the living one, the Father is the source of the life of his Son.

Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 71, 72.

These are all points which verify that Jesus is God's Son and that the term itself is self-evident in meaning, especially so in light of the overall potrayal given in the Christian Scriptures.

Patrick

[SteveScianni]

Hello James, and everyone else - I hope we are all doing well. I'm a friend of Patrick Navas (which doesn't mean I agree with every or even any of his theological positions, nor does it mean that I support him blindly...I make that statement simply to let others know how I heard of this Post). But that is by-the-way. I had a chance to read the exchange and thought it might be worth my time to post a few comments.
My concern, at this point, is not theological, nor unique actually, but it is primarily directed at the quality of discussion. Admittedly, I've read only this one post so I hesitate to make any character assessments, but what little that has been revealed seems clear enough.
(1) I am curious, James, what type of response are you hoping to get from people who do not share your views? It appears plain that you, by the nature of your remarks, set yourself up for only (a) applause and flattery from those already in agreement, or (b) hostility and aversion from opponents. That is to say, nothing meaningfully positive can be accomplished. If it is a fight you wish to pick, don't change your language or attitude, you will have plenty of those. If you enjoy the fawning of those that agree with you, don't change your stance, you will find enough. If you receive pleasure and validation by being right and winning arguments, just for the sake of winning, then your style is precise and ought not be revised. However, if your goal is dialogue and teaching, in hopes to correct misunderstandings, or error, your method is poor. The conclusion then is plain: your abusive language and arrogance belies only a selfish motive - Promote James and James' learning. It has nothing to do with the defense or promotion of truth. For if it were, your language would be milder, more caring and well-mannered. That being said, your arguments may be good, your education stellar, your position unassailable, but if you abuse others, it accomplishes nothing except to repel someone from your position, which may or may not be true.
(2) As a subpoint of the above, absent in any of your posts is one instance of some positive remark toward Patrick - only mockery and condescension. I am not saying Patrick's argumentation is perfect, or that he even made any good statements at all (though I think he did of course) -- what I am saying is that to show him you actually cared about him as a man, and to show him some respect, or that you even cared about the end result of this discussion being for God, rather than James, you could have found something hospitable to greet a stranger with and then proceed to your evaluation. But alas, what has Orthodoxy to do with clemency or diplomacy?
James, you're just one more drop in the bucket; just another testimony to the imbecility and immorality of Fundamentalism.

Steve

[sylvius]

So when applied to Jesus, what does the term "Son of God" mean?

it seems to go back on Psalms 2:7,

I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you."

Question:

Who's that, the Lord, that you know him?

[PatrickNavas]

it seems to go back on Psalms 2:7,

I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you."

Question:

Who's that, the Lord, that you know him?

"I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, You are my son;
This day have I begotten you."

The "Lord" in the translation you refer to is Jehovah, the Father of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.

[sylvius]

"I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, You are my son;
This day have I begotten you."

The "Lord" in the translation you refer to is Jehovah, the Father of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.


it was a question meant for Apologia Phoenix; question with a three-double bottom.

Jehovah we don't know over here.

cf Rashi on Exodus 3:15, This is My name forever Heb. לְעֹלָם [It is spelled] without a vav, meaning: conceal it [God’s name] תהַעִלִימֵהוּ [so] that it should not be read as it is written. — [from Pes. 50a] Since the “vav” of (לְעֹלָ ם) is missing, we are to understand it as לְעַלֵּם, to conceal, meaning that the pronunciation of the way God’s name is written (י-ה-ו-ה) is to be concealed. — [from Pes. 50a.]


"the Father of Jesus Christ" ???

where in scripture is stated such?

the father -son relationship seems to be very direct; it is now, in this very moment, that he fathers him. Not years ago.

[PatrickNavas]

"the Father of Jesus Christ" ???

where in scripture is stated such?

In John 8:54, Jesus made clear that Jehovah (whom the Jews professed to be their God) was his Father.

Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, “He is our God”, though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

To me, "Son of God," as it applies to Jesus, is a self-explanatory expression. He is God's Son. "God" is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Father's Son.

Not much self-explanatory about it. It was used of the angels in Job. If Jesus had gone around claiming to be an angel, they would have just thought he was nuts. Instead, they put him on trial for blasphemy.


If we look at the Old Testament for a background, we will find that "son of God" applies to Adam (according to Luke), the first human child of God. It applies to angels (divine spirits who dwell in heaven) and, in certain cases, to the annointed king of Israel. In the hellenistic context the idea of "son of God" probably carried the idea of "someone who is uniquely blessed by God (or the gods)," or one with divine favor or the like. So, if we start with these basic facts as a backgound, we will see that in no case does the term "son of God" ever denote the idea of "one who is God." As Colin Brown states in light of these facts, "Indeed, to be son of God one has to be one who is not God." (paraphrase)

And Mr. Brown is who that I should care about what he says? I would suggest looking at it in a different way.

First off, Jesus is the only Begotten coming forth from the Father. Does this happen in time or not?

Secondly, When we see Barnabas called the Son of Encouragement, does that mean his daddy dearest was named Encouragement. Why did Jesus call James and John Sons of Thunder?


In addition, an examination of the entire New Testament will show that Jesus always spoke of God as if God was his own Father, which, I believe, he was. This only reinforces the obvious point that Jesus is described as "son of God" in the New Testament not to suggest that he is God, but to clearly indicate that God is his Father.

Um. Yeah. Trinitarians agree that Jesus called God his Father.


However, if we say that "son of God" (when applied to Jesus) means "God" or "God the Son," we unfortunately have no biblical or historical/contextual precedent to base this on. Even more significant, perhaps, we have no text in the New Testament dictating to us that this is what the term means or implies. You can argue for this meaning, but the argumenation will go beyond normal and easy-to-recognize principles of biblical and historical analysis.

Son of encouragement, Sons of Thunder.....


With respect to the Father-Son relationship as presented in the Gospel of John, it was pointed out by Professor Marianne Thompson (Proferssor of NT interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary):

Of all the functions and activities of God, the one that defines God as Father is that of giving life. God is the one who, as Father, gives life to and through the Son. Or, put differently, the designation of God as Father indicates that God is the source and origin of the life of the one who is designated as Son (e.g., 5:25-26). Because God is ‘Father’ in relationship to the Son, that relationship constitutes God’s very identity as Father in the Gospel of John. God is known as Father through the Son, and God is known as the Father of the Son…The Father-Son relationship underscores the fundamental portrayal of God in the Gospel of John as the living God and creator of all life (1:1-3; 6:57)…God is the living God and source of life and is known through the life-giving work of the Son, who himself has life from the Father (5:25-26).

Thompson also goes on to point out the following:

The conviction that God is uniquely and distinctly the Father of Jesus undergirds the predications in the Gospel that link Father and Son together. Their ‘kinship’ as Father and Son becomes the basis for a number of claims made for Jesus, including his authority to judge, to give life, to mediate knowledge of the Father and to reveal him, to do the works and will of the Father, and therefore to receive honor, as even the Father does…it is not a particular characteristic of God that shapes understanding of God as Father, but rather the fundamental reality that a father’s relationship to his children consists first in terms of simply giving them life. What it means to be a father is to be the origin or source of the life of one’s children. For John, this pertains particularly to the way in which the Father has given life to the Son, and through the Son has mediated life to others, who become ‘children of God.’ (1:12; 11:52; see 1 John 3:1-2)…When Jesus calls God ‘Father,’ he points first to the Father as the source or origin of life, and to the relationship established through the life-giving activity of the Father. Yet once again these terms apply differently to those ‘born of God,’ and to Jesus as the only Son of God. Since he is the Son, Jesus’ very life and being are to be found within the Father. He has life because ‘the living Father’ (6:57) gives it to him; in fact, he has ‘life in himself’ just as the ‘Father has life in himself’ (5:26), a remarkable statement that simultaneously affirms that the Son derives his life from the Father and yet has life in a distinct way, as the Father has it. [These] are essential to understanding John’s delineation of God as Father and Jesus as Son…In coining the phrase ‘the living Father’ John actually joins two very similar ideas into one: as the living one, the Father is the source of the life of his Son.

Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 71, 72.

I have no problem with this as a Trinitarian. In fact, I think this damages your view. Tell me. Was the Father always the Father?


These are all points which verify that Jesus is God's Son and that the term itself is self-evident in meaning, especially so in light of the overall potrayal given in the Christian Scriptures.

Patrick

When you use the term so nebulously, it has no meaning at all. What was so hideous about saying it that it was considered blasphemy?

[OfficialPro]

Hello Everyone,

When I referred to "all of my points" I was referring primarily to the points made in my book.

My last post was intended to be my final one. James is unwilling to carry on a discussion without name calling and disrespect.

There is way too much hostility and mean-spiritedness here. I've never encountered this at such an extreme level. James is beginning to scare me.

Thank you for your time.

Patrick

Hey dude, you're Canadian, aren't you?

[aikidoka]

If anyone ever complains about Glenn Miller's arguments being too long, we should point them to this guy. :glare:

[sylvius]

"the Father of Jesus Christ" ???

where in scripture is stated such?

In John 8:54, Jesus made clear that Jehovah (whom the Jews professed to be their God) was his Father.

Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, “He is our God”, though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word."

it is not written:

"Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ".

but:

"it is my father who glorifies me, (he) of whom you say that (he) is "our God"."

it is not (about) some scientific truth.

This "our God" alludes to the "Sh'ma Yisrael".

"Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad".

in fact it says: you are saying/prayiing such but your testimony is false. YOU DON'T KNOW HIM.

it goes for Jews and Christians alike.

the second part of John 8:54 does allude to Exodus 5:2,

And Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord that I should heed His voice to let Israel out? I do not know the Lord, neither will I let Israel out."

(you must know that the name LORD ("haShem"), written with four letters ("yud hey vav hey"), Tetragrammaton, is hidden in the beginletters of (Hebrew) the last two words of Genesis 1 and the first two of Genesis 2,
"yom hashishi vaychulu hashamayim", where the letter "hey" of "hashishi" seems to be superfluous, since the other day-indications do without article "hey". Without "hey" you would read "yom shishi", sixth day, and the one whom Jesus knew to be his father wouldn't be there anymore in the four beginletters at the entrance of the sabbat. Numerical value of "yom shishi" (good friday) being 666 (10+6+40+300+300+10). you are new, but Twebbers should know, since i posted a lot about it; and certainly ApologiaPhoenix, since he is a moderator, but also James).

[Weboh2]

I think the trinity doctrine has many forgeries that support it.

[Harfelugan]

Hello James, and everyone else - I hope we are all doing well. I'm a friend of Patrick Navas (which doesn't mean I agree with every or even any of his theological positions, nor does it mean that I support him blindly...I make that statement simply to let others know how I heard of this Post). But that is by-the-way. I had a chance to read the exchange and thought it might be worth my time to post a few comments.
My concern, at this point, is not theological, nor unique actually, but it is primarily directed at the quality of discussion. Admittedly, I've read only this one post so I hesitate to make any character assessments, but what little that has been revealed seems clear enough.
Steve
The exchanges Between posters in a thread of this critical nature will rouse the deepest critcism and animosities of the participants . I hope that neither Patrick nor yourself take this as a sign to not participate in this forum as you may find this to be a place to adaquately present your theology and doctrines . You may not like the direction that this thread has gone ,(Everybody brought a shotgun) , but you do have the option of creating your own threads and stipulating the subject matter to be discussed and directing the course of your thread as it progresses . Send a personal message to one of the moderators and they will help you get started if need be . I hope to see more of you .

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I think the trinity doctrine has many forgeries that support it.

Name one.

[jpholding]

Hello James, and everyone else - I hope we are all doing well. I'm a friend of Patrick Navas (which doesn't mean I agree with every or even any of his theological positions, nor does it mean that I support him blindly.

Obviously it does mean he goes crying to you when he can't stand the heat.


Admittedly, I've read only this one post so I hesitate to make any character assessments, but what little that has been revealed seems clear enough.

Open self-contradiction sure indicates you'd get on well with sonny boy.


(1) I am curious, James, what type of response are you hoping to get from people who do not share your views?

The goal is to shame them publicly so that they will not spread their nonsensical views or else lose confidence in them. By the way, what typ[e of response was Jesus hoping to get from the Pharisees who didn't share his views?


It appears plain that you, by the nature of your remarks, set yourself up for only (a) applause and flattery from those already in agreement, or (b) hostility and aversion from opponents.

It appears that you have been brainwashed into political correctness and have nothing of substance to say in defense of the deviant views of the Trinity being offered and the abuse of scholarship being performed to offer them.


However, if your goal is dialogue and teaching, in hopes to correct misunderstandings, or error, your method is poor.

I'm sure Jesus, Elijah, Paul and John would have greatly appreciated hearing your wisdom. Obviously your own goal is to promote your own learning and your own self. Isn't that easy to say? :hehe:

Pharisee to Jesus: "That being said, your arguments may be good, your education stellar, your position unassailable, but if you abuse others as you do us, it accomplishes nothing except to repel someone from your position, which may or may not be true."

People like you merely perpetuate problems rather than solve them.



(2) As a subpoint of the above, absent in any of your posts is one instance of some positive remark toward Patrick - only mockery and condescension.

Gosh, that couldn't be because he hasn't actually done anything right yet, huh? :doh: Funny boy here wants me to invent praise. OK, here we go: He picked a nice font to print his book in. You'd think we were just discussing picnics rather than the nature of God and a view already declared and proven heretical, and being promoted by an abuser of scholarship. This is what happens when being PC blinds you.


James, you're just one more drop in the bucket; just another testimony to the imbecility and immorality of Fundamentalism.


And you've just proven yourself a self-contradicting hypocrite. Why not bring more friends to hold your hand?

[Mountain Man]

If that's him "hesitating to make character assessments" then I'd hate to see what he's like when he goes all out. :doh:

[¡Antøny Méndez]

Is this a joke Patrick? First of all I noticed in your less than average discussion on the "I am" statements professed by Christ most prominently in Saint Johns Gospel, you noticeably fail to tackle the most powerful set of passages that confound your prattle. You go from a seemingly euphoric pasting session relative to Saint John 8:24-28 then in a broad leap onto 13:19, this seriously casts doubts upon whether or not you have honestly studied the issue at hand, personally I think your simply pasting or reiterating almost universally rejected hypotheses on certain passages, rather than proffering a sound work based upon your own experiential studies on the Gospel of Saint John. Anyway the most lucent Biblical passages in which Christ is recorded to have professed to be YHWH are Saint John 8:56-58. When speaking of Abraham Jesus says that He had seen him previously, the Jewish listeners pointed out that this was impossible owing to the fact that Jesus was not even fifty and Christ responded by saying "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM." Recall then Moses life, particularly the point where he spoke to God through the burning bush as narrated in Exodus three, God tells Moses that he should say to the Israelites who ask what is God's Name "I AM WHO I AM(YHWH)". The Jews who Christ had spoken these words to knew exactly what He meant and sought to stone Him for saying that He was God.

Now to embellish a tad more; Christ is in Saint John 8:58 using the same seemingly unqualified rigid designator that is employed in Exodus three, the reason that it is not qualified by way of contextual filling in either passages, is because the term used in both happens to be a proper name. As Professor Fr. Raymond Brown(who was most skeptical of all claims of referentially valid passages regarding the Holy Trinity in the Holy Bible)pointed out, the Septuagint translation of YHWH is being employed i.e 'Kyrios' if Saint Johns record is accurate, then Christ said that He was literally YHWH. Not only does Jesus Christ say He is God, He prepensely uses the Holiest of Holy Names as if to dispel any ambiguities, He does not just say "I am God" rather He says He is 'I AM' in Greek 'Kyrios' and in the semitic tradition, 'YHWH'(which is interchangeable with the other Hebrew term for God in the Holy Bible: 'Elohim' in Greek 'Theos')the Name which is not only too Holy for men to pronounce but that God has reserved specifically only for Himself. Why pray tell; do you not even attempt at demonstrating where we err with regards to the aforesaid?

[SteveScianni]

It appears that you have been brainwashed into political correctness and have nothing of substance to say in defense of the deviant views of the Trinity being offered and the abuse of scholarship being performed to offer them

I mentioned at the time of writing my concern was not theological. I may or may not have a thing to say in defense of anti-trinitarian views, but that's not the point. It was that you do not need to insult people to show them where they are mistaken. Simply show them where they are in error and dispense with the reviling. That would seem to be the easiest thing to do should one have the stronger case.


The goal is to shame them publicly so that they will not spread their nonsensical views or else lose confidence in them

It will never work to that end. It only strengthens the person's confidence that you don't have an argument more sound than 'loudmouth.' Shame the doctrine, not the man. A reasonable person will see a bad one in time and begin shaming it with you. In the meanwhile, Patrick, is still spreading his views with a renewed confidence and a new distaste for dialogue with you. That's what I meant when I said, "...your arguments may be good, your education stellar, your position unassailable, but if you abuse others as you do, it accomplishes nothing except to repel someone...."


I'm sure Jesus, Elijah, Paul and John would have greatly appreciated hearing your wisdom. Obviously your own goal is to promote your own learning and your own self. Isn't that easy to say?

I don't hold the high view of those men that you do, and I tend to think they could have used some moral fine-tuning also. And 'my wisdom' is just asking for a simple class from God's Elect when sharing their views. And of course that's easy to say, but I made an argument, given no other alternative, you 'goal' must be self-serving. So attack the argument if it's no good, it does nothing to dispense with it by saying it's universally applicable.


Funny boy here wants me to invent praise

I never asked you to invent anything or give someone what they were not entitled to. I just assumed this forum welcomed people with respect, and that intereaction would be cordial and hospitable.


This is what happens when being PC blinds you

So attempting to be courteous is ridiculed as 'PC' and if I were an a**hole I'd be faulted for that. So what tone should I use?


You'd think we were just discussing picnics rather than the nature of God and a view already declared and proven heretical, and being promoted by an abuser of scholarship.

That's the problem with the fundamentalist's god James. He is so parochial and insecure, he can't bear to allow open, civil discussion concerning his nature. And all we're asking is for someone, maybe you, to take (perhaps waste) your time and prove it's heretical once more. The Church has tried to declare it so with the pen, indeed, but with fire, sword, abuse and insult as well. They've publicly shamed, even executed men, but the heresy still exists. That method, as I've tried to state, is poor and the Church told us that a long time ago. So shift gears and share your case. If it's not that strong or we don't buy it, take pity instead, your god will abuse us enough in the afterlife.


And you've just proven yourself a self-contradicting hypocrite

I said you were just another 'drop in the bucket' and a 'testimony to the imbecility and immorality of fundamentalism' as well as saying I would not make character assessments. James, I make no judgment as to your general character, personality, integrity, intelligence, etc. and I never did in the post. I allow for a disparity between one's written words and their actual character. Oftentimes, we exaggerate, exclamate and write things 'out of character' to make a point, especially so in a public forum. That's what I'm saying - I say nothing directly about you as a man and I hope there is a marked difference in your behavior 'off the air.' I attack the tone and word choice as unoriginal to fundamentalism (it is sadly par for the course) and I attack the character of Fundamentalism and the things it energizes people to do and say. Note I did not call you an imbecile nor immoral, but that your words, driven by fundamentalism, were of that nature. I would not align myself with an ideology that caused and encouraged me to write so venomously, nor should you. It is a plain mark of its falsehood and shortcomings.

[jpholding]

mentioned at the time of writing my concern was not theological. I may or may not have a thing to say in defense of anti-trinitarian views, but that's not the point

That you came here as a diversion wasn't unknown at the time of writing.


. It was that you do not need to insult people to show them where they are mistaken. Simply show them where they are in error and dispense with the reviling. That would seem to be the easiest thing to do should one have the stronger case.

It's too bad there isn't any chain of logic or reason you can offer that will show this, being that you have simply arbitraily decided such on the basis of absolutely nothing.


It will never work to that end.

It can, has, and does, despite your ignorance of past workings done here.


It only strengthens the person's confidence that you don't have an argument more sound than 'loudmouth.

The blithely ignorant self-confident such as that won't be swayed by arguments either, as I have alteady seen.


. In the meanwhile, Patrick, is still spreading his views with a renewed confidence and a new distaste for dialogue with you.

I know of his type. They are maladjusted personalities impervious to logic or reason. I referred to Dunning's Syndrome. He has it in spades. His education is meagre, yet his ego is such that he thinks he has overturned thousands of years of scholarship. Yet he doesn't even show an awareness of the most critical and relevant sources.

Confidence by such persons means little.


I don't hold the high view of those men that you do, and I tend to think they could have used some moral fine-tuning also.

Oh well. Many of us here think you're morally deficient then. How's that for an argument?



I never asked you to invent anything or give someone what they were not entitled to.

Yes, you did. You whined about lack of praise, with the implication that some was deserved but not given. Spare me; the stench of weasel rises from you.



So attempting to be courteous is ridiculed as 'PC' and if I were an a**hole I'd be faulted for that. So what tone should I use?

Quite honestly, as one not contributing to the subject at hand at allm you should simply have no tone at all. In other words, you should keep your mouth shut. But your self-importance compels you to speak, so that won't be possible.



That's the problem with the fundamentalist's god James. He is so parochial and insecure, he can't bear to allow open, civil discussion concerning his nature

That's the problem with the self-important -- they project their insecurity on to others.


. And all we're asking is for someone, maybe you, to take (perhaps waste) your time and prove it's heretical once more.

Because Patty Pat won't do his homework? Forget it. He didn't even touch the surface of scholarship and we're not obliged to nanny the exceptionally incompetent.



I said you were just another 'drop in the bucket' and a 'testimony to the imbecility and immorality of fundamentalism' as well as saying I would not make character assessments.

MM sure got it right. If that's not what you did, I'd hate to see it when you did. I'll supplement that: You're a hypocrite with blinders to your own hypocrisy and open self-contradictionsm who contrives and makes excuses when caught in your contradictions. You and Patty are two passive-aggressive peas in a pod in that regard.


I would not align myself with an ideology that caused and encouraged me to write so venomously, nor should you. It is a plain mark of its falsehood and shortcomings.

Sure it is. The arbitrary designation of the week. :doh:

[Glenn P]

Hey jph. You're into doing studies, right? Do a study on the word "irenic."

[Weboh2]

Name one.

The mistranslation of John 1:3 comes to mind. "All things happened through it, and without it, happened not one thing that is happening."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And I could consider this a mistranslation because?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And to Patrick and his friend, even if you didn't like JPH's style, why not stick around? I was wanting to keep going. I would think someone interested in truth would keep going regardless and if you thought someone was being hostile, well that would make it more of a challenge.

Or could it be you weren't interested in truth but just wanted to air your own opinions?

[jpholding]

Hey jph. You're into doing studies, right? Do a study on the word "irenic."

Done. I see it's one of your favorite words.

[PatrickNavas]

Before you dismiss my presentation on the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John, I suggest you read the whole thing. I do discuss John 8:58 in detail. You just didn't read it.

Patrick

[jpholding]

Before you dismiss my presentation on the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John, I suggest you read the whole thing. I do discuss John 8:58 in detail. You just didn't read it.



Typical non-answer.

I also read your treatment of Col. 1:15-19. It was worse than pathetic. You show absolutely no awareness of pre-NT connections to Jewish hypostatic Wisdom material, particularly with respect to the use of "image" and "firstborn:. You're also apparently too ignorant to know that to say, "[Christ] is the one through whom God created the universe" is fully Trinitarian-amenable.

And pardon me, but who the heck is

Christ and Deity, A. E. Knoch (Canyon County, CA: Concordant Publishing Concern) pp. 6-8.

This book isn't listed in OCLC , and this Knoch dork was apparently nothing but a printer by trade, far from a Biblical scholar. THIS you use as source, rather than a credentialed scholar?!? :lmbo:

This is why you deserve to be insulted, Patty Boy.

[PatrickNavas]

My last post regarding John 8:58 was addressed to Antony Mendez. He said that I did not address John 8:58.

I am familiar with the literature described by James. None of it supports trinitarian doctrine. My friend Dan has some notes on this.

Col 1:17 says concerning Jesus that “he is before all things.”
This same thing was said about God’s wisdom.
i200 years earlier, Ecclesiasticus, otherwise called Sirach was written which stated, “Wisdom was created before all other things” (1:4).
Ecclesiasticus 24:9 says, “Before all ages, in the beginning, he created
Paul says of Jesus, “in him all things hold together” (17b).
Wisdom was said to hold all things together
The Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 says wisdom, “holds all things together”
iEcclesiasticus says, “by his word all things hold together” (43:26).

[jpholding]

Oooo. "His friend Dan". A REAL scholarly source. I'll bet they play patty cake and tea with their dollies together too. :lmbo:

Uh, guess what? ALL of it supports Trinitarian doctrine. You're just an idiot who doesn't know any better. There's a direct ideological line from pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology, through the NT, and into Nicea.

[quote]Col 1:17 says concerning Jesus that “he is before all things.”
This same thing was said about God’s wisdom.
i200 years earlier, Ecclesiasticus, otherwise called Sirach was written which stated, “Wisdom was created before all other things” (1:4).
Ecclesiasticus 24:9 says, “Before all ages, in the beginning, he created
Paul says of Jesus, “in him all things hold together” (17b).
Wisdom was said to hold all things together
The Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 says wisdom, “holds all things together”
iEcclesiasticus says, “by his word all things hold together” (43:26).

That's right. And Wisdom is ALSO a hypostasis of God that shares His divine nature, you dolt.

I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss. (Ecclesiasticus 24:3-5)

Duh....get a clue from the use of the word WISDOM. Wisdom is an ATTRIBUTE of a person. In Trinitarianism, Christ's basic nature is as an ATTRIBUTE of the Father.

Good night you are stupid.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And no answer to me either....

[¡Antøny Méndez]

Okay Patrick I shall take another look when I get some more free time on my hands but Holding was spot on, you did not really respond to my post, I mean would it really have taken that much effort to proffer a summation of your argument? Or just refute the points I raised in my appreciably breviloquent post? It seems to me that your deliberately dodging a serious discussion...

[PatrickNavas]

Okay Patrick I shall take another look when I get some more free time on my hands but Holding was spot on, you did not really respond to my post, I mean would it really have taken that much effort to proffer a summation of your argument? Or just refute the points I raised in my appreciably breviloquent post? It seems to me that your deliberately dodging a serious discussion...

Antony,

The main thrust of your post was to point out that I did not discuss John 8:58. But I actually do discuss this text, in much detail. You then proceeded to expound upon this text and point to various evidences you believe support the traditional trinitarian interpretation. I have already responded to these arguments in detail in my book, specifically in the section you said that you read. I am not dodging discussion with you. I simply corrected your mistake. So, I encourage you to read my discussion on John 8:58. If you have something substantial to say in the way of constructive criticism or rebuttal (using evidence, not ignoring my points or calling me names), then we can proceed with a serious discussion.

Patrick Navas

[Harfelugan]

To me, "Son of God," as it applies to Jesus, is a self-explanatory expression. He is God's Son. "God" is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Father's Son.

So, if we start with these basic facts as a backgound, we will see that in no case does the term "son of God" ever denote the idea of "one who is God." As Colin Brown states in light of these facts, "Indeed, to be son of God one has to be one who is not God." (paraphrase)

These are all points which verify that Jesus is God's Son and that the term itself is self-evident in meaning, especially so in light of the overall potrayal given in the Christian Scriptures.

Patrick I have gone over the linked sites Chap 1 from your book and would like your comments that relate to your above qoutes as well . The points of my concern were from pages 39 and 40 dealing with Jesus as the son , seperate from the Father, yet as a divinely appointed messiah and lord .

1. It makes it appear that God needed an exterior source outside of Himself to provide redemption.

2. This implication gives the glory to another who isn't God for the provision of redemption .

3. Opens the door for interpretations similar to that of the Mormons on the definition of who Christ is .

4. Brings into question Christ's qualification to be a sacrifice without spot or blemish .

I am slightly familiar with Apostolic Oneness and have yet to hear one of my friends in this denomination claim that Christ was not fully God and fully man . Yet from your writings I am getting the impression that you are willing to make that claim and make an attempt to back it up scripturally .

[PatrickNavas]

1. It makes it appear that God needed an exterior source outside of Himself to provide redemption.
[/LIST]

I don't argue or believe that God needed anything, but that he chose to redeem people through his Son and that it pleased God to make his Son the object of faith, with salvation in view.

2. This implication gives the glory to another who isn't God for the provision of redemption .


God can give glory to whomever he pleases. There is no dilemma in God giving glory to his own Son.

In John 17:22, 23 Jesus prayed to his Father: "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, [the disciples] that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me..."

The glory that the Father gave Jesus was given by Jesus to his human disciples. But thiere is not scriptural problem.

3. Opens the door for interpretations similar to that of the Mormons on the definition of who Christ is .


My definition of Christ has no relationship with Mormonism.


4. Brings into question Christ's qualification to be a sacrifice without spot or blemish .

Why is that? Christ qualifies as a perfect sacrifice because he was a perfect (sinless) man.


I am slightly familiar with Apostolic Oneness and have yet to hear one of my friends in this denomination claim that Christ was not fully God and fully man . Yet from your writings I am getting the impression that you are willing to make that claim and make an attempt to back it up scripturally .[/QUOTE]

I do not hold to the doctrines of "Apostolic Oneness." I believe that the one God is the Father and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. By belief is explicitly taught in Scripture. That is why I defend it.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

[JB]

Patrick,

I was curious as to whether any of the chapters in your book have a section that deals with instances in the New Testament where Old Testament references to YHVH are explicitly applied to Christ.

Either way, though, I've added your book to my wishlist on Amazon (my all-too-lengthy wishlist, alas), and look forward to having the opportunity to read through it in its entirety someday. In the meantime, I look forward to the opportunity to further inquire of your thoughts on the issue.

Best wishes,

JB

[jpholding]

And no answer to me either....

I wouldn't expect one. This sort is proficient mostly at firing off summary non-answers from a list they keep in their heads. They just can't understand why anyone would question their obvious brilliance. :lolo:

[PatrickNavas]

I was curious as to whether any of the chapters in your book have a section that deals with instances in the New Testament where Old Testament references to YHVH are explicitly applied to Christ.

Yes, thank you for asking. Here is my discussion on Hebrews 1:10, a very important text often brought up by Trinitarian apologists:

The very next verse in Hebrews chapter one is similar to Hebrews 1:8, 9 in the sense that a text from the Old Testament that originally applied to one individual was applied to Jesus Christ for a specific purpose. In this case, a text that originally applied to Jehovah God himself in the book of Psalms (102:25-27) is now applied to God’s Son.

And, ‘You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.’

Most Evangelical theologians argue that because this text originally applied to God and is now applied to Christ by the writer of Hebrews, this means (or provides additional confirmation) that Jesus Christ is one divine person within a consubstantial Trinitarian Deity. Perhaps even more importantly, in the viewpoint of Trinitarian apologists, the text says that “the heavens are the works of [his] hands”—ascribing to the Son the work of creation—and that, unlike the heavens, the Son will “remain” and his “years will never run out”—implying, in the viewpoint of Trinitarians, the “eternality” of the Son; that is, in the sense of never having had a beginning to his existence.

In his popular and widely-read work, The Forgotten Trinity, well-known apologist and public debater, James White, argued the following based upon these particular references:

[This passage] is speaking of characteristics that are unique to the one true God.’…The fact that it is speaking of unique characteristics [according to White: creatorship, immutability, eternality] of the true God is likewise unarguable. Therefore, the fact that Hebrews applies such a passage to the Son tells us what the writer himself believed about the nature of Jesus Christ. One simply could not meaningfully apply such a passage to a mere creature, no matter how highly exalted. What does it mean that the writer to the Hebrews could take a passage that is only applicable to Yahweh and apply it to the Son of God, Jesus Christ? It means that they saw no problem in making such identification, because they believed that the Son was, indeed, the very incarnation of Yahweh.

Dr. White not only believes this text proves that Jesus Christ is the Creator, God, but that what is described in this passage is “only applicable Yahweh,” and that therefore the writer of Hebrews believed Jesus to be the very incarnation of Yahweh. However, what is overlooked in regard to this Old Testament scriptural application to the Son is the fact that the writer of Hebrews, in verse two, had already stated that someone else created the worlds (ages); specifically, that “God” created the worlds, and that he did so “through” or “by means of” the “Son.” The point is, in the preceding verses of the same chapter, the author of Hebrews had just described the Son’s (intermediary) role with respect to the creation in view in very specific terms, and that that specific description cannot be rightfully divorced from our understanding of Hebrews 1:10-12. God is the creator of the universe (if the term ‘ages’ can be understood that way at this point); but as Donald Guthrie correctly points out in the Tyndale Commentaries, “Christ is the agent through whom [the universe] was made.” Guthrie goes on to observe: “The statement that God created the world through the Son is staggering. There is no denying that God could have made the universe apart from his Son, but the New Testament is at pains to show that he did not do so.”

The comments made in The Interpreter’s Bible are likewise helpful at this point; because it was correctly noted that the author of Hebrews’ quotation is taken from Psalm 102:25-27, and that “these verses originally expressed the creative power of God and his permanence as against the transient creation. The LXX [Septuagint translation], however, introduces the vocative kurie, ‘Lord,’ which permits our author to apply the words to the Son.” F. F. Bruce’s commentary on this text is also beneficial. With respect to the quotation used by the writer of Hebrews, Bruce observed:

The words in which the psalmist addresses God, however, are here applied to the Son, as clearly as the words of Ps. 45:6f. were applied to him in vv.8 and 9. What justification can be pleaded for our author’s applying them thus? First, as he has already said in v. 2. It was through the Son that the universe was made. The angels were but worshipping spectators when the earth was founded (Job 38:7), but the Son was the Father’s agent in the work. He therefore could be understood as the one who is addressed in the words: Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands. Moreover, in the Septuagint text the person to whom these words are spoken is addressed explicitly as ‘Lord’ (‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth’): and it is God who addresses him as thus…But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom would God himself address as ‘Lord,’ as the maker of earth and heaven? Our author knows one person only to whom such terms could be appropriate, and that is the Son of God.

With respect to how the author of Hebrews could legitimately apply a text to Christ that originally applied to his Father, Donald Guthrie stated similarly:

The next three verses create a problem because the passage cited from Psalm 102:25-27 contains no reference to the Son. In the Septuagint verses 1-22 are addressed to God, but verses 1-22 consist of the answer. The writer understands God to be the speaker here. In his mind it was legitimate to transfer to the Son what applied to God, since he has already drawn attention to the eternal character of his throne. The passage has many interesting features which are apt when applied to Jesus Christ. The writer has already spoken of the Son’s part in creation [v. 2] and in view of this the Psalm 102 passage is appropriate.

Although one might say that “one simply could not meaningfully apply such a passage to a mere creature, no matter how highly exalted,” one could, in fact—as the author of Hebrews did—meaningfully apply such a passage to the one “through whom God created the universe” (lit., ‘ages,’ TEV); Jesus Christ, God’s unique Son.

The following part of the Old Testament quotation is also significant to the discussion. The fact that the Son is spoken ofin contrast to the aging heavensas one who would “continue [as] the same” and as one whose “years will never run out,” does indeed speak for the “immutability” of the Son. However, such “immutability” or “changelessness” does not demand, in and of itself, that the Son has always existed, and that he should therefore be thought of as an eternal member a triune God. Nor does any concept of a Trinity appear in this letter. The statement does demand, however, the meaning that the Son will always exist and that his years will never come to completion. In other words, the Son will always live—forever.
In light of the overall context and points being made by the author of Hebrews, such descriptions may constitute a further reflection (or expansion) on the fact that the Son’s kingdom will remain in place forever (Heb. 1:8, 9), in connection with his immortal and unchanging nature, especially so since the time of the Son’s resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. One may even remember the prophetic words spoken to Mary by the heavenly messenger before Jesus’ birth: “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 he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Likewise, the focus in Hebrews 1:10-12 does not appear to be on an eternal existence (past, present and future); but rather, there is an emphasis on Christ’s present condition, at the same time, looking forward to the constancy and everlasting nature of Christ’s person and glorious existence.

In the same letter, chapter 13, verse 8, the author says: “Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever.” Concerning this statement (which does have reference to past, present and future), John Calvin commented: “The apostle is speaking not of Christ as he is in eternity, but of our knowledge of him…He is not speaking of Christ’s being but, so to say, of his quality, or of how he acts toward us.” Similarly, in Hebrews 1:10-12 (which contains in it no reference to past existence), there is nothing in the words themselves (‘you continue,’ ‘you are the same and your years will never run out’) that demand the meaning “eternity into the past.” These are expressions that more likely serve to emphasize the incorruptible nature of the Son’s immortal existence prior to his resurrection to life eternal, in light of the permanent, immutable and superior character of the Son’s throne and related rulership as God’s appointed Messianic King. As the apostle Paul said in another place: “We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, he is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over him. For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God.” And as it was wisely observed in the Tyndale Commentaries: “In applying the passage, the writer draws attention to a profound idea about the Son, i.e. his changelessness. The earth and heavens seem substantial enough, yet they will perish…This magnificent glimpse by the psalmist into the winding up of the present age is intended to lead to the climax: But thou are the same. In the face of the disintegration everywhere else, the unchangeable character of the Son stands out in unmistakable contrast.”

The themes of the Son’s unchangeable character, and that of the Son’s “immortal,” “incorruptible” life, are important features of the book of Hebrews in general; for such a never-ending life was necessary to the mediatorial function of Christ’s perpetual, heavenly priesthood (‘you are a priest forever,’ Hebrews 6:5). As is discussed later in the letter to the Hebrews, in the time under the law covenant—based on their physical membership of that particular ancestry—only men among the tribe of Levi were appointed responsible for the solemn, priestly duties in association with the tabernacle, and later, with the temple in Jerusalem. But the office of high priest held by God’s Son is far superior; for he is, as the author of Hebrews points out, “one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.” This is why the author goes on to admit the following conclusion:

For it is declared: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’ Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able [now and always, TEV] to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

***FOOTNOTES****

Hebrews 1:10-12, New English Translation
White, The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 133, 134.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Letter to the Hebrews, An Introduction and Commentary, p. 65. The internationally-respected Swiss theologian and Trinitarian, Emil Brünner, pointed out that “the Son is called simply and solely the mediator of the Creation…The title [‘creator’] is given to the Father alone.” And in a footnote Brünner observes: “The Psalm-quotation in Hebrews 1:10 should not be used as an argument against the explicit doctrine of 1:2.” —The Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics: Vol. I, p. 232.
The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume XI, p. 607. It was also noted, “the writer is clear that one of the divine functions of the Son was that of being the agent of Creation. This quotation is a graphic way of stating the eternity of the Son’s dominion” (emphasis added).
The Book of Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 62-63 (emphasis added).
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Letter to the Hebrews, pp. 77, 78 (emphasis and word notation on verse added).
Actually, the entire description of the Son as the one “through whom God created the ages,” along with the application of Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son, may not even have reference to the original creation depicted in the Genesis account; but rather, to the new creation, the new Messianic order effected by God through the Son. For the very Psalm from which the author of Hebrews quotes states: “Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created [a people not yet born, NAB] may praise the LORD.” And in Hebrews 2:5, the author writes: “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.”
Luke 1:32, 33, RSV
Quoted in Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), p. 100 (Commentaries, p. 160).
Romans 6:9, 10, NET (emphasis added).
The Letter to the Hebrews, Donald Guthrie, pp. 77, 78 (emphasis added).
Hebrews 7:16, NIV. Says Donald Guthrie: “Although our high priest died, and his death was essentially a part of his priestly office, yet he can still be described as indestructible [‘akatalytou, literally incapable of being dissolved,’…]. Death could not hold him. His high-priestly office continues by virtue of his risen life. If for no other reason, this fact would set him immeasurably above all the priests of Aaron’s line…Although Jesus, our high priest, died, his priesthood did not cease, neither was it passed on to others, because his death was not a final act. It was eclipsed by his resurrection (he continues forever), thus setting him apart from all other priests.” —Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 163, 166.
It is worth noting that the Son of God is depicted as fulfilling (in the superlative sense) the respective roles of Prophet, Priest and King. Although God spoke at different times and in diverse manners by means of the prophets, God has at last spoken by means of his own Son. The Son is therefore God’s ultimate spokesman/prophet, representative and final revelation (Heb. 1:1, 2). While men of varying degrees of virtue reigned upon the throne of Israel, the Son’s kingship is perfectly just and everlasting (‘your throne, O God, is forever and ever…you loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,’ Heb. 1:8, 9). In the days of Israel, the high priest entered the holy place once a year with the blood of bulls and goats on behalf of the nation. But Christ has entered into heaven itself with the value of his own blood (sacrificial death) and has become the great high priest and mediator between God and men, both Jew and Gentile; being the one sent by God to lay down his life in behalf of the whole world (Heb. 9:6-15; compare: 1 Tim. 2:5; Ephesians 2:11-22).
Hebrews 7:15-25, NIV (emphasis added). Unlike the priesthood service performed under the Mosaic Law covenant on behalf of the people of Israel, a new, heavenly, and far superior priestly mediation is now being performed on behalf of all exercising faith in the appointment of “a Son who has been made perfect for ever” (Hebrews 7:28, RSV).

[jpholding]

Checking out more of Loudmouth's stilted prose, I found in between extended paragraphs of blah blah blah this gem of ignorance:


But when the orthodox say that “the Father is God” or “Jesus is God,” they do not mean to identify either one as the Trinity; but rather, as one “person” within the Trinity; or, more specifically, as one “person” who partakes of the one God’s divine essence. This point is helpful in showing clearly how, in Trinitarianism, the very term “God” must be equivocated, or given different meanings depending upon what subject the term is being applied to.

Equivocated my hiney. You're just ignorant again, though I'll grant that I've seen Trinitarians who are on this point too. Still, on you, Patty Boy, for not doing enough real homework.

The mistake you make is reading the modern use of the word "God" as a proper name back into the text (and also into Trinitarian theology). The Greek theos, as NT Wright observed, is to be regarded rather as an abstract noun like the word "deity".

So this answers your stupid question:


But how could Trinitarianism be maintained if it teaches that Jesus is God.

Duh....because theos isn't a proper name. :doh:


. The answer is, according to the apologists, “God” simply means “Father” (meaning more specifically, the first ‘person’ of the Trinity).

Ain't my answer, Patty Boy. Ain't the answer of serious scholarship either. If you weren't so busy trying to find 18th century Unitarian commentaries, and crap by non-experts like "Christian Educational Services" that said what you wanted to hear, you might have found some real, qualified sources that answered your question.

One more thing you need to clear your head. "Son" is only properly applied to the incarnate Jesus, not pre-incarnate Wisdom.

It's going to take a high velocity pressure washer to clean out all your stupidity in this book of yours, especially since you have this wonderful tendency to say in 5000 words what could be said just as readily with 50. :lolo: You obviously like to hear yourself talk.

[sylvius]

.
"Son" is only properly applied to the incarnate Jesus, not pre-incarnate Wisdom.


?

what is pre-incarnate Wisdom?

and how could God send his only son (John 3:16)?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

1. It makes it appear that God needed an exterior source outside of Himself to provide redemption.
[/LIST]

I don't argue or believe that God needed anything, but that he chose to redeem people through his Son and that it pleased God to make his Son the object of faith, with salvation in view.

2. This implication gives the glory to another who isn't God for the provision of redemption .


God can give glory to whomever he pleases. There is no dilemma in God giving glory to his own Son.

In John 17:22, 23 Jesus prayed to his Father: "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, [the disciples] that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me..."

The glory that the Father gave Jesus was given by Jesus to his human disciples. But thiere is not scriptural problem.

3. Opens the door for interpretations similar to that of the Mormons on the definition of who Christ is .


My definition of Christ has no relationship with Mormonism.


4. Brings into question Christ's qualification to be a sacrifice without spot or blemish .

Why is that? Christ qualifies as a perfect sacrifice because he was a perfect (sinless) man.


I am slightly familiar with Apostolic Oneness and have yet to hear one of my friends in this denomination claim that Christ was not fully God and fully man . Yet from your writings I am getting the impression that you are willing to make that claim and make an attempt to back it up scripturally .

I do not hold to the doctrines of "Apostolic Oneness." I believe that the one God is the Father and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. By belief is explicitly taught in Scripture. That is why I defend it.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas[/QUOTE]

You've yet to tell me what Son of God means in a sense that Jesus would be seen as a blasphemer for it. You can tell me that Jesus is the Son of God all you want, but until you give it some context, you might as well say he's a glorp. It has as much meaning.

Now I like that you concede that the Son is immutable. You've at least shown the two natures of the Son as the Son's body definitely changed on Earth, but you say still that the Son did not change. Therefore, the Son had to have another nature besides his human nature.

Also, if the Son does not go through any change, are you aware of what that means? First off, coming from non-existence to existence does speak of a change. Secondly, It means the Son cannot improve any (Which is why God is immutable as he cannot be improved any) nor can he be lessened any. (For if God changed, he would have to be lowered.)

Lastly, do a look at the phrase "Work of his hands" and see that it always refers to one who is directly doing such and understand that to the Jewish mindset, only God could create. I'd also go through Robert Reymond's work in Jesus: Divine Messiah in how the passage has a natural progression in Hebrews 1 that goes from Theos to a higher title of Kurios.

[jpholding]

.

what is pre-incarnate Wisdom?

and how could God send his only son (John 3:16)?

If I thought your confused little mind would hold the answer, I'd tell you. :lolo:

But these have already been answered anyway.

[jpholding]

For all reading, this written by one of my guest writers and posted today on Tekton is relevant, even though it is in response to a Mormon. Paulson specializes in this issue and as a student at a major school whose work has been regarded, even at this early stage, as worthy to be published in scholarly journals, is a far more credible witness than Patty Boy's tulip-tiptoe sources like "Christian Educational Services" by a bunch of non-qualified know-nothings.

I expect that stuff like this, and the wok of Ayres, is the sort of thing Patty can only go, "Duh...what?" at. :duh:




At the outset, I want to make some general, preliminary remarks. Holding was very right to buttress his defense of the classical doctrine of the Trinity with the Wisdom tradition of the Hebrew Bible (and intertestamental, 'apocryphal' literature). The defining age in the history of the development of Trinitarian theology was without doubt the Nicene era, wherein Athanasius faced Arius, and the 'Cappadocian' fathers faced Eunomius. The main point of argument in this era was this: Is the Son--who was incarnate as the human being Jesus the Christ--eternal (and thus intrinsic to the very being of god), or, rather, is the Son a contingent creation created ex nihilo (and, thus extrinsic to the very being of god). (In passing, I mention that the Nicene era also confronted the question of the status of the Holy Spirit. The first substantial treatment was given by Athanasius' To Serapion, and the second by Basil's The Holy Spirit, alongside other works and portions of works from the other 'Cappadocians'. In any event, the question was the same: Is x eternal and intrisic to god's being, or is x not eternal, and, therefore, not intrinsic to god's being?)

The (orthodox) answer given to this question by the Nicene fathers was this: the Son is eternal, and, therefore, intrinsic to the very being of god. Two points need to be mentioned in this regard.

First, in affirming such, the Nicene fathers were affirming a particular PERCEPTION and UNDERSTANDING of god. The god of the orthodox, Nicene faith is intrinsically DYNAMIC (because he eternally begets the Son and pours forth the Spirit) and ECSTATIC (because his very being is defined by diffusive, self-giving love, realized in the Father's generation of the Son, and his consummation of his 'koinonia' with the Son in the Spirit). This perception of god stood AGAINST the ANTI-Nicene perception of god, according to which god is NOT eternally dynamic, and god is NOT eternally communal. (The significance of the Nicene affirmation of god's intrinsic 'koinonia' is most explict in Athanasius' Orations Against the Arians, 1:20, 38; 2:56, 82; 3:61, 65-67.)

Second, the very basis of this affirmation on the part of the Nicenes was the Wisdom tradition. (In this regard, it is not insignificant that the most important recent work on Nicene Trinitarian theology--Lewis Ayres' Nicaea and Its Legacy --BEGINS by citing Heb. 1:1-3 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-26, and in the table of contents describes Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria as 'Theologians of the True Wisdom'. Make no mistake, the basis of orthodox, normative, and classical Trinitarian theology is the Wisdom tradition.) The OT Wisdom tradition affirmed a number of remarkable things about Wisdom -- for example, Wisdom is of divine origin, Wisdom is the agent by whom god has effected creation, and through whom god is radically present to creation throughout salvation history (see esp. Wis. Sol. 7-9).

But the main things that the Wisdom tradition offered to the Nicene fathers were these. First, Wisdom is intrinsic to god's being, just as the sun's SHINE is intrinsic to the being of the sun. (For this reason, the Nicene fathers were able to affirm that the Son is eternal, and, therefore, intrinsic to the very being of god the Father--just as the sun shines at every moment at which the sun exists, so too does god the Father beget the Son at every moment at which god the Father exists.) Second, Wisdom is of the same nature as god, just as radiance is of the same nature as light. (For this reason, the Father and Son are "one in being". Though the sun is distinct from its shine, the relationship between the two is so close that there is no difference between the two IN TERMS OF SUBSTANCE. As Gregory of Nyssa mentioned in his treatise to his brother, Peter, we would do well to think of the Trinitarian persons as though a chain with three links--pull any link, and you bring along the others as well. The point is simply that the divine persons ENTAIL each other, and they are as connected to each other as 'heat' is to 'flame'. The divine persons, therefore, constitute only ONE god.) Third, god is intrinsically dynamic and ecstatic: it is BECAUSE god eternally generates the Son that god has the CAPACITY to create the cosmos; it is BECAUSE the basis of god's eternal generation of the Son is self-giving love that god DID create the cosmos, and that god revealed himself as love through his Son on the cross.

from http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/threeheads.html

[sylvius]

If I thought your confused little mind would hold the answer, I'd tell you. :lolo:

But these have already been answered anyway.


do it again then in such a way that even the cofused and little minded might understand,
step by step, slowly.

open it up.

to you that must be kind of pea-pod.

[jpholding]

Nope. You get past the Twinkie 'n Ding Dong diet and expand your mind. I've condescended as much as I'm going to.

[sylvius]

. I've condescended as much as I'm going to.



possessed by a mute spirit?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

possessed by a mute spirit?

I hope transference is possible....

[sylvius]

possessed by a mute spirit?
"This kind through nothing can come out than just through prayer."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

"This kind through nothing can come out than just through prayer."

Could a grammar nazi please come and translate this?

[sylvius]

Could a grammar nazi please come and translate this?



USCCB has:

"This kind can only come out through prayer."


King James:

"This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting."

[jpholding]

possessed by a mute spirit?

The KJV calls it a dumb spirit.

I think in that case, transferance has already occurred.

[sylvius]

The KJV calls it a dumb spirit.

I think in that case, transferance has already occurred.

wisdom incarnated?

[jpholding]

In your case....Wis-DUMB.


****
Nick, it's pretty clear why Loudmouth won't answer you. He doesn't even touch the Son of Man title, other than claiming it is just a "messianic title". I guess sources like Bock's Blashphemy and Exaltation in Judaism are too hard for him, because they don't have any pictures he can color.

[sylvius]

In your case....Wis-DUMB.



you were just talking nonsense, with your


"Son" is only properly applied to the incarnate Jesus, not pre-incarnate Wisdom."


My son and me are sitting here on the table.

when I push him he'll fall off.

[jpholding]

My son and me are sitting here on the table.

when I push him he'll fall off.

In your house, I assume chairs are used for some other purpose. Like brawling and causing head injuries. :lolo:

[sylvius]

In your house, I assume chairs are used for some other purpose. Like brawling and causing head injuries. :lolo:

you are just walking around it with your pre-incarnate wisdom.

[PatrickNavas]

Hello everyone. I have read through the posts that have been made so far. I’d like to give a few brief responses to some of them. And although I have some comments on James Patrick Holding’s posts, I will simply ignore his name calling and insulting remarks. I have no interest in hostility and inflamatory rhetoric. My only desire is to discuss the biblical issues in a fair and respectful way. Insulting language and sarcastic denunciations tell me (and everyone else who participates in this forum) nothing about what is true or false, biblical or unbiblical—although they certainly do much to reveal the hatred that permeates Mr. Holding’s heart.

James wrote:

(2) Aside from being more mouth-running, if this is typical of the sort of silliness this man argues with, we're in for some laughs here. The logic is that if Peter does not identify Jesus as X, then Jesus can't be X.

The above statement is certainly not my logic, nor does it resemble any of the points I made regarding Jesus’ alleged identity as “God the Son.” My logic is this:

The Bible never identifies Jesus as “God the Son,” therefore neither do I. The Bible does, however, positively identify Jesus as” the Christ (Messiah=anointed one), the Son of the living God.” And I am—for a number of reasons—convinced of this and that is why I also identify him as such. But I never suggested, in any way, that since Peter did not identify Jesus as “God the Son” in Matthew 16 that Jesus therefore cannot be “God the Son.” My point is that the notion and language of “God the Son” is foreign to all of the Scriptures and Christians are under no obligation to accept it or promote it, if they base their faith exclusively on the Bible.

I also read your treatment of Col. 1:15-19. It was worse than pathetic. You show absolutely no awareness of pre-NT connections to Jewish hypostatic Wisdom material, particularly with respect to the use of "image" and "firstborn:. You're also apparently too ignorant to know that to say, "[Christ] is the one through whom God created the universe" is fully Trinitarian-amenable.

I am aware of the Jewish Wisdom literature. However, I don’t necessarily think that I have to appeal to extra-biblical literature to establish my points regarding specific scriptural passages. This may be an aid in many cases, but not necessary. Unfortunately, Trinitarians often speak of Christ as the one who created the universe (as if he was the active initiator, the Creator). However, if Christ was involved in the Genesis creation, he was not the creator (according to the Scriptures) but the one through whom God created (Hebrews 1:2). This is explicitly taught in Scripture. And that is the only point I was attempting to clarify in the section of my book James alluded to. Whether or not this is harmonious with Trinitarian theology is not the point. The point is, Trinitarians are in error when they teach that Christ is the Creator. He is not. He is the one through whom God created “all things” according to Colossians 1, John 1 and Hebrews 1.

I wrote:

I am familiar with the literature described by James. None of it supports trinitarian doctrine.
James wrote:

Uh, guess what? ALL of [Jewish wisdom literature] supports Trinitarian doctrine. You're just an idiot who doesn't know any better. There's a direct ideological line from pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology, through the NT, and into Nicea.

Here James claims that all of Jewish wisdom literature supports trinitarianism. But the book of Ecclesiasticus, otherwise called Sirach, teaches that “Wisdom was created before all other things” (1:4). This is contrary to Trinitarian doctrine. In harmony, Proverbs 8 teaches that wisdom was created by God.“

That's right. And Wisdom is ALSO a hypostasis of God that shares His divine nature, you dolt.”

Where does the Bible or Jewish wisdom literature teach this? Where does any of the literature say that wisdom “shares” God’s divine nature?

I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss. (Ecclesiasticus 24:3-5)

I have no problem with wisdom coming forth from the mouth of the most high. I accept this. But this does nothing to support Trinitarian doctrine.

Checking out more of Loudmouth's stilted prose, I found in between extended paragraphs of blah blah blah this gem of ignorance:
But when the orthodox say that “the Father is God” or “Jesus is God,” they do not mean to identify either one as the Trinity; but rather, as one “person” within the Trinity; or, more specifically, as one “person” who partakes of the one God’s divine essence. This point is helpful in showing clearly how, in Trinitarianism, the very term “God” must be equivocated, or given different meanings depending upon what subject the term is being applied to.
Equivocated my hiney. You're just ignorant again, though I'll grant that I've seen Trinitarians who are on this point too. Still, on you, Patty Boy, for not doing enough real homework.

If this is characteristic to certain Trinitarian approaches, then I’m glad I pointed it out. My points are addressed to Trinitarians of all backgrounds.

The mistake you make is reading the modern use of the word "God" as a proper name back into the text (and also into Trinitarian theology). The Greek theos, as NT Wright observed, is to be regarded rather as an abstract noun like the word "deity".

I make no such mistake. I simply point out that the Bible regularly distinguishes Jesus, the Son, from “God.” Yet Trinitarians teach that “Jesus is God.” To the average person, this sounds quite confusing. But when Trinitarians do this, of course, they are using the term “God” in a different way in each case, investing a different connotation depending on their context. That is all I pointed out, and it turns out to be true.

The Greek theos is to regarded as an abstract non like “deity,” according to NT Wright.

Where is this explained in the Bible? Where is this taught in the Grammars? How do we determine when the term “theos” means “deity” as opposed to “god”? Whenever Trinitarians tell us what it means? When the Bible does? Isn't "God" a noun? Where is the evidence that the term "theos" can take on the connotation of "deity" in Scripture? Is there not already a word that communicates this: theotetos (Col 2:9)?

But how could Trinitarianism be maintained if it teaches that Jesus is God. The answer is, according to the apologists, “God” simply means “Father” (meaning more specifically, the first ‘person’ of the Trinity).

Ain't my answer, Patty Boy. Ain't the answer of serious scholarship either. If you weren't so busy trying to find 18th century Unitarian commentaries, and crap by non-experts like "Christian Educational Services" that said what you wanted to hear, you might have found some real, qualified sources that answered your question.

Well, this is okay, since the points in my book were directed to Trinitarians across the spectrum, not to you. And this is absolutely the answer given by prominent Trinitarian apologists. “God” is distinguished from Jesus in Scriptures. But Trinitarians simply say that “God means the Father (the first person of the Trinity).” This is so because Trinitarians need the distinction between the Father and Son to be only in terms of “persons.” But the Bible makes clear that the only true God (a specific being) is a distinct figure from Jesus Christ (John 17:3).

You've yet to tell me what Son of God means in a sense that Jesus would be seen as a blasphemer for it. You can tell me that Jesus is the Son of God all you want, but until you give it some context, you might as well say he's a glorp. It has as much meaning.

Could you remind me of what text you are referring to? For now I will reiterate the point. In the Gospels Jesus always spoke of God as if God was his Father. For example, he spoke of the Temple as his Father’s house. He told the Jews that the one whom they claimed was their God was his Father. So, if Jesus is called God’s Son in the Bible, and in the Gospels Jesus speaks of God as if God was his Father, this moves me to conclude that Jesus really is God’s Son. The context is given by Jesus himself. God is his Father. Therefore, in the case of Jesus, “Son of God” means exactly what it communicates. God is his Father. He is God’s Son. I will wait for you to refer me to a specific text relating to blasphemy. Then I will be glad to address it.

Lastly, do a look at the phrase "Work of his hands" and see that it always refers to one who is directly doing such and understand that to the Jewish mindset, only God could create.

I specifically address this point in my discussion. I encourage you to re-read it. Consider the comments made by F. F. Bruce and Donald Guthrie. I quote both of them in my discussion and agree with their explanations.

I'd also go through Robert Reymond's work in Jesus: Divine Messiah in how the passage has a natural progression in Hebrews 1 that goes from Theos to a higher title of Kurios.

I have read Reymond’s work and I discuss several of his arguments in my book.

Patrick Navas

[jpholding]

I will simply ignore his name calling and insulting remarks. I have no interest in hostility and inflamatory rhetoric

Nah, all you care about is spreading misinformed nonsense and acting like a scalded puppy when you're called down in it the same way Jesus, Paul and others called down heretics and false teachers.



(2) Aside from being more mouth-running, if this is typical of the sort of silliness this man argues with, we're in for some laughs here. The logic is that if Peter does not identify Jesus as X, then Jesus can't be X.

The above statement is certainly not my logic, nor does it resemble any of the points I made regarding Jesus’ alleged identity as “God the Son.” My logic is this:

It's your logic precisely, denials notwithstanding, but your grasp of logic is so tenuous that it's little wonder you can't see your own incompetence in it. Look at what you said:

Peter explicitly answered Jesus question "Who do you say that I am?" in Matthew chapter 16. Jesus approved of the answer Peter gave. But Peter did not idetify Jesus as "God the Son."

THAT is EXACTLY you using Peter's silence as some sort of argument against the "God the Son" description. So there you did indeed suggest that since Peter did not identify Jesus as “God the Son” in Matthew 16 that Jesus therefore cannot be “God the Son.”

Weasel stench hangs over you like fresh roadkill, Patty Boy.


]I am aware of the Jewish Wisdom literature. However, I don’t necessarily think that I have to appeal to extra-biblical literature to establish my points regarding specific scriptural passages.

Bad news for you, sonny: The NT DID appeal to that literature to establish what it wanted to say about the identity of Christ. What this tells me is that your "awareness" of the Wisdom lit amounts to "I saw it one day in Barnes and Noble while I was shopping for the latest Where's Waldo book to use as a source in my book."


Unfortunately, Trinitarians often speak of Christ as the one who created the universe (as if he was the active initiator, the Creator).

Unfortunately, I don't, and I don't care who does, so burn that strawman somewhere else.


]Here James claims that all of Jewish wisdom literature supports trinitarianism. But the book of Ecclesiasticus, otherwise called Sirach, teaches that “Wisdom was created before all other things” (1:4). This is contrary to Trinitarian doctrine.

No, sorry, sonny, it isn't and nor is Proverbs 8. "Created" is a verb. It doesn't have any temporal connotations. Trinitarianism says that Wisdom is an ETERNAL creation, or generation, or expression, of the Father. See that word "eternal"? That's called an ADJECTIVE. Verbs don't have temporal connotation unless you ADD one of those. And as it happens, since Sirach also teaches that Wisdom is eternal, when it says "created" that context needs to be added to the verb. :duh:

As for Proverbs, since Hebrew had no word for "eternal" at the time, it doesn't matter, but if you agree that God is eternal, and Wisdom is an attribute of God, then you can't weasel out of Wisdom being eternal too.

Good heavens you are stupid.



Where does the Bible or Jewish wisdom literature teach this? Where does any of the literature say that wisdom “shares” God’s divine nature?

Duh.....you're just too stupid is all. I showed you when I quoted:

I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss. (Ecclesiasticus 24:3-5)

Now get a clue, sonny. Your words ARE you, in Hebrew thought. They are invested with your power and identity. Are you starting to figure it out now? You are divine; so are your words. Your words share your nature because YOU make them. Get it?


I have no problem with wisdom coming forth from the mouth of the most high. I accept this. But this does nothing to support Trinitarian doctrine.

It does everything to support it; you are simply ignorant of Trinitarian doctrine. Pay attention again:

1) Wisdom is an attribute of a personal being,
2) Wisdom here is God's Wisdom.
3) So God's Wisdom is an ______ of God.

Can you fill in the blank? Take out your crayons and write it in on the screen if you have to.


I make no such mistake.

Yes, you do, because you fail to correct yourself as you try to correct Trinitarians, and so you argue with a strawman.


Yet Trinitarians teach that “Jesus is God.” To the average person, this sounds quite confusing.

Well, you know, sonny, to do this kind of work you need to get off the armchair and stop eating Doritos, because "average" ain't gonna cut it -- not for atheists, not for you, and especially not here on TWeb, where the Christians read stuff like Witherington for funsies and find dolts like you uproariously funny.


]Where is this explained in the Bible? Where is this taught in the Grammars?

How about scholars like Wright? Duh -- you actually use him in a note. :doh: Here's a hint: Go through and find out what word is used for "gods" in the NT when referring to pagan gods.


How do we determine when the term “theos” means “deity” as opposed to “god”? Whenever Trinitarians tell us what it means? When the Bible does?

You find out by doing homework on each verse -- an idea completely foreign to you, I know. :ahem:


Well, this is okay, since the points in my book were directed to Trinitarians across the spectrum, not to you.

I understood you were being lazy already. You just picked up whatever you could reach from your armchair and that was it.


But the Bible makes clear that the only true God (a specific being) is a distinct figure from Jesus Christ (John 17:3).[/B]

Snoooooore.....been here, done that, you're still burnin' straw:

BH also show their inability to grasp Trinitarianism in this analogy, of comparison to John 17:3's "only true God" profession: "We would be suspicious of anyone who claims that he has 'only one wife' if his household consisted of three separate women, each of whom he claimed was his one wife." The analogy is multiply flawed. Trinitarianism would say the man has one wife, who has two attributes that are separate centers of consciousness: her thoughts and words, and her ability to act. The latter two, which would be hypostatic entities, would not be called "his one wife" because they do not exhaust the properties of his one wife; they are attributes of his own wife. Only the "source" wife could be called "his one wife" and the hypostatic "wives" would not be called a "wife" by themselves (unless informally) but would be given titles indicating derivation ("word of wife", "finger of wife," etc.) If BH cannot grasp these distinctions, they are not refuting or arguing with Trinitarianism but with a straw-man version of Trinitarianism.


That sounds an awful lot like you.

[Harfelugan]

I don't argue or believe that God needed anything, but that he chose to redeem people through his Son and that it pleased God to make his Son the object of faith, with salvation in view.]Redeemed them through an outside source to what ? How can we be reconciled to God through the actions of one who isn't God ? Not being God , how can he mediate for us as just another created being ? If God can delagate this authority to one who isn,t God , were there not angelic candidates available ? Would'nt the Mosaic sacraficial system have been enough ?



God can give glory to whomever he pleases. There is no dilemma in God giving glory to his own Son.

In John 17:22, 23 Jesus prayed to his Father: "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, [the disciples] that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me..."

The glory that the Father gave Jesus was given by Jesus to his human disciples. But thiere is not scriptural problem.In context to John 17:1-2 the glory God gives to Christ which He in turn requests for the disciples as well is not the same as I referred to in point #2 . Christ recieved a type of glory that enabled Him to reflect that glory back to God for God's glory not his own . The same as the glory He gave to the disciples trickling down to us today that we may reflect that glory back , glorifing God . That you claim that Christ isn't diety , God the Son , still begs the question of how God could take personal glory in the actions of a created underling outside of the fact that the underling was obedient to His wishes . God would have only instigated the act , He would'nt have fulfilled it .



My definition of Christ has no relationship with Mormonism.

NO it doesn't , but your interpretation of the Person of Christ being non-diety opens the door for other similar and even Mormon interpretations .



Why is that? Christ qualifies as a perfect sacrifice because he was a perfect (sinless) man.Why would you call a man good ? Christ Himself allowed that only God could meet the requirments of that statement . Christ as a man doesn't qualify , Christ as God the Son does qualify .

[PatrickNavas]

Why would you call a man good ? Christ Himself allowed that only God could meet the requirments of that statement . Christ as a man doesn't qualify , Christ as God the Son does qualify .[/QUOTE]

As I already pointed out, "God the Son" is a figure unknown to the Scriptures.

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=Harfelugan;1833847]Redeemed them through an outside source to what ?

God's Son is not "an outside source." He comes from God, derives his life from God and perfectly represents God.

How can we be reconciled to God through the actions of one who isn't God ?

People can be reconciled to God by the one whom God chooses to effect the reconciliation. It has pleased God to send forth his Son as the savior of the world.

Not being God , how can he mediate for us as just another created being ? If God can delagate this authority to one who isn, God , were there not angelic candidates available ?

If Jesus was "God" there would be no need or occasion for God to "delegate" authority to him.

[PatrickNavas]

I don't believe Christ is just "another created being." I believe he is God's unique and beloved Son.

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=jpholding;1833844]Nah, all you care about is spreading misinformed nonsense and acting like a scalded puppy when you're called down in it the same way Jesus, Paul and others called down heretics and false teachers.

There is absolutely no similarity between Jesus' and Paul's righteous denunciations of false teachers and your unrelenting and excessive use of disrespetful and abusive language. Jesus was a perfect (sinless) man, authorized by God to render out righteous judgments. He could see into people's hearts, but he did not tease people and insult people for its own sake. Your attempt to use the Bible to justify your abusive attacks are completely unwarranted and incredibly disturbing. You attempt to give the impression that since Jesus denounced certain people as "hypocrites" or "offspring of vipers", etc., that you are therefore in a position to denounce anyone who disagrees you with language like "stupid," etc. But you go even way beyond this. You are purposefully mean-spirited and cruel. And it is obvious that you are amused by this. I truly feel sorry for anyone who has been misled into believing that this behavior is (1) normal, (2) productive, (3) a healthy way to engage in academic or biblical discourse, and (4) pleasing to God or reflective of the true Christian spirit.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In your case....Wis-DUMB.


****
Nick, it's pretty clear why Loudmouth won't answer you. He doesn't even touch the Son of Man title, other than claiming it is just a "messianic title". I guess sources like Bock's Blashphemy and Exaltation in Judaism are too hard for him, because they don't have any pictures he can color.

Ah JPH my friend, I don't expect him to, but for me, that's kind of what makes it fun.

[Harfelugan]

God's Son is not "an outside source." He comes from God, derives his life from God and perfectly represents God.This is trinitarian doctrine , just add , is God . Your words ,"from God' , even indicate this as every other created being would be , "comes by God" . To interpret it any other way my pet cat could be inserted into your statement . And there is no sin in her . With your interpretation of the person and qualifications of Christ could not have God made her the propituation for our sins ?




Not being God , how can he mediate for us as just another created being ? If God can delagate this authority to one who isn, God , were there not angelic candidates available ?
If Jesus was "God" there would be no need or occasion for God to "delegate" authority to him.Bolded text are my words . Note that I said , 'If God delegates" , not that He does . For I don't see God delegating anything dealing with redemption to anyone who is outside of the fullness of the Godhead . To anyone who is not God .

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Here James claims that all of Jewish wisdom literature supports trinitarianism. But the book of Ecclesiasticus, otherwise called Sirach, teaches that “Wisdom was created before all other things” (1:4). This is contrary to Trinitarian doctrine. In harmony, Proverbs 8 teaches that wisdom was created by God.“


Let's let the philosopher have some fun here....

Patrick. Go read the Critias, it's a Socratic dialogue written by Plato after the Timaeus. In it, Timaeus has just finished speaking about the creation of the universe through the demiurge and in 106 a-b, he says this: "Now I offer my prayer to that god who had existed long before in reality, but who has now been CREATED in my words."

What does created mean there?




Where is this explained in the Bible? Where is this taught in the Grammars? How do we determine when the term “theos” means “deity” as opposed to “god”? Whenever Trinitarians tell us what it means? When the Bible does? Isn't "God" a noun? Where is the evidence that the term "theos" can take on the connotation of "deity" in Scripture? Is there not already a word that communicates this: theotetos (Col 2:9)?

I'm sorry. I can't make out your post. You don't list a definition for each and every word. You have this strange idea that when writing takes place, it's generally assumed that the readers read will understand the grammar and interpret accordingly.


Could you remind me of what text you are referring to? For now I will reiterate the point. In the Gospels Jesus always spoke of God as if God was his Father. For example, he spoke of the Temple as his Father’s house. He told the Jews that the one whom they claimed was their God was his Father. So, if Jesus is called God’s Son in the Bible, and in the Gospels Jesus speaks of God as if God was his Father, this moves me to conclude that Jesus really is God’s Son. The context is given by Jesus himself. God is his Father. Therefore, in the case of Jesus, “Son of God” means exactly what it communicates. God is his Father. He is God’s Son. I will wait for you to refer me to a specific text relating to blasphemy. Then I will be glad to address it.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Jews said they had no father but God himself in John 8. Jesus meant something different and I used the Sons of Thunder and the name Barnabas to illustrate my point. If you look at what those names mean, you'll get a clue as to why the high priest tore his clothes when asking Jesus if he was the Son of the Blessed.

Now let me ask you a question. Was the Father always the Father?

.


I specifically address this point in my discussion. I encourage you to re-read it. Consider the comments made by F. F. Bruce and Donald Guthrie. I quote both of them in my discussion and agree with their explanations.

Frankly, I think the comments work against you.




I have read Reymond’s work and I discuss several of his arguments in my book.

Patrick Navas

I would hope it's far more convincing than what I'm reading here. I haven't seen anything that's particularly moved me to go out and get a copy.

[Harfelugan]

As I already pointed out, "God the Son" is a figure unknown to the Scriptures.

You are correct in that statement in that the terminology isn't there . But that doesn't negate the claims of equality and oneness in God . If you take away the insults and negitivity from J. P. Holding's post he has adaquately refuted your arguments from scripture with scripture . Your dismissal of his extrabiblical sources as references of interpretation also dismis your own . When it comes to word terminology he has beaten you again as you go no farther than to fulfill your personal interpretations then close the door behind you . Which leaves you with only a scripture only interpretation . This is only as good as the person doing the interpretation .

[PatrickNavas]

For I don't see God delegating anything dealing with redemption to anyone who is outside of the fullness of the Godhead . To anyone who is not God .[/QUOTE]

That is fine. That is the way you see it. That is your interpretation. I respect it. But my main concern is with what the Bible itself teaches. If the Bible itself taught that what you yourself are arguing, there would be no issue. Maybe you are right. But the Scriptures nowhere present the reasoning you yourself present. So I reiterate the point. Jesus is God's own beloved Son. God sent him forth to save the world. It is God's sovereign right to save people through whatever means he chooses to do so. If the Bible says that God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and that everyone believing in his Son will not perish but have eternal life, I accept it. I don't add to it. My only motivation is to faithful to the original message of the Scriptures. I certainly don't make a separation between God and his Son in the sense that you seem to suggest. God and Jesus' relationship to one another is characterzied by a profound and intimate union, that of a Father and a Son. The Son is "the image of the invisible God" and "the exact representatio of God's very being."

[PatrickNavas]

Your dismissal of his extrabiblical sources as references of interpretation also dismis your own .

It is unfortunate that you characterize me as dismissing extrabiblical sources. I never did. I simply pointed out that they are not necessary to the point. But even if we do consult the extrabiblical wisdom literature, we find that wisdom was "created." James responds by arguing that we should understand this to mean "eternally created." If that convinces you, fine. There is nothing more I can say. But the truth is, there really isn't anything I theoretically could say or point to that would matter in a discussion of this kind. The reasoning of Trinitarianism can accomodate any statement. This is made clear when you interpret the term "created" to mean "eternally created."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Your dismissal of his extrabiblical sources as references of interpretation also dismis your own .

It is unfortunate that you characterize me as dismissing extrabiblical sources. I never did. I simply pointed out that they are not necessary to the point. But even if we do consult the extrabiblical wisdom literature, we find that wisdom was "created." James responds by arguing that we should understand this to mean "eternally created." If that convinces you, fine. There is nothing more I can say. But the truth is, there really isn't anything I theoretically could say or point to that would matter in a discussion of this kind. The reasoning of Trinitarianism can accomodate any statement. This is made clear when you interpret the term "created" to mean "eternally created."

There are events that are continuous with their cause. I have a desk here with a computer on it. The cause of the desk and the effect of the computer happen continually.

The ancients used sunlight as an example. As long as the sun has been, sunlight has always been coming forth from it.

In the same way, as long as the Father has been, the Son has been begotten from him.

[PatrickNavas]

Patrick. Go read the Critias, it's a Socratic dialogue written by Plato after the Timaeus. In it, Timaeus has just finished speaking about the creation of the universe through the demiurge and in 106 a-b, he says this: "Now I offer my prayer to that god who had existed long before in reality, but who has now been CREATED in my words."

This is an interesting quote; but it has nothing to do with understanding the Bible.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Jews said they had no father but God himself in John 8. Jesus meant something different and I used the Sons of Thunder and the name Barnabas to illustrate my point. If you look at what those names mean, you'll get a clue as to why the high priest tore his clothes when asking Jesus if he was the Son of the Blessed.

So, since certain people are described as "sons of thunder" this means that "son of God" means "God himself"? Is that what you are arguing?

I asked you to provide me the specific text regarding blasphemy. I am wiling to look closer at it to offer you some response, as you requested. So, again, please provide me with the text and your argument based on it. Then, we can go from there.

Frankly, I think the comments work against you.

I wouldn't quote them in my paper if they worked against me. They make the very same point that I would make. Hebrews 1:2 (God created the worlds/ages through the Son) helps us to accurately understand Hebrews 1:10. The son is the agent of creation. Therefore the author of Hebrews could legitimately apply Hebrews 1:10 to Christ. This does not work against my position. It reinforces it. It is not a complicated point.

I would hope it's far more convincing than what I'm reading here. I haven't seen anything that's particularly moved me to go out and get a copy.[/QUOTE]

No problem. I recommend reading my paper on "the I am statements of the Gospel of John" available on my website. Trinitarians scholars and commentaries themselves support every point I make. This certainly says a lot, this and cannot be lightly or casually dismissed. If you do, you're simply disregarding the work of respected scholars within your own evangelical communities.

[PatrickNavas]

In the same way, as long as the Father has been, the Son has been begotten from him.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with this concept as a theoretical or metaphysical possibility. But where does the Bible teach this?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

This is an interesting quote; but it has nothing to do with understanding the Bible.

Um. Yeah. It does. It's this language called "Greek" and this idea of what created meant to the ancients. Of course, I'd expect you to wave it away if you can't explain it.




So, since certain people are described as "sons of thunder" this means that "son of God" means "God himself"? Is that what you are arguing?

Nope. That's close, but not on it. Guess again.




I wouldn't quote them in my paper if they worked against me. They make the very same point that I would make. Hebrews 1:2 (God created the worlds/ages through the Son) helps us to accurately understand Hebrews 1:10. The son is the agent of creation. Therefore the author of Hebrews could legitimately apply Hebrews 1:10 to Christ. This does not work against my position. It reinforces it. It is not a complicated point.

Which does work against you since in the Hebrew mindset, creation was an action only God could do. The Son is also referred to as Kurios in that passage...




No problem. I recommend reading my paper on "the I am statements of the Gospel of John" available on my website. Trinitarians scholars and commentaries themselves support every point I make. This certainly says a lot, this and cannot be lightly or casually dismissed. If you do, you're simply disregarding the work of respected scholars within your own evangelical communities.

I would hope it's more convincing than what I've seen here. My guess is the Trinitarian scholars and commentators would disagree with you entirely. Why not show some of their reviews of your paper?

[PatrickNavas]

I would hope it's more convincing than what I've seen here. My guess is the Trinitarian scholars and commentators would disagree with you entirely. Why not show some of their reviews of your paper?[/QUOTE]


I recommend you read my paper for yourself. I just released the book so I do not have any formal reviews of course. If you read the chapter for youself, you will see all of the documentation. The vast majority of scholars I cite in support of my conclusions are Trinitarian. These are just facts, not arguments. If you are confident in your beliefs, take a good look at the evidence I support, with an objective and reasonable mind.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I would hope it's more convincing than what I've seen here. My guess is the Trinitarian scholars and commentators would disagree with you entirely. Why not show some of their reviews of your paper?


I recommend you read my paper for yourself. I just released the book so I do not have any formal reviews of course. If you read the chapter for youself, you will see all of the documentation. The vast majority of scholars I cite in support of my conclusions are Trinitarian. These are just facts, not arguments. If you are confident in your beliefs, take a good look at the evidence I support, with an objective and reasonable mind.[/QUOTE]

Can you get it in anything other than Adobe Acrobat? It and my computer don't really get along.

[PatrickNavas]

Can you get it in anything other than Adobe Acrobat? It and my computer don't really get along.[/QUOTE]

Just send me your email, and I will get it out to you in microsoft word. Or, email me at

patrick_navas@yahoo.com

If you do that I can just reply to your message along with the attachment of my discussion.

[sylvius]

Hebrew had no word for "eternal" at the time

you mean Hebrew is backwarded and defective language that needs to be corrected?

and that translations of Tanach are superior to the original?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I've read it and I'm personally unconvinced. Your sources are outdated often and you seem to use excerpts more than anything else. I've passed it along to a couple of my friends also who quite enjoy Trinitarian apologetics. I just wasn't convinced though.

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=ApologiaPhoenix;1834640]I've read it and I'm personally unconvinced. Your sources are outdated often and you seem to use excerpts more than anything else.

My sources are "out of date"? In your opinion what qualifies as up do date? I use "excerpts" as opposed to what?

Do you believe these observations tell me anything about whether my position is true on the matter or not. Did you not pay attention to the specific arguments and reasoning I actually made?

Is it really fair and honest to casually dismiss someone's arguments (based on language and context) on the basis that their sources are allegedly "out of date"?

[jpholding]

[
There is absolutely no similarity between Jesus' and Paul's righteous denunciations of false teachers and your unrelenting and excessive use of disrespetful and abusive language. Jesus was a perfect (sinless) man, authorized by God to render out righteous judgments.

Yawn....standard excuse. 1) Paul wasn't perfect, so by your "logic" he had no right to use abusive language, yet he did. Same for Elijah and John. 2) Rather inconveniently for you, Jesus' actions mirror the standard model of challenge-riposte for the day; which means he did something that no one else thought you had to be "perfect" to do. 3) You beg the question of whether my knowledge is NOT sufficient to use such language. So far you keep proving that it is sufficient, as you continually make excuses and decontextualize Scripture.


But you go even way beyond this. You are purposefully mean-spirited and cruel. And it is obvious that you are amused by this.

Cry me a river, crybaby. :bawl:

Now quit crying and produce some answers, whitewashed tomb. :hehe: You can start bv explaining where there is temporal meaning in a verb like "created"/

By the way, qanah as used in Proverbs clearly means "possessed". That is how it is used through the rest of Proverbs with regards to Wisdom. :doh:

[PatrickNavas]

James,

I must confess. You have clearly out-classed me. Your careful scholarship, patience, humility and soundness of mind set an example for Christians of all times.

I thank you for your time

Patrick Navas

[ApologiaPhoenix]

[

Do you believe these observations tell me anything about whether my position is true on the matter or not. Did you not pay attention to the specific arguments and reasoning I actually made?

Is it really fair and honest to casually dismiss someone's arguments (based on language and context) on the basis that their sources are allegedly "out of date"?


What arguments? I just saw things said by people devoid of a context and using the oldest sources possible. I really didn't find one argument that left me wondering any today "Geez. How would I answer that?"

[Another_Insider]

May I join the discussion?
I think Patrict Navas never address the fact of Jesus being present even before Abraham was born in John 8:58, at least on this thread. It reminds me of some straw man of anti-Trinitarian arguments that if Jesus was present even before Abraham, where was the name of Jesus in the OT?

[jpholding]

James,

I must confess. You have clearly out-classed me. Your careful scholarship, patience, humility and soundness of mind set an example for Christians of all times.


The sad part is, you think you're being sarcastic. :lol:

And worse, even though AP, Harf, and others (including now AI) have treated you with kid gloves, you're no less adept at dodging, fudging, and whining when they call your lousy scholarship down on the carpet.

You're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that intelligent Christians aren't impressed with your namby-pamby "skolarship" and that you've wasted what is likely years chasing a chimera under the rubric of being one incompetent to address the subject matter. Let it go -- it'll feel a lot better, and you can get on to doing something productive for once.


s it really fair and honest to casually dismiss someone's arguments (based on language and context) on the basis that their sources are allegedly "out of date"?

Yes. It is -- because those are the signs of bad scholarship, especially when more informed and modern sources are mysteriously missing from said bibliography, and when the issue is raised, the Loudmouth in question blusters that he is sure those sources would have nothing new to say. Passive-aggressive arrogance will get you nowhere.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In all honesty, when I meet a counter-argument that makes me think, I will think about it. I read what you wrote though Patrick and I saw nothing I considered a serious challenge. The only people that will believe it is are those who have little or no understanding of the Trinity.

I also so wonder about someone who uses the oldest sources out there while modern ones are there. It gives the impression of just choosing arbitrarily anyone across the board just who happens to agree with you and treating them as the final authority. Old sources can be used, but they are to be used sparingly.

You really should look into wisdom literature. As one coming from a philosophical perspective also, I would suggest you look into the ramifications of Monadism vs. Trinitarianism.

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=ApologiaPhoenix;1836447]In all honesty, when I meet a counter-argument that makes me think, I will think about it. I read what you wrote though Patrick and I saw nothing I considered a serious challenge.

Do Aplogia Phoenix:

Okay. Fair enough. Since you clearly read it. Give me one example of an unsound argument in my "I am" paper and tell me why it's wrong or unconvincing. Explain to me why the Trinitarian position still holds up, for any of the texts I discuss.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

To Aplogia Phoenix:

Okay. Fair enough. Since you clearly read it. Give me one example of an unsound argument in my "I am" paper and tell me why it's wrong or unconvincing. Explain to me why the Trinitarian position still holds up, for any of the texts I discuss.

Only when I can find an argument. I honestly don't recall one thing I'd consider an argument. I just saw over and over "X says this" and "Y says this" and "Z says this." I prefer to read someone's own thinking when I read them more than other people's thinking.

[PatrickNavas]

Only when I can find an argument. I honestly don't recall one thing I'd consider an argument. I just saw over and over "X says this" and "Y says this" and "Z says this." I prefer to read someone's own thinking when I read them more than other people's thinking.

I made it clear that I was talking about the arguments in my "I am" paper. Just read my original post. You said you read it and that nothing convinced you. Again, that is fine if you feel that way. Now I am asking you to point out an example of unsound argumentation and to explain why Trinitarians are right.

[PatrickNavas]

I have encountered different strategies used by Trinitarians to support their arguments and to dismiss my own. But these are new to me:

(1) Continually denounce your opponent as an "idiot," "stupid," and "loudmouth."
(3) Claim that the word "created" means "eternally created" and invite the other person to debate this subject.
(2) Dismiss the arguments your opponent is making because his sources are "allegedly out of date," when the truth is, I use a variety of sources (new and old, all throughout my book). The sources are there for corroboration (the majority of which are Trinitarian), showing that prominent scholars from the past and present support many of my own conclusions, and yet all that really matters, in the end, is the arguments made based on the contexts and language. And, for some reason, I see Trinitarians quote from "out of date" sources all the time in a wide range of scholarly works (Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Athanasius, Augustine, Albert Barnes, Jonathan Edwards), yet they evidently should not be faulted. But we all know that there is a wealth of information out there. Some of it comes from the past and some of it is contemporary. There is nothing wrong or unscholarly about quoting from either. The only thing that matters is the truth value of what they have to say. This is a point that doesn't even need to be argued.

I can say this: This has definitely been an eye-opening experience. It just gives me more insight into the mentality of Evangelical apologists and renews confidence in my own faith. Although James is certainly the most extreme and mean-spirited I have ever encountered, I don't believe at all that this is reflective of the attitude of most trinitarian scholars. Many of them are courteous, gracious and loving, even when trying to persuade you that their beliefs are right and yours are wrong.

I tried to have a dialogue with some of the members of this board. I knew that nothing beneficial would come out of discussing these subjects with James. Name calling and teasing has an effect, but does nothing to clarify the issues. It may be amusing to some, and others may take pleasure in this, but it only takes focus away from the issues that really matter.

[Sparko]

Pat you might want to learn how to use the quote tags.

If you select the text you want to quote with your mouse, then click the quote icon in the toolbar of the editor ( 40423 ) the selected text will be placed in quotes.

You can manually do this by typing the quote tags yourself. If you put


text goes here


Then the text will appear as:


text goes here

When you submit the post

[SteveScianni]

And to Patrick and his friend, even if you didn't like JPH's style, why not stick around? I was wanting to keep going. I would think someone interested in truth would keep going regardless and if you thought someone was being hostile, well that would make it more of a challenge.

Or could it be you weren't interested in truth but just wanted to air your own opinions?

AP, I hear you...I just haven't been able to get on here as frequently as I'd like. I've been fairly busy, but I'm up for keeping things going and like you, I am interested in truth and love discussing these kinds of questions. As for JPH, well you know, I think the point's been made that you can show someone where they're wrong without insulting them...he disagrees.

[jpholding]

I have encountered different strategies used by Trinitarians to support their arguments and to dismiss my own. But these are new to me:

It's too bad you live such a sheltered life.

That said, your method of dodging and whining is of course "old school". :lmbo:



I see Trinitarians quote from "out of date" sources all the time in a wide range of scholarly works (Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Athanasius, Augustine, Albert Barnes, Jonathan [Edwards), yet they evidently should not be faulted.

Please. I never use such people unless the purpose is to do a historical survey.


The only thing that matters is the truth value of what they have to say. This is a point that doesn't even need to be argued.

In short, you're too ignorant to be embarrassed by your own incapability and incompetence. Remember the point: It is not just use of outdated sources, but their use to the exclusion of those that are up to date, all of which (as AP rightly noted, inasmuch as there are no "arguments" in your work to speak of) indicates someone who does no more than rape texts to cull out statements of assertion that say what he wants to hear.


It just gives me more insight into the mentality of Evangelical apologists and renews confidence in my own faith

Check for a phrase, "invincible ignorance." :rofl:


It may be amusing to some, and others may take pleasure in this, but it only takes focus away from the issues that really matter.

It's too bad your ability to focus is so poor. Of course, you ignore the fact that your "arguments" as such have been trampled at the same time.

I am still waiting for an answer to how a verb can connote any sort of temporality, other than the answer that has been repeated three times now, namely, "DUH." :duh:

[SteveScianni]

James, I think most people would want to defend themselves when called 'weasel' or 'hypocrite' and I'm no different, but I think a response would just prolong a useless 'grudge match' so let's move on. I would like, however, to ask these questions:
(1) Is it possible that the Trinity, as represented in the creeds, is not perfectly biblical?
(2) If not, how did we determine this impossibility?
(3) If it is possible the creeds are, at this point, inaccurate, we then ought to invite examination, and criticism, in order to arrive at the best conclusion. Agree?

That, of course, is not to excuse poor scholarship by dissenters, that is always regrettable. But that is to say, it is sometimes part of a free inquiry. Eventually it is rooted out under scrutiny and truth is ultimately served in that regard. Which leads me to ask:
(4) Does God allow for this sort of re-examination in regard to the Trinity?
(5) If so, how does this comport with the stance that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?
(6) If God does not allow for this, where did He communicate this prohibition?
(7) Why does God disallow this?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I made it clear that I was talking about the arguments in my "I am" paper. Just read my original post. You said you read it and that nothing convinced you. Again, that is fine if you feel that way. Now I am asking you to point out an example of unsound argumentation and to explain why Trinitarians are right.

Patty. Nothing convinced me because there were no arguments stated. JPH is right. It was just texts taken here and there as if that along made a point. I can guess what various other writers think from your writing. I cannot tell though what you think. Thus, when you ask me to name an argument, I can honestly not think of a single one. I went about my day and I hardly thought about it afterwards because I didn't see anything to think about.

Also, I do have things I have to do outside of here. When I reply to something, I do reply promptly. Repeatedly insisting that I answer when I'm not there isn't going to win any bonus points. It'll push me even more to take off the kid gloves. (JPH can testify that I've been going light.)

But if you want me to show that you're fallacious, I shall. Pat. Can you tell me where in the Bible we are told what books to gather and call the New Testament as well as the names of the people who wrote some of them?

[jpholding]

It's time for your favorite game show and mine, "Let's Be PC"! :teeth:



(1) Is it possible that the Trinity, as represented in the creeds, is not perfectly biblical?

Nope. There's a straight line from pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology, through the NT and into the Nicean creedal statement. Now how about actually disputing the matter rather than distracting with pointless PC questions?


(2) If not, how did we determine this impossibility?

"Homework." Studying the data and arriving at a conclusion based on the data. Ever done that, or do you do your theology like Patty here, by rolling chicken bones out of an old bucket of KFC?


(3) If it is possible the creeds are, at this point, inaccurate, we then ought to invite examination, and criticism, in order to arrive at the best conclusion. Agree?

Yep. Such a shame it isn't possible, isn't it? Have to find something else to do. :whistle:


(4) Does God allow for this sort of re-examination in regard to the Trinity?

:lol: Well gee, it seems to be happening, however incompetent it is, so obviously it is "allowed"! Do it wrong, though, and you open yourself up for a good roughing up from those who know better!



(5) If so, how does this comport with the stance that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

The question doesn't follow from a "yes" answer at all, so I'm not answering it on the grounds that it offers a false premise.

6 and 7 assume a NO answer which I did not give.

Yeesh. Let's have you play something other than dodgeball, huh? :doh:

[PatrickNavas]

But if you want me to show that you're fallacious, I shall. Pat. Can you tell me where in the Bible we are told what books to gather and call the New Testament as well as the names of the people who wrote some of them?[/QUOTE]

AP. I sent you a private email asking you to give one example of where I am wrong in my "I am" paper. You casusally dismissed the whole paper without any evidence in support of the traditional trinitarian interpretations. The next step in this discussion is for you to bring evidence to the table, that is, counter-arguments, rebuttals, constructive criticisms, etc. Name calling, casual dismissals, and off the subject questions do nothing to advance the issues in question.

So, again, Trinitarians claim that the "ego eimi" (I am) statements of the Gospel of John establish an important feature of trinitarian theology, namely that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. My entire discussion in the paper was focused on showing the fallacy of such a position. You dismissed it as unconvincing. All I am requesting, respectfully, is you bring forth evidence. If you don't, I'll just assume you have no real interest in discussing these issues in a meaningul way. You can email me in private if you choose. Or you can post a rebuttal on the forum. Either is fine with me...

Patrick

[ApologiaPhoenix]

But if you want me to show that you're fallacious, I shall. Pat. Can you tell me where in the Bible we are told what books to gather and call the New Testament as well as the names of the people who wrote some of them?

AP. I sent you a private email asking you to give one example of where I am wrong in my "I am" paper. You casusally dismissed the whole paper without any evidence in support of the traditional trinitarian interpretations. The next step in this discussion is for you to bring evidence to the table, that is, counter-arguments, rebuttals, constructive criticisms, etc. Name calling, casual dismissals, and off the subject questions do nothing to advance the issues in question.

So, again, Trinitarians claim that the "ego eimi" (I am) statements of the Gospel of John establish an important feature of trinitarian theology, namely that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. My entire discussion in the paper was focused on showing the fallacy of such a position. You dismissed it as unconvincing. All I am requesting, respectfully, is you bring forth evidence. If you don't, I'll just assume you have no real interest in discussing these issues in a meaningul way. You can email me in private if you choose. Or you can post a rebuttal on the forum. Either is fine with me...

Patrick[/QUOTE]

Yeah. You sent me two emails as if I had ignored the first one. Sorry. I've got this thing called a job that demands that I be there and nowhere near a computer that I can use.

I do have a real interest, but I've said it enough, I can't think of one argument in the whole thing. It's just more "X said this. Y said this. Z said this." That was all I saw. I cannot think of ONE argument. You don't like that answer? It's your problem. I've read several papers with arguments I can recognize. This was not one of them.

Now then, can you tell me how you know what books should be in the Bible and who wrote them?

[jpholding]

As noted more than once, Loudmouth doesn't know anything about critically comparing claims. He just yanks out things from the text and uses them if he likes them. If one of those 18th century commentators had said, "John 8:58 is not useful for Trinitarian theology, despite X argument by this Trinitarian, because Beowulf Sanskrit porkchop la dee dee da doo," he'd quote it and ask us to provide a detailed answer to the "argument" it makes. :lolo:

[PatrickNavas]

Yeah. You sent me two emails as if I had ignored the first one. Sorry. I've got this thing called a job that demands that I be there and nowhere near a computer that I can use.

Out of curiosity, why do so many people in this forum feel it necessary to be so sarcastic in almost everything that is said? "I've got this thing called a job."

I just don't see the need for this kind of attitude. I never suggested that you didn't have a job or that you had all the time in the world to respond to my arguments. But you did dismiss my paper. All I asked is to give one example of why you are right and why I am wrong and to bring evidence. You are either unwilling or incapable of doing so. So no progress can be made.


As far as your comments regarding my paper, they are simply unitelligible. The entire paper goes into detail discussing why the Trinitarian view is in error in regard to the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John. All you say is "there is no argument given." Yet the entire paper is filled with arguments, contextual reasonings, evidences and notes showing why the Trinitarian interpretation is wrong. In fact, prominent scholars from your own communities do most of the arguing for me. You obviously have nothing substantial to say in response or rebuttal, so I will let the subject go.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I just don't see the need for this kind of attitude. I never suggested that you didn't have a job or that you had all the time in the world to respond to my arguments. But you did dismiss my paper. All I asked is to give one example of why you are right and why I am wrong and to bring evidence. You are either unwilling or incapable of doing so. So no progress can be made.


As far as your comments regarding my paper, they are simply unitelligible. The entire paper goes into detail discussing why the Trinitarian view is in error in regard to the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John. All you say is "there is no argument given." Yet the entire paper is filled with arguments, contextual reasonings, evidences and notes showing why the Trinitarian interpretation is wrong. In fact, prominent scholars from your own communities do most of the arguing for me. You obviously have nothing substantial to say in response or rebuttal, so I will let the subject go.

Actually, you did. You sent me an email and then the next one was another email asking the exact same thing. If you want to say I have nothing substantial, that's your error. However, all you have in your "paper" is X said this and Y said this. If I was wanting to get a compilation of views, I could read that. However, if I wanted an argument, I'd read something else. At least when I pick up a copy of "Should You Believe The Trinity?" they give arguments.

Now then, do you want to answer my question?

[Sparko]

Pat as someone who has not even kept up with this thread, let me give you my opinion. I went to go read your "book" seeking to see how you handled John 1:1

I read at least 10 pages of you quoting other people on what they thought "the word was God" meant and how it should be translated and how the trinitarians were getting it wrong. I finally got bored and stopped because I could not find YOUR opinion anywhere in all the quotes and junk. I wanted to know what YOUR conclusion was about WHO the word was (Jesus I hope) and what was his nature? If John 1:1 reads and the word was God, what does that mean to YOU?

do you think Jesus was just a man? an Angel? or another God?

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time quoting other people and no time making any arguments on your own.

Your book reads like a reader's digest of anti-trinitarian quotes. I bet your source reference section must be larger than your actual book.

[PatrickNavas]

Now then, do you want to answer my question?[/QUOTE]


AP, I do appreciate your time. Despite what you say, my entire paper was designed, through argumentation and evidence, to expose the fallacies of Trinitarianism with respect to the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John. I did so, not only by using reasoning based on the individual contexts where each "I am" statement occurs, but by providing corroborating evidence from ancient and modern commentaries, the majority of which were "orthodox." I go into some detail discussing the meaning of ego eimi, other cases where the term is used, in both Hebrew and Greek. I discuss the translation and meaning of Exodus 3:14 in the original Hebrew and Septuagint, the ani hu statements of Isaiah, and the arguments of prominet Trinitarian scholars based on these. I show, step by step, with evidence (including language, scholarly sources, and points related to context), why these arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. All you say in response is "there is no argument." To me this is simply a bluff. You want to change the subject now, requesting that I answer your question on an entirely different topic, when you refuse to give one reason supporting trinitarian interpretations over against my own. That is okay. You are entitled to your opinion, but you present no supporting evidence.

So, I am going to pass on your request to change the subject, and discontinue posting on this forum. The first chapter of my book is available on my site as well as the 6th chapter on my resources page. If anyone on this forum wishes to offer a rebuttal to my arguments, I am open to hear them. Feel free to privately email me. There has been a lot of name-calling and disrespectful language. That is fine. I won't even complain about that. But if anyone would like to discuss any of these issues intellegently and respectfully, I am willng to do the same. All that matters is the arguments and evidences that can be brought forward. Calling people names and posting happy face images of vomiting, crying and laughing hysterically may be fun and give others a degree of amusement, but they do nothing to bring clarity to the issues.

So, if anyone would like to offer an actual response to the portions of my book available on the website or book, here is the web address.

http://divinetruth.homestead.com/index.html

Here is my email

patrick_navas@yahoo.com

Thank you all for your time

Patrick Navas

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Now then, do you want to answer my question?


AP, I do appreciate your time. Despite what you say, my entire paper was designed, through argumentation and evidence, to expose the fallacies of Trinitarianism with respect to the "I am" statements of the Gospel of John. I did so, not only by using reasoning based on the individual contexts where each "I am" statement occurs, but by providing corroborating evidence from ancient and modern commentaries, the majority of which were "orthodox." I go into some detail discussing the meaning of ego eimi, other cases where the term is used, in both Hebrew and Greek. I discuss the translation and meaning of Exodus 3:14 in the original Hebrew and Septuagint, the ani hu statements of Isaiah, and the arguments of prominet Trinitarian scholars based on these. I show, step by step, with evidence (including language, scholarly sources, and points related to context), why these arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. All you say in response is "there is no argument." To me this is simply a bluff. You want to change the subject now, requesting that I answer your question on an entirely different topic, when you refuse to give one reason supporting trinitarian interpretations over against my own. That is okay. You are entitled to your opinion, but you present no supporting evidence.

So, I am going to pass on your request to change the subject, and discontinue posting on this forum. The first chapter of my book is available on my site as well as the 6th chapter on my resources page. If anyone on this forum wishes to offer a rebuttal to my arguments, I am open to hear them. Feel free to privately email me. There has been a lot of name-calling and disrespectful language. That is fine. I won't even complain about that. But if anyone would like to discuss any of these issues intellegently and respectfully, I am willng to do the same. All that matters is the arguments and evidences that can be brought forward. Calling people names and posting happy face images of vomiting, crying and laughing hysterically may be fun and give others a degree of amusement, but they do nothing to bring clarity to the issues.

So, if anyone would like to offer an actual response to the portions of my book available on the website or book, here is the web address.

http://divinetruth.homestead.com/index.html

Here is my email

patrick_navas@yahoo.com

Thank you all for your time

Patrick Navas[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's not unrelated. In fact, I can point out how it's not just your one chapter that's fallacious. However, apparently, you have no interest. You find it hard to believe that there's no argument in anything you say. I'm not shocked. Those of us that are well-read in Trinitarianism give another ho-hum here.

[PatrickNavas]

I read at least 10 pages of you quoting other people on what they thought "the word was God" meant and how it should be translated and how the trinitarians were getting it wrong. I finally got bored and stopped because I could not find YOUR opinion anywhere in all the quotes and junk. I wanted to know what YOUR conclusion was about WHO the word was (Jesus I hope) and what was his nature? If John 1:1 reads and the word was God, what does that mean to YOU?

All you have to do is finish reading the discussion on John 1:1 and you will find my conclusion clearly stated. One of the most outstanding points of my sources supporting "the word was a divine being" translation is that they come from Trinitarians themselves. That is why they are there.

John 1:1, in the original Greek, does not read "the word was God," as you suggest.

do you think Jesus was just a man? an Angel? or another God?

I believe Jesus was and is the Messiah, God's Son.

Your book reads like a reader's digest of anti-trinitarian quotes. I bet your source reference section must be larger than your actual book.[/QUOTE]

Most of my supporting quotes are from pro-trinitarian sources. That is why they are so significant. The spectrum of Trinitarian scholarship reveals that Trinitarians themeselves cancel out their own arguments. If you look long enough, you will find that every argument made in behalf of trinitarianism has already been refuted or contested by Trinitarians themselves. That is one of the main points of the book. I'll give you one example. If you have access to John Calvin's commentary on John 10:30 (Jesus said "I and the Father are one"), or if you have access to the conservative Tyndale commentaries, you will see a case of Trinitarians exposing the arguments of other Trinitarians as fallacious. This is just one prominent example, yet it proves to be true in nearly every case, with respect to nearly every scripture normally thought of as supporting trinitarian concepts.

[Tophet]

1. Who raised Jesus from the dead?

The Father (Romans 6:4. Acts 3:26, 1 Thessalonians 1:10)?
The Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17-18)?
The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)?
Or God (Hebrews 13:20; Acts 13:29-30, 17:30-31)?

2. Who does the Bible say is God?

The Father (Ephesians 4:6)?
The Son (Titus 2:13; John 1:1, 20:28)?
The Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4)?
The one and only true God (Deuteronomy 4:35)?

3. Who created the world?

The Father (John 14:2)?
The Son (Colossians 1:16-17; John 1:1-3)?
The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30)?
Or God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3)?

4. Who saves man? Who regenerates man?

The Father (1 Peter 1:3)?
The Son (John 5:21; 4:14)?
The Holy Spirit (John 3:6; Titus 3:5)?
Or God (1 John 3:9)?

5. Who justifies man?

The Father (Jeremiah 23:6, cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19)?
The Son (Romans 5:9; 10:4; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21)?
The Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 5:5)?
Or God (Romans 4:6; 9:33)?

6. Who sanctifies man?

The Father (Jude 1)?
The Son (Titus 2:14)?
The Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2)?
Or God (Exodus 31:13)?

7. Who propitiated God's just anger against man for his sins?

The Father (1 John 4:14; John 3:16; 17:5; 18:11)?
The Son (Matthew 26:28; John 1:29; 1 John 2:2)?
The Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14)?
Or God (2 Corinthians 5:1; Acts 20:28)?

[Another_Insider]

In all honesty, when I meet a counter-argument that makes me think, I will think about it. I read what you wrote though Patrick and I saw nothing I considered a serious challenge. The only people that will believe it is are those who have little or no understanding of the Trinity.

I also so wonder about someone who uses the oldest sources out there while modern ones are there. It gives the impression of just choosing arbitrarily anyone across the board just who happens to agree with you and treating them as the final authority. Old sources can be used, but they are to be used sparingly.

You really should look into wisdom literature. As one coming from a philosophical perspective also, I would suggest you look into the ramifications of Monadism vs. Trinitarianism.

Sometimes, I am using this argument from Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-211), against anti-Trinitarians' ignorance of the Scripture, this might be the oldest than the sources used by Patrick Navas in his book.


But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are [the true] Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration.However, this doesn't prove that the Trinity is true, it only proves the argument that we need to be careful for choosing sources, that those people must be craftsmen and superior with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. I believed there are some good "video & MP3" presentations of the Trinity here: http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=167
for Patrick Navas' perusal.

[Sparko]

I read at least 10 pages of you quoting other people on what they thought "the word was God" meant and how it should be translated and how the trinitarians were getting it wrong. I finally got bored and stopped because I could not find YOUR opinion anywhere in all the quotes and junk. I wanted to know what YOUR conclusion was about WHO the word was (Jesus I hope) and what was his nature? If John 1:1 reads and the word was God, what does that mean to YOU?

All you have to do is finish reading the discussion on John 1:1 and you will find my conclusion clearly stated. One of the most outstanding points of my sources supporting "the word was a divine being" translation is that they come from Trinitarians themselves. That is why they are there.
Sorry but after reading around 10 pages of your quotes and other drivel I had to give up. Let's find out here...


John 1:1, in the original Greek, does not read "the word was God," as you suggest.
Actually it does.


do you think Jesus was just a man? an Angel? or another God?

I believe Jesus was and is the Messiah, God's Son.

That does not answer the question. Of what nature was Jesus? merely human? did he prexist in any form? Does he exist NOW in any form? if so what is the nature of his being? If he is actually God's son, woudn't that mean he is another god? If I have a son, he is human just like me. Do you mean he is literally God's son or just figuratively? If figuratively, then what IS Jesus's essential nature? Angel, god, or human?

Is it that hard to just spit out what you believe? Why do you have to hide it in vague terms and in 10 pages of quotes from other people?

ApologiaPhoenix was right. you make no arguments for yourself. You just make vague conclusions and use other people to speak for you, and never delve into the actual reasoning.

Just spit it out Pat. Are you ashamed of what you believe?

[Harfelugan]

(1) Is it possible that the Trinity, as represented in the creeds, is not perfectly biblical? Infallable in themselves no , biblical yes . Although not found in specific terminology the context throughout scripture upholds the doctrine .

(2) If not, how did we determine this impossibility?My interpretation that the creeds are correct came from the same source as yours , cannonized scripture . One of us is correct , and one of us is wrong .

(3) If it is possible the creeds are, at this point, inaccurate, we then ought to invite examination, and criticism, in order to arrive at the best conclusion. Agree?This was done long ago by people who sat under the teachings of the apostles themselves and the early fathers who faced the same interpretations from anti-trinitarians in their day . The arguments were recorded , some have survived . The creeds were instituted as orthodox positions against what were considered to be heretical interpretations of scripture to keep the herisies from tainting the already established doctrines of the early church , the creeds wern't the introduction of trinity doctrine but an attempt to keep it pure by defining it ... I'm currently reading Frances Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology which describe the progression of these arguments and the development of trinitarian doctrine along with the arguments that were brought against it . It is an old source , mid 1600,s but old people like old things , and though it wont sway your firmly established personal position it may give insight on the argument .


That, of course, is not to excuse poor scholarship by dissenters, that is always regrettable. But that is to say, it is sometimes part of a free inquiry. Eventually it is rooted out under scrutiny and truth is ultimately served in that regard. And abortion is now a socially accepted norm in our culture . I prefer to trust in God to uphold His Word , establish His Word In our hearts and In the Body of Christ His Church . Personal interpretations are acceptable but lead me amiss if I run amuk from established orthodoxy .
Which leads me to ask:
(4) Does God allow for this sort of re-examination in regard to the Trinity?Everything should be examined and re-examined , that is how we learn . But re-interpreted to meet our personal interpretations isn't allowed . Look at the history of Catholacism for evidence to the consequences of this . What you are asking for is more than a re-examination of scripture but a re-definition of the orthodox position of the nature and essence of God . I say if God didnt get it right then how could we trust in a re-definition now .

(5) If so, how does this comport with the stance that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? I'll follow J.P. H.'s out on this and trump it with Patricks reply that it is a change of subject in regards to this particular post .
(6) If God does not allow for this, where did He communicate this prohibition?Like the word , "God the Son" , you wont find the phrase , "thou shalt not re-define my nature and essence to match your personal interpretation" , anywhere in cannonized scripture . However the context of the epistles against new revelations , false teachers , and teaching different than that which you recieved is good enough for me .
(7) Why does God disallow this?To protect His Word from heritical doctrines and continual re-interpretations .

Note to Steve and Patrick : Thank you for your participation on this forum . Please consider my inqueries and statements as my means of searching out your thoughts and opinions of your doctrines , as I dont expect to get you to change your minds anymore than you will change mine . I would still like to get your definition of who Christ is that goes beyond a unique created Son that could be displayed in this forum as well as a distinct and seperate thread on Steve's question #5 above . Patrick wouldn't be the first writer to stick around to hone their arguments against a critical audience .Perhaps J.P.H. and A.P. have a point about his ability to present an argument that grabs the attention of one with an opposing viewpoint . Are you really done here ?

[PatrickNavas]

Just spit it out Pat. Are you ashamed of what you believe?[/QUOTE]

In my last post I told you what I believe. I prefer to stick to the language of Scripture and let Scripture speak for itself. I think Scripture is the most reliable source.

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36). I do believe Jesus should be honored with the title "God," based on the authority God has given him (Matt. 28:19), but I don't think the Scriptures intend to communicate that he is God Almighty since he has one who is God above him, the God whom he himself worships. Trinitarians, of course, argue that Jesus can only have the Father as his God from the perspective of his human nature or position, believeing that he simultaneously possesses two natures. But even when Jesus is called "God" or "Lord," he is spoken of as having one who is God to him (See: Hebrews 1:8 and Ephesians 1:17). I believe, based on Scripture, that God allows the term "God" or "gods" to apply to those with an honored and exalted office.

[sylvius]

I am still waiting for an answer to how a verb can connote any sort of temporality, other than the answer that has been repeated three times now, namely, "DUH."

'He who speaks falsehood will not be established before My eyes' (Psalms101:7)."


In the meaantime I am waiting for your answer to:

what (the hell) is pre-incarnate wisdom?

explain it please in relation to Revelation 13:18: "Here is the wisdom"

(so that I might understand).

[jpholding]

'He who speaks falsehood will not be established before My eyes' (Psalms101:7)."


In the meaantime I am waiting for your answer to:

what (the hell) is pre-incarnate wisdom?

explain it please in relation to Revelation 13:18: "Here is the wisdom"

(so that I might understand).

I don't do brickwork, sorry. :hehe:



Patty's comment about arguments that "cancel each other out" proves yet again what I have said: He is a quote miner who has no ability to do critical comparison.

Roll the chicken bones.

[sylvius]

I don't do brickwork, sorry. :hehe:
you being already on somebody else's wages-sheet?



Patty's comment about arguments that "cancel each other out" proves yet again what I have said: He is a quote miner who has no ability to do critical comparison.

first: what's wrong about being a quote miner?

second: who are you to judge?

show me your licence.

didn't Jesus himself say, Matthew 13:52
"Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old."


Roll the chicken bones

which is meant to be funny?

[jpholding]

Dang. Anudder Screwball Award for you.

[sylvius]

Dang. Anudder Screwball Award for you.


survival technique, hiding behind your pawns.

[QUOE]Until June 2007 I will be pretty darned busy with other stuff, so I'm only going to be on TWeb in my own (tektonics.org) section... [/QUOTE]

but you yourself came up with bold assertion:
.
[INDENT]"Son" is only properly applied to the incarnate Jesus, not pre-incarnate Wisdom. [INDENT]


Stand for it!

no you can't....

[sylvius]

(sorry I don't know how to edit)



Dang. Anudder Screwball Award for you

survival technique, hiding behind your pawns.


Until June 2007 I will be pretty darned busy with other stuff, so I'm only going to be on TWeb in my own (tektonics.org) section...

but you yourself came up with bold assertion:

.
"Son" is only properly applied to the incarnate Jesus, not pre-incarnate Wisdom.


Stand for it!

no you just can't.....

[ApologiaPhoenix]

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36).

I still don't know what you mean by "Son of God." Until you tell me that, I would suggest not dialoguing with Muslims. You'll get yourself in a lot of trouble with shirk.


I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36).

When?


I do believe Jesus should be honored with the title "God," based on the authority God has given him (Matt. 28:19), but I don't think the Scriptures intend to communicate that he is God Almighty since he has one who is God above him, the God whom he himself worships.

John 1:1. Next please? (And if you wish to discuss this point, tell me how much Greek you know.)


Trinitarians, of course, argue that Jesus can only have the Father as his God from the perspective of his human nature or position, believeing that he simultaneously possesses two natures.

We do?! Odd. I've never thought Jesus was ever an atheist....


But even when Jesus is called "God" or "Lord," he is spoken of as having one who is God to him (See: Hebrews 1:8 and Ephesians 1:17).

THe problem?


I believe, based on Scripture, that God allows the term "God" or "gods" to apply to those with an honored and exalted office.

Sorry, but I don't think the idea of what a word means comes from Scripture. The Scriptures do not include a glossary that defines its terms. There is not a scripture that says "Theos means office." Cuold you show me some usage of this word in the time that would lead you to the conclusion that the best usage would be office?

(Note: You've presented more arguments here than you did in a whole chapter.)

[jpholding]

Loudmouth seems to think that the word "created" somehow carries in it the connotation of something that can't be eternal, so that I can't refer to Wisdom as "eternally created". Too bad there's people out there who haven't got wind of his expertise:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/orr/view.xxii.iv.iv.html

That profound medieval speculative thinker, John Scotus Erigena, held the doctrine of an eternal creation. See the sketch of his system in Ueberweg’s Hist. of Phil. i. 358–365.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/tb/tb45-2.htm


The lecture provides a partial defence of the idea of the timelessly eternal creation of the universe, once commonplace among Christian theologians, but now widely disputed. On such a view God has ontological but not temporal priority over his creation. It is better to stress the negative aspects of divine timelessness than to think of it on analogy with temporal duration. Recent objections to the idea of causation being necessarily temporal are considered and rebutted. Some objections to the idea of God being in time are proposed. Finally, it is argued that the timeless eternity of God fits better with the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

Oops. Hey, Patty -- what's the difference between "eternal generation" and "eternal creation"?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/godfrey/


Probably best known for holding that it cannot be demonstrated that the world began to be was Thomas Aquinas who in his De aeternitate mundi went a step beyond his earlier writings and maintained not only this but also that an eternally created world is possible (Wippel, 1984a, 203-14).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emanatio.htm


His world of causoe primordiales is eternal, though not with God's eternity, but eternally created by or proceeding from God. Creation is a process through these to the visible and invisible creatures; it too is eternal; God is in the creation, and the creation in God.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/philo.htm


As Plato and Philo had done, Plotinus later used this image of the sun. Thus the Logos, eternally created (begotten), is an expression of the immanent powers of God, and at the same time, it emanates into everything in the world.

Boy, Patty, these people sure arte stupid, aren't they? Guess you're a lot smarter than people with doctorates and all. :lmbo:

[sylvius]

Oops. Hey, Patty -- what's the difference between "eternal generation" and "eternal creation"?




what about the Gospel, is (are) the Gospel(s) also eternal?

what's that after all, eternity, can you explain that?

and how are eternity and time related?

is there time in eternity, is there before and after?

is there eternity in time? is time eternal?

tell us; teach us!

[Sparko]

In my last post I told you what I believe. I prefer to stick to the language of Scripture and let Scripture speak for itself. I think Scripture is the most reliable source.

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36). I do believe Jesus should be honored with the title "God," based on the authority God has given him (Matt. 28:19), but I don't think the Scriptures intend to communicate that he is God Almighty since he has one who is God above him, the God whom he himself worships. Trinitarians, of course, argue that Jesus can only have the Father as his God from the perspective of his human nature or position, believeing that he simultaneously possesses two natures. But even when Jesus is called "God" or "Lord," he is spoken of as having one who is God to him (See: Hebrews 1:8 and Ephesians 1:17). I believe, based on Scripture, that God allows the term "God" or "gods" to apply to those with an honored and exalted office.

So you give me a bunch of titles that you think Jesus holds. but that still does not answer my questions.

WHAT is Jesus' essential nature? Human only, Angel incarnated as a human and now an angel again, or something else?

What do you mean by SON of God? Literal son or figurative (ala Adam?)

Did Jesus preexist in any form before he was born to Mary? If so, what was his NATURE then? Angel, God, what?

You keep telling us he is NOT one person of a triune God, but you don't tell us what he IS.

[Sevivon1913]

It seems that, in his arrogance, James "Pontificator" Holding is not only more informed
than Moses, the Prophets, the Rabbinate, Rashi, Rambam and the Vilna Gaon; but that he
is even more informed than the Lord God Almighty Himself!

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one." - Deuteronomy 6:4

These problems all melt away when you realize that God has no grand-mother, grand-father, mother, father, sons, cousins or daughters.


"Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it,
nor subtract from it. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and
he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens,
[and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"
you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your
God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and
with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments,
heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him." - Deuteronomy 13:1-5


Sevi

[jpholding]

It seems that, in his arrogance, James "Pontificator" Holding is not only more informed
than Moses, the Prophets, the Rabbinate, Rashi, Rambam and the Vilna Gaon; but that he
is even more informed than the Lord God Almighty Himself!

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one." - Deuteronomy 6:4


Yawn.....

Sorry, Sev.....you're 100,000 years behind the scholarship. Trinitarianism agrees that God is one being -- in three persons. :whistle:

For some reason, hypostatic entities like Wisdom didn't seem to be a problem for the Jews. Maybe they were dumber than you, you think? :hehe:


By the period just prior to the NT, Jewish speculations accorded "the Wisdom of God" a quasi-personal status. There is a clear continuity between the intertestamental literature and the New Testament that defines the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. Dunn puts it succinctly: "What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus." (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making , 167.) This conception of Wisdom parallels a less significant, general Jewish explanation of how a transcendent God could participate in a temporal creation. The Aramaic Targums resolved this problem by equating God with His Word: thus in the Targums, Exodus 19:17, rather than saying the people went out to meet God, says that the people went out to meet the word of God, or Memra. This term became a periphrasis for God; whether it could have been reckoned as a separate person, as in Christian Trinitarianism, is a matter of debate. The risk involved with making Wisdom/Word an independent deity was too great for the rabbis to speculate further, but Christians found in the Wisdom tradition an ideal categorical conception within which to place the person of Jesus. N.T. Wright observes in Who Was Jesus? [48-9] that Jewish monotheism "was never, in the Jewish literature of the crucial period, an analysis of the inner being of God, a kind of numerical statement about, so to speak, what God was like on the inside." Rather, it was "always a polemical statement directed outwards against the pagan nations." Rabbis of Jesus' time had no difficulty in personifying separate aspects of God's personality - His Wisdom, His Law (Torah), His Presence (Shekinah), and His Word (Memra), for example. This division had the philosophical purpose of "get(ting) around the problem of how to speak appropriately of the one true God who is both beyond the created world and active within it." Similarly, Brad Young writes, "Within Judaism, the 'hypostatization' of Wisdom or Torah did not seem to undermine monotheism, since ultimately it was a kind of periphrasis used to circumvent the implication of direct contact between the transcendent God and the creation." And as Hurtado (One God, One Lord, 44, 46) puts it, "ancient Judaism provided the first Christians with a crucial conceptual category" that was applied to the risen and exalted Jesus.

You're too dumb for this conversation, Sev. Go play with sylvius and Bigfoot. :lolo: :lol:

[Sevivon1913]

Yawn.....

Sorry, Sev.....you're 100,000 years behind the scholarship. Trinitarianism agrees that God is one being -- in three persons. :whistle:

For some reason, hypostatic entities like Wisdom didn't seem to be a problem for the Jews. Maybe they were dumber than you, you think? :hehe:



You're too dumb for this conversation, Sev. Go play with sylvius and Bigfoot. :lolo: :lol:
Oh so a few (i.e. maybe half a dozen) hair-brained Hellenized Jews decide to apply a pagan exegesis of the Tanakh and to come up with nutjob ideas about "WISDOM" being an entity. So what? I could say that Christians believed Jesus was the archangel Michael just because a few nutjobs in America claim it.

Have any evidence that such views were representative of the religious population or of the Rabbinic authorities? I didn't think so.

I don't care whether Trinitarians rationalize their three-headed god by pretending it's only got one head. The fact is that Trinitarians are heretics; the true teachings of Moses are that God is ONE and THAT means singular. There is no indication of a "composite unity"; God is ONE. God isn't even an entity or a person; he's ETERNAL; INFINITE.

You cannot divide eternity and infinite into 3 and then pritt stick it back together and pretend it's one again.

ONE MEANS ONE

ONE excludes the possibility of a formula of 33.3+33.3+33.3 = 99.9 (BTW, which member of the trinity gets the extra 0.1, or do they take it in turns?).

[sylvius]

Yawn.....

By the period just prior to the NT, Jewish speculations accorded "the Wisdom of God" a quasi-personal status. There is a clear continuity between the intertestamental literature and the New Testament that defines the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. Dunn puts it succinctly: "What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus." (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making , 167.) This conception of Wisdom parallels a less significant, general Jewish explanation of how a transcendent God could participate in a temporal creation. The Aramaic Targums resolved this problem by equating God with His Word: thus in the Targums, Exodus 19:17, rather than saying the people went out to meet God, says that the people went out to meet the word of God, or Memra. This term became a periphrasis for God; whether it could have been reckoned as a separate person, as in Christian Trinitarianism, is a matter of debate. The risk involved with making Wisdom/Word an independent deity was too great for the rabbis to speculate further, but Christians found in the Wisdom tradition an ideal categorical conception within which to place the person of Jesus. N.T. Wright observes in Who Was Jesus? [48-9] that Jewish monotheism "was never, in the Jewish literature of the crucial period, an analysis of the inner being of God, a kind of numerical statement about, so to speak, what God was like on the inside." Rather, it was "always a polemical statement directed outwards against the pagan nations." Rabbis of Jesus' time had no difficulty in personifying separate aspects of God's personality - His Wisdom, His Law (Torah), His Presence (Shekinah), and His Word (Memra), for example. This division had the philosophical purpose of "get(ting) around the problem of how to speak appropriately of the one true God who is both beyond the created world and active within it." Similarly, Brad Young writes, "Within Judaism, the 'hypostatization' of Wisdom or Torah did not seem to undermine monotheism, since ultimately it was a kind of periphrasis used to circumvent the implication of direct contact between the transcendent God and the creation." And as Hurtado (One God, One Lord, 44, 46) puts it, "ancient Judaism provided the first Christians with a crucial conceptual category" that was applied to the risen and exalted Jesus.

Quote miner

[sylvius]

[QUOTE]
ONE MEANS ONE
Hebrew "echad", one, has numerical value 13.
so you can also say: "one means thirteen", which is a matter of revelation through the holy ghost.
see:
http://www.hebrewsongs.com/song-echadmiyodea.htm


ONE excludes the possibility of a formula of 33.3+33.3+33.3 = 99.9 (BTW, which member of the trinity gets the extra 0.1, or do they take it in turns?).

very neat explanation of the number of the beast.

that you know who the beast is, the triune god of Christianity.

[jpholding]

Oh so a few (i.e. maybe half a dozen) hair-brained Hellenized Jews decide to apply a pagan exegesis of the Tanakh and to come up with nutjob ideas about "WISDOM" being an entity.

I had no idea Solomon (Proverbs 8) was a Hellenized nutjob. :lol: Too bad for you there's every indication that this was the majority view in Judaism of the day.

Seems YOUR version of Judaism is the "nutjob" brand. :lol:



Have any evidence that such views were representative of the religious population or of the Rabbinic authorities?

I cited the Memra, dum dum. :doh: And I guess you're too stupid to have heard of the Two Powers controversy.



I don't care whether Trinitarians rationalize their three-headed god by pretending it's only got one head.

In other words, don't bother you with facts, you're too busy with your delusions. :lol:


the true teachings of Moses are that God is ONE and THAT means singular.

Snoooooore....and like most frustrated know-nothings, you merely assume that it is "singular" in the Unitarian sense. Tell us, O Nutjob....what is the noun that "one" modifies in Deut. 6:4?


God isn't even an entity or a person; he's ETERNAL; INFINITE.

Oh this is news. So how are the ideas mutually exclusive?


You cannot divide eternity and infinite into 3 and then pritt stick it back together and pretend it's one again.

Um, wait a minute. If God is one then God can't be infinite, because one isn't an infinite number.. :lolo: You sure your meds are working to-day?



ONE MEANS ONE

We already knew what your IQ was. :lol:


ONE excludes the possibility of a formula of 33.3+33.3+33.3 = 99.9 (BTW, which member of the trinity gets the extra 0.1, or do they take it in turns?).

Unless the "one" is a set of 100 marbles. Which it seems you lost. :lol:

[Sevivon1913]

I had no idea Solomon (Proverbs 8) was a Hellenized nutjob. :lol: Too bad for you there's every indication that this was the majority view in Judaism of the day.

Seems YOUR version of Judaism is the "nutjob" brand. :lol:

Snoooooore....and like most frustrated know-nothings, you merely assume that it is "singular" in the Unitarian sense. Tell us, O Nutjob....what is the noun that "one" modifies in Deut. 6:4?

Proverbs 8: "Wisdom" is a reference to the TORAH.

Rashi:

Will not wisdom call out - Does not the Torah announce for you the things mentioned below in this section?

There's nothing that would indicate a need to alter the meaning of the word "ONE" in Shema. It's not the same as "one army" or "one group of people"; it's entirely on its own. There's no additional information that would suggest a plurality which is being treated as a unity.



Um, wait a minute. If God is one then God can't be infinite, because one isn't an infinite number.. :lolo: You sure your meds are working to-day?

There is one infinite. There are not zero infinites; two infinites; or three in one infinites.


We already knew what your IQ was. :lol:

It's alot higher than yours, that's for sure.


Unless the "one" is a set of 100 marbles. Which it seems you lost. :lol:

ha ha ha

[sylvius]

Proverbs 8;1,
[QUOTE]Doth not wisdom call, and understanding put forth her voice?[\QUOTE]

wisdom = Jesus?

who's then understanding? JPH?

"chochmah" is a word, written "chet-kaf-mem-hey", of which the numerical is 73.

where did we see theat more?

"echad" indeed from "yachad" -- to be united, the two becoming one.

Remember the question about divorce, Jesus saying:
"Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

[Sparko]

You cannot divide eternity and infinite into 3 and then pritt stick it back together and pretend it's one again.

Sev, think for a minute and answer this question for me....

What is 1/3 of infinity?

[SteveScianni]

Now how about actually disputing the matter rather than distracting with pointless PC questions?

Pointless? This is the first question any of us should ask. What is pointless is looking for inaccuracies in a creed not possibly inaccurate.


"Homework." Studying the data and arriving at a conclusion based on the data.

While one is doing their homework trying to arrive at the best conclusion based on the all the relevant data, can that person be saved? In other words, can someone not yet convinced the Trinity is entirely biblical, but is studying to find out, be regenerate?


Well gee, it seems to be happening, however incompetent it is, so obviously it is "allowed"! Do it wrong, though, and you open yourself up for a good roughing up from those who know better!

But a number of sinful and unrighteous things are happening as well...the question is better stated whether God approves of this re-examination of orthodoxy.

And yes, we all know who is ready to do the 'rouging up' should one of us get out of line.


Yeesh. Let's have you play something other than dodgeball, huh?

Just trying to determine whether it's worth my time to even do so. What's the use in disputing a matter with people who think all the disputing's already been done? The Reformers caught everything, the Creeds are impeccable, all accretions to the NT have been scraped clean...let's just pick up the confetti and go home, the party is long over.

[sylvius]

Sev, think for a minute and answer this question for me....

What is 1/3 of infinity?

so after you indeed every one of these three persons fills 1/3 of the infinite?

[jpholding]

Proverbs 8: "Wisdom" is a reference to the TORAH.


Pfffft. :hehe:

Please. Some medieval rabbi says so, not Solomon. There's nothing in Proverbs that says Wisdom is a reference to Torah (though Christians would agree that Torah is an expression of Wisdom). Nor do any scholars think Solomon had Torah in mind.

Nice try. But pick someone a little closer to the ANE, not some rabbi thousands of years later with a likely anti-Christian chip on his shoulder. :whistle:



There's nothing that would indicate a need to alter the meaning of the word "ONE" in Shema.

Then why do you add the word "person" to it? :ahem:


There's no additional information that would suggest a plurality which is being treated as a unity.

Nor to detract from it. Too bad for you hypostatic entities were par for the course in that climate.



There is one infinite.

Ever hear of Zeno? Not zero (as in your IQ) but Zeno.

[jpholding]

Pointless? This is the first question any of us should ask. What is pointless is looking for inaccuracies in a creed not possibly inaccurate.

Yeah, well -- too bad. There are invincinbly ignorant people out there like your bud Pat who occupy their time trying to paint mustaches on the Mona Lisa. :lolo:


While one is doing their homework trying to arrive at the best conclusion based on the all the relevant data, can that person be saved?

Yep. They're called "honest seekers". I think such people can get some grace. Before you burn a straw man, make sure you notice I have done nothing to question Patty Boy's "salvation" here. He may or may not be -- not my business. But whether he is saved or not, he's still incorrigibly stupid on this subject; and I will say that the more he's shown the truth, and the more stubborn he is about resisting it, the more danger he's in. Got it?


But a number of sinful and unrighteous things are happening as well...the question is better stated whether God approves of this re-examination of orthodoxy.

Duh...yeah. Jesus. Pharisees. Connect the dots. On the other hand, stubbornly "re-examining" it for the 2 billionth time, while ignoring vast amounts of examination that has already been done, isn't qualified. Your boy here failed miserably from first glance because he showed no signs of having consulted any relevant literature beyond popular writers -- when that's done in ANY subject area, that's a sign of incompetence. He's like a nuclear physicist using the works of Isaac Newton and titles like The Kiddie's Pop Up Book of Quarks and Quasars.



Just trying to determine whether it's worth my time to even do so. What's the use in disputing a matter with people who think all the disputing's already been done?

You might learn that you're not as informed as you think you are. And you sure show that because you missed on 1 of 3 -- I don't follow the Reformers nose to tail, Chuckles. But if you want to argue creeds or accretions, do it right, for pity's sake.

[sylvius]

Please. Some medieval rabbi says so

"some" ?


not Solomon.

Rashi was called Solomon, Rabbi Solomon the son of Isaac.


There's nothing in Proverbs that says Wisdom is a reference to Torah

the word , "chochmah", is the reference to Torah.


(though Christians would agree that Torah is an expression of Wisdom). preincarnate?


Nor do any scholars think Solomon had Torah in mind.
rather that he had beautiful women in mind, what?



Nice try. But pick someone a little closer to the ANE, not some rabbi thousands of years later with a likely anti-Christian chip on his shoulder.

Rashi is closer to NT than Christianity.






Then why do you add the word "person" to it? :ahem: Also Sevi was spoiled in kindergarten.




Nor to detract from it. Too bad for you hypostatic entities were par for the course in that climate. why then did not go all of Jewish world behind Christianity?





Ever hear of Zeno? Not zero (as in your IQ) but Zeno.
tell about him.

[Sevivon1913]

Sev, think for a minute and answer this question for me....

What is 1/3 of infinity?

Whilst it is technically possible to speak of 1/3 of infinity, it is in and of itself an infinite regression; of which there an infinite other possible regressions.

Thus, there could be 3 infinite regressions within infinity. But that is beside the point, because under such a scheme, you'd end up with an infinite number of regressions and not just three. Therefore it makes more sense to speak of one infinity and not a sub-division. Why? Because infinite regressions multiplied by infinity = infinity.

:huh: Hmmm, I think I've lost the plot.

[jpholding]

sylvius
This message is hidden because sylvius is on your ignore list.

Wow, now he makes SENSE. :thumb:

[Sevivon1913]

Wow, now he makes SENSE. :thumb:
:lmbo:

[PatrickNavas]

Sorry, but I don't think the idea of what a word means comes from Scripture. The Scriptures do not include a glossary that defines its terms. There is not a scripture that says "Theos means office." Cuold you show me some usage of this word in the time that would lead you to the conclusion that the best usage would be office?

I never said (and I am not saying) that "theos means office." I said that the term god/theos can be applied to those whom God has given assigned authority to.

[PatrickNavas]

You keep telling us he is NOT one person of a triune God, but you don't tell us what he IS.[/QUOTE]

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36).

[Sevivon1913]

You keep telling us he is NOT one person of a triune God, but you don't tell us what he IS.

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36).[/QUOTE]
So why should we worship God's son, if he isn't God?

[Sevivon1913]

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36).

So why should we worship God's son, if he isn't God?

[Sparko]

You keep telling us he is NOT one person of a triune God, but you don't tell us what he IS.

With Peter, I believe that Jesus is the Christ (the annointed one), the Son of the living God. This means I believe that there is one God, who is living, and that Jesus is his Son, "the one whom the father consecrated and sent forth into the world" (John 10:36). I believe that Jesus is "Lord" not because he is God, but because God made him such (Acts 2:36).

Still dodging?

Does that mean you don't KNOW what the nature of Jesus was? You seem so certain to tell us what we believe is wrong but why won't you tell us what you beleve so we can critique your doctrine.


I will ask again. If you are an honest person you will answer me clearly instead of dodging around with vague answers.

1. What was Jesus' nature? Was he only a human being? An angel incarnated as a human, or what? Giving me titles like Messiah or Son of God tell me nothing about what you believe Jesus was in his nature.

2. Did Jesus exist before he was born to Mary in any form? If so, what was his nature then? God? Angel? Smurf?

3. Does Jesus exist now in heaven? if so in what form? Glorified Human being only? Angel? God? Smurf?

Those are pretty easy questions that any body in this thread besides you would be happy to answer.

We believe Jesus preexisted his incarnation as the second person of the Trinity. He is fully God. When he was incarnated, he took on a Human nature. He was and forever will have two natures, fully human and fully divine.

See how easy that was?

your turn.

and will you PLEASE learn how to use the quote tags????

[Sparko]

Whilst it is technically possible to speak of 1/3 of infinity, it is in and of itself an infinite regression; of which there an infinite other possible regressions.

Thus, there could be 3 infinite regressions within infinity. But that is beside the point, because under such a scheme, you'd end up with an infinite number of regressions and not just three. Therefore it makes more sense to speak of one infinity and not a sub-division. Why? Because infinite regressions multiplied by infinity = infinity.

:huh: Hmmm, I think I've lost the plot.

so if you did have three infinities, you would still only have 1 infiinity because there can only be one, right?

Think about it.

[PatrickNavas]

So why should we worship God's son, if he isn't God?

Because God has authorized this (Hebrews 1:6). It is pleasing to God and magnifies God's glory (Philippians 2:5-11).

[PatrickNavas]

1. What was Jesus' nature? Was he only a human being? An angel incarnated as a human, or what? Giving me titles like Messiah or Son of God tell me nothing about what you believe Jesus was in his nature.

Do you not believe that the Bible itself is satisfactory in communicating to the world who Jesus is? These are among the most prominent descriptions of Jesus. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was completely and fully human but without sin. I believe that, since his resurrection, he has become "a life-giving spirit," and dwells in heaven at the right hand of God. The term "Messiah" implies that Jesus is the one whom God annointed as the King of Israel, in fact, King of the whole world. This fact, in and of itself, shows that Jesus is not "God," but the one God annointed.

2. Did Jesus exist before he was born to Mary in any form? If so, what was his nature then? God? Angel? Smurf?

I believe Jesus did exist before his birth in the from of the Word/Wisdom of God. I believe it is possible, based on the grammar of John 1:1, that the word was a divine being.

3. Does Jesus exist now in heaven? if so in what form? Glorified Human being only? Angel? God? Smurf?

I know it is difficult for the members of this board to desist from using sarcasm and nearly every comment. But I encourage you to keep the level of dialogue mature and respectful. Why the need for the "smurf" language? I think that Jesus is now a "life-giving spirit" since that he how he is described in Scripture. That is as far as I go.

Those are pretty easy questions that any body in this thread besides you would be happy to answer.

We believe Jesus preexisted his incarnation as the second person of the Trinity. He is fully God. When he was incarnated, he took on a Human nature. He was and forever will have two natures, fully human and fully divine.

That's fine if you believe in these doctrines. The Bible nowhere articulates these concepts. The language itself is foreign to the Scriptures. The Bible does not say that Jesus is "fully God," but it does say he is the "image of the invisible God" and the "exact representation" or "copy" of God's very being. That is what I believe and I honestly feel that the Scriptures are satisfactory in the way they articulate the truth regarding the "nature" of Jesus Christ, even in terms of the language it uses.

[PatrickNavas]

And I'm sorry about the Quote tags. I forot to set it up that way.

[Sparko]

Do you not believe that the Bible itself is satisfactory in communicating to the world who Jesus is? These are among the most prominent descriptions of Jesus. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was completely and fully human but without sin. I believe that, since his resurrection, he has become "a life-giving spirit," and dwells in heaven at the right hand of God. The term "Messiah" implies that Jesus is the one whom God annointed as the King of Israel, in fact, King of the whole world. This fact, in and of itself, shows that Jesus is not "God," but the one God annointed.

First thank you for finally answering me clearly. That is all I was asking for.

So you believe that Jesus was ONLY human while alive on earth. And now is a "life giving spirit" in heaven and has no body? How did he lose his resurrected body? He rose into heaven with it.




2. Did Jesus exist before he was born to Mary in any form? If so, what was his nature then? God? Angel? Smurf?

I believe Jesus did exist before his birth in the from of the Word/Wisdom of God. I believe it is possible, based on the grammar of John 1:1, that the word was a divine being. Hmm. So he was a divine being, but NOT YHWH? Is that what you are saying? That makes you a polytheist, Pat. pure and simple. Just like the Jehovah's witnesses. You basically claim Jesus was "a" god, or divine being.

Now, if that is the case, then what happened when he incarnated? Did he lose his divine nature and become merely human?



3
. Does Jesus exist now in heaven? if so in what form? Glorified Human being only? Angel? God? Smurf?

I know it is difficult for the members of this board to desist from using sarcasm and nearly every comment. But I encourage you to keep the level of dialogue mature and respectful. Why the need for the "smurf" language? I think that Jesus is now a "life-giving spirit" since that he how he is described in Scripture. That is as far as I go. again, what happened to his body? He clearly had a physical body at the resurrection. He ate food, told people he was not a spirit, and even had Thomas touch his wounds showing it was the same body he died in.






That's fine if you believe in these doctrines. The Bible nowhere articulates these concepts. The language itself is foreign to the Scriptures. The Bible does not say that Jesus is "fully God," but it does say he is the "image of the invisible God" and the "exact representation" or "copy" of God's very being. That is what I believe and I honestly feel that the Scriptures are satisfactory in the way they articulate the truth regarding the "nature" of Jesus Christ, even in terms of the language it uses.So Jesus is NOT God, but a clone of God? Is that what you are saying? He is a xerox copy of God? How is that not polytheism?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Do you not believe that the Bible itself is satisfactory in communicating to the world who Jesus is? These are among the most prominent descriptions of Jesus. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was completely and fully human but without sin. I believe that, since his resurrection, he has become "a life-giving spirit," and dwells in heaven at the right hand of God. The term "Messiah" implies that Jesus is the one whom God annointed as the King of Israel, in fact, King of the whole world. This fact, in and of itself, shows that Jesus is not "God," but the one God annointed.

I notice you were awfully dodgy in so many questions I asked you. You only replied to one. That makes me think you're not really confident in your beliefs that came from quote-mining.

First off, my question to you would be, are men spirits?

Secondly, I would say the NT is quite clear on who Jesus is. He is the one in whom the fulness of deity dwells bodily. (Interesting. After the ascension, Paul still says the fulness of deity dwells in him bodily. How can it dwell bodily if he has no body?)



I believe Jesus did exist before his birth in the from of the Word/Wisdom of God. I believe it is possible, based on the grammar of John 1:1, that the word was a divine being.



Now secondly, you say Jesus is the wisdom of God? That's interesting. Philosophically, God is the most perfect being that one can think of. I believe Anselm's Ontological argument, while not convincing in showing God's existence, is convincing in showing us the type of God that exists. This means that God changes not.

Why? Because if he changed for the better, then this would put him as a temporal being in time who gained some attribute that was outside of himself. Hence, he would not be God. If he lost an attribute, then he would also not be God for he could only change from perfect to less than perfect.

Thus, God had to have wisdom for all eternity. Now, wisdom would then be something eternal. Jesus you say is God's wisdom and God was never without his wisdom so Jesus was always there. Now if Jesus is then eternal, he is not a being that is created in a temporal sense.

Thanks for admitting that Jesus is God's Wisdom!




I know it is difficult for the members of this board to desist from using sarcasm and nearly every comment. But I encourage you to keep the level of dialogue mature and respectful. Why the need for the "smurf" language? I think that Jesus is now a "life-giving spirit" since that he how he is described in Scripture. That is as far as I go.

Patty. We've been on this board for years. Smurf is an inside joke. Kudos to you Sparko for using it.

You're also using the modern distinction between physicality and spirituality that we got from Descartes. Sorry. Scripture says he's still a man. There is one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus.



That's fine if you believe in these doctrines. The Bible nowhere articulates these concepts. The language itself is foreign to the Scriptures. The Bible does not say that Jesus is "fully God," but it does say he is the "image of the invisible God" and the "exact representation" or "copy" of God's very being. That is what I believe and I honestly feel that the Scriptures are satisfactory in the way they articulate the truth regarding the "nature" of Jesus Christ, even in terms of the language it uses.

The Bible nowhere says that we are to gather books together and call them the New Testament. Got a problem with that? By the way, if Jesus is an exact representation of the Father and the Father is infinite, how can an exact representation not be infinite?

[PatrickNavas]

I apologize I don't have the time to go through all of your questions tonight. I will try to address them tommorrow.


So Jesus is NOT God, but a clone of God? Is that what you are saying? He is a xerox copy of God? How is that not polytheism?[/QUOTE]


But, on this specific point, all I am saying is what the Scripture says. Jesus Christ, God's Son, is a "copy," or "reproduction" or "representation" of God's being. That is what the term charakter means (Hebrews 1:3). I'm not concerned with what label you ascribe to the Scripture's teaching, whether monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, etc. None of these words are even necessary. Jesus is a copy/representation of God's being. That is my doctrine.

[PatrickNavas]

Where does the Bible say that the Father is "infinite"?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Where does the Bible say that the Father is "infinite"?


Ah. So God is finite? Very well. All finite things are limited by something external to themselves. Also, all finite things are lacking. What is God limited by external to himself and what is he lacking in?

[Sparko]

I apologize I don't have the time to go through all of your questions tonight. I will try to address them tommorrow.


So Jesus is NOT God, but a clone of God? Is that what you are saying? He is a xerox copy of God? How is that not polytheism?


But, on this specific point, all I am saying is what the Scripture says. Jesus Christ, God's Son, is a "copy," or "reproduction" or "representation" of God's being. That is what the term charakter means (Hebrews 1:3). I'm not concerned with what label you ascribe to the Scripture's teaching, whether monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, etc. None of these words are even necessary. Jesus is a copy/representation of God's being. That is my doctrine.

So if he is an exact replica of God, then that means he has always existed and is as eternal as God, yes? He has all the powers of God, he has the authority of God, he basically has all the attributes of God, right?

So now you have two identical Gods.

So how do you explain God saying:

Isaiah 43:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=43&verse=10&version=31&context=verse)
"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. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

If there is only ONE God, and there are no other Gods formed before or after that one God, and Jesus is the exact copy of God, doesn't that mean he has to BE that God? You have two persons who are fully God, and yet there is only ONE God. how do you reconcile that Pat?

[Sevivon1913]

so if you did have three infinities, you would still only have 1 infiinity because there can only be one, right?

Think about it.


This is right. But it would be meaningless to speak of "3" infinities.........if you had a NUMBER of infinities, there'd be an infinite number; it's unlikely there'd be "3".

[Sparko]

This is right. But it would be meaningless to speak of "3" infinities.........if you had a NUMBER of infinities, there'd be an infinite number; it's unlikely there'd be "3".

So if you only had 1 God, but you had the bible claiming three different people were God, then you would still have 1 God, right?

There can only be one God. if the bible says the Father is God, and the bible says Jesus is God, and the bible says the Holy Spirit is a person, then you have three persons who are all shown to be God. You either have to decide that the bible is telling the truth and God must be three persons and yet one God, or the bible is just in error and not to be trusted.

I am pretty sure you will pick the last one (not trusted, in error) right? But if you accept the bible as being true, just for the sake of argument, then you would have to admit that God is a trinity, right?

[Sevivon1913]

So if you only had 1 God, but you had the bible claiming three different people were God, then you would still have 1 God, right?

There can only be one God. if the bible says the Father is God, and the bible says Jesus is God, and the bible says the Holy Spirit is a person, then you have three persons who are all shown to be God. You either have to decide that the bible is telling the truth and God must be three persons and yet one God, or the bible is just in error and not to be trusted.

I am pretty sure you will pick the last one (not trusted, in error) right? But if you accept the bible as being true, just for the sake of argument, then you would have to admit that God is a trinity, right?
By "Bible", I assume you mean the NT.

If the Tanakh said God was 3 persons, then yes he would be one God (by virtue of God saying it; cuz he ought to be th expert; and not because it makes sense).
Hint: the Tanakh does NOT say that.

[SteveScianni]

Yep. They're called "honest seekers". I think such people can get some grace. Before you burn a straw man, make sure you notice I have done nothing to question Patty Boy's "salvation" here. He may or may not be -- not my business.

I appreciated this answer.

But relax, I'm not here to defend Patrick 'to the death.' Sure, he's a friend, but he can take care of himself. I'm actually independently enjoying the posts and quite frankly learning as I go...wasn't at all concerned with what you thought about his salvation. More interested in your concept of God's perspective on Free Inquiry, and "Honest Seekers" seems to me to be a very good answer.


But whether he is saved or not, he's still incorrigibly stupid on this subject; and I will say that the more he's shown the truth, and the more stubborn he is about resisting it, the more danger he's in. Got it?

Got it...To whom much is given, much is required, no?

Let me add to this by reiterating that insulting someone has the tendency to drive them away. In other words, can you at least do your level-best not to add to his desire to 'resist' what you are saying? Will you not share some blame in Patrick's constant resistance to the side that calls him 'loudmouth, 'screwball,''Patty,' 'incorrigibly stupid,'? If the angels of heaven gave arguments to you mixed with words like that, you would resist them all the way to perdition.


Your boy here failed miserably from first glance because he showed no signs of having consulted any relevant literature beyond popular writers -- when that's done in ANY subject area, that's a sign of incompetence.

That principle is solid...I agree. I do object somewhat in saying I don't think Patrick fails here as perfectly as hoped for. From 'first glance' we might think we find something, but a second, third and final glance might show us something different. I'm curious to know if NT Wright, Millard Erickson, John AT Robinson, JG Dunn, qualify as 'pop' writers?

Moreover, and I ask sincerely because I am interested myself in reading the best Orthodox scholars available, but can you list a few theologians/scholars that you respect and/or would qualify as the best, alive or dead?


You might learn that you're not as informed as you think you are...I don't follow the Reformers nose to tail...

I don't think as highly of myself as you imagine, but, as many of us have experienced, the more I read and study, the more humility is forced on me in realizing how much I don't know. Life's subjects are near infinite with the resources for each voluminous...it can be overwhelming sometimes and makes me well aware of my limitations and incapacities. I do what I can, I read what I hope is top-notch research and scholarship and truth-be-told I do my best in trying to educate myself all the while trying to make a living in the real world. So for "Pity's Sake" indeed James, give me a chance to be just a semi-decent guy.

And the point with the reformers was to show that they did NOT catch every accretion, leaving the door open to the possibility that early definitions of God's nature could be improved upon. It would not be unfair to state that there wasn't much 'reexamination' going on in the Church for over a thousand years until the Reformers come and combat, mainly, Soteriological and Ecclessiastical accretions. That being the case, it would not be superfluous or senseless to bring other areas of Theology under the microscope including Christology. It is only very recent when this could be done without severe punishment or death.

[sylvius]

Trinity according to sylvius is about the inner meaning of Torah.

in the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) there is just mentioning of "Elohim"

"In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth".

The name "HaShem" doesn't occur before Genesis 2:4,


" These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created on the day that HaShem Elohim made earth and heaven ".

yet the name HaShem appears to be hidden in the beginletters of the last words of Genesis 1:31 and the first two words of Genesis 2:1,


"yom hashishi vaychulu hashamayim"

("day the sixth and they were completed the heaven") .

Wisdom is needed here!
Revelation 13:18,

Here is the wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

if you leave out the letter "hey" of "hashishi" you're left with "yom shishi" , day sixth, and no name HaShem hidden in the first story of creation. The gematria of "yom shishi" being 666. (10+6+40+300+300+10).

it is not so strange to leave out this letter, since the other day-indications also do without it.
It reads: "day one - day second - day third - day fourth - day fifth; and then: day the sixth).

of course Rashi (i.e., Jewish tradition) knows this.

see Rashi on Genesis 1:31, http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8165&showrashi=true

the sixth day Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, to tell us that He stipulated with them, [“you were created] on the condition that Israel accept the Five Books of the Torah.” [The numerical value of the “hey” is five.] (Tanchuma Berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]h 1). Another explanation for “the sixth day” : They [the works of creation] were all suspended until the “sixth day,” referring to the sixth day of Sivan, which was prepared for the giving of the Torah (Shab. 88a). [The“hey” is the definite article, alluding to the well-known sixth day, the sixth day of Sivan, when the Torah was given (ad loc.).]

the clue of it:

Rashi on Genesis 1:1,

"Elohim created" But it does not say “HaShem created" (i.e., it should say “HaShem Elohim created” as below 2:4 “on the day that HaSehm Elohim made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day that HaShem Elohim made earth and heaven.”

"yom hashishi" -- the sixth day-- referring to the sixth day of Sivan , i.e., Pentecost, i.e., giving of Torah, i.e., coming down of the Holy Ghost, the third person of Trinity.

the sixth day is also the day on which Jesus was crucified.

because of what?

I think because of JPH could'nt stand him.

[PatrickNavas]

Ah. So God is finite? Very well. All finite things are limited by something external to themselves. Also, all finite things are lacking. What is God limited by external to himself and what is he lacking in?

I didn't say God is finite. And I didn't deny God was infinite. I just asked "where does the Bible say God is 'infinite'?

Respectfully...

[Sparko]

By "Bible", I assume you mean the NT.

If the Tanakh said God was 3 persons, then yes he would be one God (by virtue of God saying it; cuz he ought to be th expert; and not because it makes sense).
Hint: the Tanakh does NOT say that.

So you now see that there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of the Trinity, that if the bible does teach that the Messiah is God then that means the trinity is the only explanation (other than some weird version of modalism?)


There are some clues in the Tanakh though Sev. God talks about sending a messah to be the savior, but then he also claims there is no other savior but himself.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Isaiah 40:3 is about the coming messah but it say "Here is your God" and The Sovereign LORD comes with power, but it says that his arm (the messiah) rules for him. Just a bit contradictory unless the Messiah IS the LORD.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!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.


Next, Job expected a redeemer, one that would set foot on earth one day, and that he would see him with his own eyes (showing he expected to be resurrected some day to see this redeemer)

Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

This passage show several things: The Redeemer will stand on the earth in the end. This means that way in Job’s future his redeemer will come to earth – probably referring to after the resurrection since Job is speaking of seeing him with his own fleshy eyes. The second sentence shows that Job expects this redeemer to be God and that he will be seeing God with his fleshy eyes. God is spirit and no one can see him directly, he is invisible. So he must be “in flesh” in order for Job to see him. Also, he must be a man as well as God in order to be our redeemer.

Jerememiah even says that the Messiah will be called YHWH.

Jeremiah 23:5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

[LORD is YHWH] - From the Jewish source Echa Rabbathi, (AD 200-300) – Abba ben Cahana wrote on the subject “What is the name of Messiah?” and answered “Jehovah is his name, and this is proved by ‘this is his name’ in Jer. 23:6 – (Ref: Laetsch, BCJ, 109 from The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Josh McDowell, p 176)

So, sev, there is a lot of evidence in the Tanakh that Messiah will be God.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I didn't say God is finite. And I didn't deny God was infinite. I just asked "where does the Bible say God is 'infinite'?

Respectfully...

Oh! It doesn't! It's an inference we draw from texts and from sound philosophy.

[jpholding]

Got it...To whom much is given, much is required, no?

Bingo. Glad you know the reference.


Let me add to this by reiterating that insulting someone has the tendency to drive them away.

Some people ought to be driven away, and considering how much dodging Patty is doing in responding to AP and Sparko, he's not showing himself to be deserving of much more.


Will you not share some blame in Patrick's constant resistance to the side that calls him 'loudmouth, 'screwball,''Patty,' 'incorrigibly stupid,'?

Nope. It's clear from the "quality" of his work where the fault lies.


If the angels of heaven gave arguments to you mixed with words like that, you would resist them all the way to perdition.

No, I wouldn't. If they were right, I'd admit it. If they were wrong, I'd give as good as or better than I got. Got any more gratuitous presumptions you want stuffed and mounted?


From 'first glance' we might think we find something, but a second, third and final glance might show us something different.

Sorry, but I've been staring at (not "glancing") this topic for 8 or more years now; I've been consulting the sources and the scholarship, have taken on Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc (their own scholars as well as their popular writers) and read all their lit, etc etc etc etc -- so don't condescend to suggest that I need to look more than once at this kind of shoddy work to see it for what it is.


I'm curious to know if NT Wright, Millard Erickson, John AT Robinson, JG Dunn, qualify as 'pop' writers?

Many of their works are pop works, absolutely. Wright does both depth work and pop work, as does Dunn, as did Robinson. Erickson's work is a survey, not a particularized depth treatment, and so is no better than a pop work in this context. Some works Patty uses are credible, but are not depth treatments of the subject, like Erickson and Wright. The more important point is that the most credible, detailed work on the subject is totally absent from Patty's pages. He obviously just grabbed what was handy and thought that was the end of it.

Don't pretend you can show otherwise -- my profession is as a researcher, trained in the use of sources and knowing their value and relevance. You're trying to tell a professional exterminator he doesn't know what a cockroach looks like.


Moreover, and I ask sincerely because I am interested myself in reading the best Orthodox scholars available, but can you list a few theologians/scholars that you respect and/or would qualify as the best, alive or dead?

On this topic in particular, start with:

Ben Witherington (Jesus the Sage, The Christology of Jesus)
Richard Bauckham (God Crucified)
Richard Longenecker (The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity)
Darrell Bock (Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism)
Larry Hurtado (One God, One Lord; plus Worship of Jesus in Early Christianity, if I recall the title right)
James Dunn's Christology in the Making (Yeah, Patty uses this - ONCE! He ignores everything except one quote he thinks he can use to say what he wants, and ignores the rest, much of which is against him, and so may as well not have used it!)

These are all CRITICAL works for understanding early Christology, but according to the Amazon search feature, Patty doesn't use ANY of them except Dunn -- and that in a way that shows he doesn't want to deal with what is in it! This is simply PATHETIC!


d what I hope is top-notch research and scholarship and truth-be-told I do my best in trying to educate myself all the while trying to make a living in the real world. So for "Pity's Sake" indeed James, give me a chance to be just a semi-decent guy.

So tell me this: Do you think YOU should be writing books on complex subjects you haven't read up on?


It would not be unfair to state that there wasn't much 'reexamination' going on in the Church for over a thousand years until the Reformers come and combat, mainly, Soteriological and Ecclessiastical accretions. .

The Reformers had little choice, lacking as they did many of the resources we have today (eg, the Dead Sea Scrolls) that leave no excuse for ignorance. The problem today is with people like Patty who think they deserve credence just because they have an opinion and a public library card., and then just traipse down to that library for an afternoon and think the first two dozen books they find will do the job. Then they publish crap like his book and just add to the mess.

[Tophet]

I didn't say God is finite. And I didn't deny God was infinite. I just asked "where does the Bible say God is 'infinite'?



Oh! It doesn't! It's an inference we draw from texts and from sound philosophy.

How about from the following verses?

1 Kings 8:27
2 Chronicles 6:18
Psalm 68:16
Psalm 68:18
Psalm 123:1
Psalm 139:7-10
Psalm 147:5
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Matthew 18:20
Acts 17:24-27

[jpholding]

How about from the following verses?

1 Kings 8:27
2 Chronicles 6:18
Psalm 68:16
Psalm 68:18
Psalm 123:1
Psalm 139:7-10
Psalm 147:5
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Matthew 18:20
Acts 17:24-27

Those definitely qualify by inference...Biblical Hebrew had no word for "eternity" and so probably had none for "infinite" either; descriptons like these would be all that could be done.

[Tophet]

Originally posted by Tophet
How about from the following verses?

1 Kings 8:27
2 Chronicles 6:18
Psalm 68:16
Psalm 68:18
Psalm 123:1
Psalm 139:7-10
Psalm 147:5
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Matthew 18:20
Acts 17:24-27


Those definitely qualify by inference...Biblical Hebrew had no word for "eternity" and so probably had none for "infinite" either; descriptons like these would be all that could be done.

:thumb:

[sylvius]

Those definitely qualify by inference...Biblical Hebrew had no word for "eternity" and so probably had none for "infinite" either; descriptons like these would be all that could be done.

Hebrew "olam" = eternity

but what is eternity?

and watch out:

root "alam" -"nè'lam" = to disappear, vanish, be hidden.

"devarim m'ulamim" = hidden things.

Rashi on Exodus 3:15,

This is My name forever Heb. לְעֹלָם [It is spelled] without a vav, meaning: conceal it [God’s name] תהַעִלִימֵהוּ [so] that it should not be read as it is written. — [from Pes. 50a] Since the “vav” of (לְעֹלָ ם) is missing, we are to understand it as לְעַלֵּם, to conceal, meaning that the pronunciation of the way God’s name is written (י-ה-ו-ה) is to be concealed. — [from Pes. 50a.]


from same root:
"almah", young girl, known from Isaiah 7:14.

so you know from what sphere the Messiah is coming from.

I thought JPH knew about, since his initials seem to be Jewish acronym.

[Sevivon1913]

So you now see that there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of the Trinity, that if the bible does teach that the Messiah is God then that means the trinity is the only explanation (other than some weird version of modalism?).

But the Bible doesn't teach it. I am saying that if God claimed he was an ostrich; I would have to beleive him. In the realm of supernature, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of God being an ostrich, either. But God isn't an ostrich; and he's not a trinity.



There are some clues in the Tanakh though Sev. God talks about sending a messah to be the savior, but then he also claims there is no other savior but himself.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Isaiah 40:3 is about the coming messah but it say "Here is your God" and The Sovereign LORD comes with power, but it says that his arm (the messiah) rules for him. Just a bit contradictory unless the Messiah IS the LORD.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!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him..

I have no idea what translation has "Here is your God" and The Sovereign LORD comes with power" written for Isaiah 40:3 (or any other verse in that chapter). It's certainly not in my Bible. The whole verse is clearly talking about the return to Jerusalem (aliyah) from Exile; which has absolutely no relevence to Jesus.

Rashi explains the last part:

Clear the way of the Lord = The way of Jerusalem for her exiles to return to her midst.

Whilst this is a messianic prophecy; which presumably means the messiah is involved; I don't see how it proves Jesus was God (or messiah)?

The correct translation of Isaiah 40:9 is:

"Upon a lofty mountain ascend, O herald of Zion, raise your voice with strength, O herald of Jerusalem; raise [your voice], fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!""

Note: not "HERE is your God" as if referring to a man; but BEHOLD your God.

"Behold the Lord God shall come with a strong [hand], and His arm rules for Him; behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense is before Him." - Isaiah 40:10

"His arm" = the King-Messiah, just as King David and Moses performed the same role. I really don't see how this suggests God will become incarnate. It's like saying "may the lord be WITH you"; it doesn't mean "may the lord become incarnate and stand beside you". It's talking about his dominion / plan / chosen leader / help from his angels / etc.


Next, Job expected a redeemer, one that would set foot on earth one day, and that he would see him with his own eyes (showing he expected to be resurrected some day to see this redeemer)

Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

This passage show several things: The Redeemer will stand on the earth in the end. This means that way in Job’s future his redeemer will come to earth – probably referring to after the resurrection since Job is speaking of seeing him with his own fleshy eyes. The second sentence shows that Job expects this redeemer to be God and that he will be seeing God with his fleshy eyes. God is spirit and no one can see him directly, he is invisible. So he must be “in flesh” in order for Job to see him. Also, he must be a man as well as God in order to be our redeemer.

More mistranslation again. CORRECT translation:

"But I know that my Redeemer lives, and the last on earth, He will endure.
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment."

It says "I will see judgement"; not "I will see God".

Rashi says:

But I know that my Redeemer lives - This “vav” refers to the above. You persecute me, but I know that my Redeemer lives to requite you, and He will endure and rise.

and the last on the earth, He will endure - After all earth dwellers will perish, He will endure last.

Clearly Job is a personification of Israel (the guy never actually existed) and her persecutions. Job (i.e. Israel) takes comfort in the fact that one day she will be redeemed and the exile will end; she will be justified in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the Nations ("My servant shall prosper; if only.........he would see his seed").


Jerememiah even says that the Messiah will be called YHWH.

Jeremiah 23:5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

Having a name like "The Lord is our righteousness" is hardly unusual. It merely shows that the King-Messiah will lead people to righteous living and will be thus lead them closer to God. So his name is more his creed; his mission, than his identity. He is to bring people (Jews and Gentiles) to God through righteousness. I don't see anything about a vicarious punishment, incarnation, trinity, son of god or a notion that this messiah will MAKE us righteous through his own death.


[LORD is YHWH] - From the Jewish source Echa Rabbathi, (AD 200-300) – Abba ben Cahana wrote on the subject “What is the name of Messiah?” and answered “Jehovah is his name, and this is proved by ‘this is his name’ in Jer. 23:6 – (Ref: Laetsch, BCJ, 109 from The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Josh McDowell, p 176)

So, sev, there is a lot of evidence in the Tanakh that Messiah will be God.

I will check that source out tommorow at my library. It's probably a) made up b) mistranslated c) taken out of context d) is actually a quote from a heretic e) disproven in the next sentence.

So, Sparko, there is no evidence in the Tanakh that the King-Messiah will be God :teeth:

[JB]

More mistranslation again. CORRECT translation:

"But I know that my Redeemer lives, and the last on earth, He will endure.
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment."

It says "I will see judgement"; not "I will see God".


Sev, when I look at the Hebrew text of Job 19:26, I see )LWH. To my knowledge, that word doesn't mean "judgment", but is rather a reference to God. Am I here mistaken? Do I have a faulty Hebrew text? (I'm comparing several codices, and they all have )LWH.) Or is there another explanation?

[Sparko]

I have no idea what translation has "Here is your God" and The Sovereign LORD comes with power" written for Isaiah 40:3 (or any other verse in that chapter). It's certainly not in my Bible. which bible do you own sev? apparently its not any standard one because you keep coming up with this excuse "thats not what my bible says"

Here are a bunch of different translations and they all say pretty much the same thing.

Is 40:9
(ESV) Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!"

(GNB) Jerusalem, go up on a high mountain and proclaim the good news! Call out with a loud voice, Zion; announce the good news! Speak out and do not be afraid. Tell the towns of Judah that their God is coming!

(GW) Go up a high mountain, Zion. Tell the good news! Call out with a loud voice, Jerusalem. Tell the good news! Raise your voice without fear. Tell the cities of Judah: "Here is your God!"

(HNV) You who tell good news to Tziyon, go up on a high mountain. You who tell good news to Yerushalayim, lift up your voice with strength. Lift it up. Don't be afraid. Say to the cities of Yehudah, "Behold, your God!"

(KJVA) O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!

(LITV) Go up for yourself on the high mountain, one bearing good news to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, one bearing good news to Jerusalem. Lift up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah, Behold! Your God!

(MKJV) Go up for yourself on the high mountain, bringer of good tidings to Zion. Lift up your voice with strength, O you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem; lift up, do not be afraid. Say to the cities of Judah, Behold your God!






The whole verse is clearly talking about the return to Jerusalem (aliyah) from Exile; which has absolutely no relevence to Jesus.so its about the return to Jerusalem from the exile? Ok lets hold on to that thought...



Whilst this is a messianic prophecy; which presumably means the messiah is involved; I don't see how it proves Jesus was God (or messiah)?If it is about the exile, and the return to Jerusalem, and it is talking about the messiah, then WHO was the Messiah, Sev? The exile is over. that means the Messiah has already come too. Who was he????



The correct translation of Isaiah 40:9 is:

"Upon a lofty mountain ascend, O herald of Zion, raise your voice with strength, O herald of Jerusalem; raise [your voice], fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!""

Note: not "HERE is your God" as if referring to a man; but BEHOLD your God.

"Behold the Lord God shall come with a strong [hand], and His arm rules for Him; behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense is before Him." - Isaiah 40:10You really don't see it do you? If they are saying "behold your God" then how can you behold him if he is not THERE???




"His arm" = the King-Messiah, just as King David and Moses performed the same role. I really don't see how this suggests God will become incarnate. It's like saying "may the lord be WITH you"; it doesn't mean "may the lord become incarnate and stand beside you". It's talking about his dominion / plan / chosen leader / help from his angels / etc.
so if the verse before says "behold your God" and the next verse says that the lord is coming and his arm will rule for him, how can you say that doens't mean that GOD is coming????? His ARM is part of him isn't it? My arm is part of me. The messiah is God.





More mistranslation again. CORRECT translation:

"But I know that my Redeemer lives, and the last on earth, He will endure.
And after my skin, they have cut into this, and from my flesh I see judgment."

It says "I will see judgement"; not "I will see God".Who is doing the mistranslating here Sev? The word is not judgment. The word is GOD

the word is אלהּ / אלוהּ

Eloahh which is a form of Elohim which means GOD.

What wacky bible are you reading?

And the very next verse reads:
Job 19:26 whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.

Get it? WHOM??

[jpholding]

Where can I get a copy of the NRSV (New Revised Sevivon Version)?

[Sparko]

Where can I get a copy of the NRSV (New Revised Sevivon Version)?
I think you just make it up as you go along.

3 Kings 1:2 And thou shalt invent thy scripture in thy head and it shall be made into truth for you. Verily, Verily, Verily. See? I sayeth Verily 3 times so that meaneth I am telling the trutheth.

[sylvius]

Sev, when I look at the Hebrew text of Job 19:26, I see )LWH. To my knowledge, that word doesn't mean "judgment", but is rather a reference to God. Am I here mistaken? Do I have a faulty Hebrew text? (I'm comparing several codices, and they all have )LWH.) Or is there another explanation?


http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16421&showrashi=true

judgment Heb. אלוה, an expression of judgment and chastisements.


God = Hebrew "el" )L or "elohim" )LHYM

Goddess "elah" )LH

[sylvius]

so if the verse before says "behold your God" and the next verse says that the lord is coming and his arm will rule for him, how can you say that doens't mean that GOD is coming????? His ARM is part of him isn't it? My arm is part of me. The messiah is God.

what then about the God that brought the children of Israel people out of teh land Egypt?

cf, Deuteronomy 26:8,

And the Lord brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, with great awe, and with signs and wonders.

was that Jesus?

[sylvius]

Where can I get a copy of the NRSV (New Revised Sevivon Version)?
smart boy

[Sparko]

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16421&showrashi=true

judgment Heb. אלוה, an expression of judgment and chastisements.

The word used in Job 19:26 is the same hebrew word used in Job 19:21

Yet in that instance Rashi translated the word as "God"

I don't think Rashi was being entirely unbiased in his translations.

also see the same word translated as God in these verses:

Deu_32:15, Deu_32:17, 2Ch_32:15, Neh_9:17, Job_3:4, Job_3:23, Job_4:9, Job_5:17 (2), Job_6:4, Job_6:8-9 (2), Job_9:13, Job_10:2, Job_11:5-7 (3), Job_12:4, Job_12:6, Job_15:8, Job_16:20-21 (2), Job_19:6, Job_19:21, Job_19:26, Job_21:9, Job_21:19, Job_22:12, Job_22:26, Job_24:12, Job_27:3, Job_27:8, Job_27:10, Job_29:2, Job_29:4, Job_31:2, Job_31:6, Job_33:12, Job_33:26, Job_35:10, Job_37:15, Job_37:22, Job_39:17, Job_40:2, Psa_18:31, Psa_50:22, Psa_114:7, Psa_139:19, Pro_30:5, Isa_44:8, Dan_11:37-39 (4), Hab_3:3

In all cases it is translated as "God" by all of the translations I can check,

I wonder why Rashi chose to translate it as "Judgement" in that one place?

Hmmm...

[Harfelugan]

charakter[/I] means (Hebrews 1:3). I'm not concerned with what label you ascribe to the Scripture's teaching, whether monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, etc. None of these words are even necessary. Jesus is a copy/representation of God's being. That is my doctrine.

Thank you for the insight into your doctrine , I would like you to elaborate more on this , "the nature and being of Christ" , if you would , I understand that you dont like to go beyond the terminology of scripture but you must have to , in some scense , to keep your doctrines adherants from being confused when they come across Trinity doctrine . As well as a way to explain when you teach your doctrine what makes it important to follow this doctrine , with possible consequences if you follow Trinity doctrines . Please excuse my ignorance of Unitarian beliefs , apparanty you and Steve are the first ones I've met . I hope you've noticed the number of veiws this thread has recieved as well as the number of hits that have occured on your book site that I believe may be partly due to your posting on this forum , someday you might have to thank Mr. Holdings . When I first went to your book site there were only 172 hits .

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=Harfelugan;1841451]Thank you for the insight into your doctrine , I would like you to elaborate more on this , "the nature and being of Christ" , if you would , I understand that you dont like to go beyond the terminology of scripture but you must have to , in some scense , to keep your doctrines adherants from being confused when they come across Trinity doctrine .

That about sums it up for me. I believe that the Scriptures accurately and adequately define the "nature" and identity of Jesus Christ with sufficient clarity. I see no need to go beyond the language or emphases of Scripture. One of the primarey themes of the New Testament is to establish Jesus identity as the "Christ" or "Messiah," the one whom God annointed. He is the image of the invisible God, God's perfect representative. The most accurate way to describe the relationship between God and Jesus is that of "Father" and "Son." I believe that Jesus was granted life from the Father, exactly what we would expect from a "Father-Son" relationship (John 5:26; 6:57). When I say that Jesus is God's Son, I mean what I say. I believe the Scriptures do the same. I don't believe that Jesus and the Father are of identical substance/being (homoousios) because the Scriptures do not teach this. I believe Jesus is a copy of God's being because the Scriptures do teach this.

[Sparko]

.

That about sums it up for me. I believe that the Scriptures accurately and adequately define the "nature" and identity of Jesus Christ with sufficient clarity. I see no need to go beyond the language or emphases of Scripture. One of the primarey themes of the New Testament is to establish Jesus identity as the "Christ" or "Messiah," the one whom God annointed. He is the image of the invisible God, God's perfect representative. The most accurate way to describe the relationship between God and Jesus is that of "Father" and "Son." I believe that Jesus was granted life from the Father, exactly what we would expect from a "Father-Son" relationship (John 5:26; 6:57). When I say that Jesus is God's Son, I mean what I say. I believe the Scriptures do the same. I don't believe that Jesus and the Father are of identical substance/being (homoousios) because the Scriptures do not teach this. I believe Jesus is a copy of God's being because the Scriptures do teach this.

You need to delve into the logical consequences of your beliefs on that matter at least as deeply has you seem to have the trinitarian doctrine. You seem to go into way too MUCH detail tearing apart the trinity doctrines, but when it comes to your own, you blindly accept such a thing as "the scripture says jesus is a copy of God and that's good enough for me" and not think about the contradictions that cause.

If Jesus is a copy of God, then he is another God. That flies in the face of scripture where God says there is no other God but him, and none have been formed before or after him. He flat out says he never made another God, no copies.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You need to delve into the logical consequences of your beliefs on that matter at least as deeply has you seem to have the trinitarian doctrine. You seem to go into way too MUCH detail tearing apart the trinity doctrines, but when it comes to your own, you blindly accept such a thing as "the scripture says jesus is a copy of God and that's good enough for me" and not think about the contradictions that cause.

If Jesus is a copy of God, then he is another God. That flies in the face of scripture where God says there is no other God but him, and none have been formed before or after him. He flat out says he never made another God, no copies.

It also says image and not copy. The two are different.

Futhermore, how can God have the quality of eternality while Jesus doesn't and yet, Jesus is an exact representation?

[PatrickNavas]

If Jesus is a copy of God, then he is another God. That flies in the face of scripture where God says there is no other God but him, and none have been formed before or after him. He flat out says he never made another God, no copies.[/QUOTE]

You say "no copies" but Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being. Evidently you do not accept this teaching. But I believe that the NT documents, as we have them, reflec the original teachings of Christianity. But here is some additional insight into the meaning of the term, from various translations and commentaries.

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is the reflection of his glory and the perfect representation (C. B. Williams); “the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

The word translated "copy/representation" in some versions is charakter. It means "copy" or "reproduction."

It was noted in another respected commentary that charakter “is ‘the exact reproduction,’ as a statue of a person; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original…The idea of character as a replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21:2) : ‘hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.’” --The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt D.D., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) pp. 6, 7 (emphasis added)

Another commentary notes that the word refers to “an impression such as a seal leaves on wax, an exact reproduction of the original.” Strong’s Dictionary defines charakter as “a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving, the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).” Thayer’s Lexicon says of charakter: “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect (cf. facsimile).”

A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Charakter is an old word from charasso, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = ter) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Acts 17:29; Rev. 13:16f.)…The word occurs in the inscriptions for ‘person’ as well as for ‘exact reproduction’ of a person.

Bible scholar William Barclay observed: “charakter comes very easily to mean ‘an exact replica,’ copy or reproduction. This meaning was extended so that, for instance, a man could speak of a statue as character tes emes morphes, an exact reproduction of my shape. So then to say that Jesus is the charakter of God is to say, as it were, that Jesus is the exact reproduction of God, that in Jesus there is a clear and accurate picture of what God is.” —Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 319.

This is all documented in my book on the Trinity.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

If Jesus is a copy of God, then he is another God. That flies in the face of scripture where God says there is no other God but him, and none have been formed before or after him. He flat out says he never made another God, no copies.

You say "no copies" but Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being. Evidently you do not accept this teaching. But I believe that the NT documents, as we have them, reflec the original teachings of Christianity. But here is some additional insight into the meaning of the term, from various translations and commentaries.

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is the reflection of his glory and the perfect representation (C. B. Williams); “the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

The word translated "copy/representation" in some versions is charakter. It means "copy" or "reproduction."

It was noted in another respected commentary that charakter “is ‘the exact reproduction,’ as a statue of a person; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original…The idea of character as a replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21:2) : ‘hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.’” --The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt D.D., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) pp. 6, 7 (emphasis added)

Another commentary notes that the word refers to “an impression such as a seal leaves on wax, an exact reproduction of the original.” Strong’s Dictionary defines charakter as “a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving, the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).” Thayer’s Lexicon says of charakter: “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect (cf. facsimile).”

A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Charakter is an old word from charasso, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = ter) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Acts 17:29; Rev. 13:16f.)…The word occurs in the inscriptions for ‘person’ as well as for ‘exact reproduction’ of a person.

Bible scholar William Barclay observed: “charakter comes very easily to mean ‘an exact replica,’ copy or reproduction. This meaning was extended so that, for instance, a man could speak of a statue as character tes emes morphes, an exact reproduction of my shape. So then to say that Jesus is the charakter of God is to say, as it were, that Jesus is the exact reproduction of God, that in Jesus there is a clear and accurate picture of what God is.” —Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 319.

This is all documented in my book on the Trinity.

And yet, most of these statements seem to go against you and you don't even give your own views again. Just quote-ripping. Haven't you learned about this yet?

[Sparko]

You say "no copies" but Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being. Evidently you do not accept this teaching. But I believe that the NT documents, as we have them, reflec the original teachings of Christianity. But here is some additional insight into the meaning of the term, from various translations and commentaries.


OK think about it. If Jesus is the EXACT image of God. And there is Only ONE God and there are no gods formed before or after Him (Isaiah) ....

then the only conclusion is that Jesus is the SAME God as the Father. He has the same nature as the Father, the same attributes, he is the Image of the Father. But he has the quality of being human too. The Father does not have that quality does he? so you have two persons, who are both the SAME god.

Welcome to the trinity pat. There is no other logical conclusion you can come too unless you deny that God said there is only ONE God.

[Another_Insider]

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is the reflection of his glory and the perfect representation (C. B. Williams); “the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

The word translated "copy/representation" in some versions is charakter. It means "copy" or "reproduction."
Therefore, Jesus Christ is God, although it appears that He was God in the NT, Patrict Navas still denied Him for such glory. He doesn't want to go of what is beyond of the decription of Christ in the Scripture. That is fine. But I will re-phrase St. Thomas the apostle's confession to Jesus Christ - "My Lord and my God..." This is enough for me. I hope PN's conclusion will be the same to St. Thomas'.

[sylvius]

The word used in Job 19:26 is the same hebrew word used in Job 19:21

Yet in that instance Rashi translated the word as "God"

I don't think Rashi was being entirely unbiased in his translations.

also see the same word translated as God in these verses:

Deu_32:15, Deu_32:17, 2Ch_32:15, Neh_9:17, Job_3:4, Job_3:23, Job_4:9, Job_5:17 (2), Job_6:4, Job_6:8-9 (2), Job_9:13, Job_10:2, Job_11:5-7 (3), Job_12:4, Job_12:6, Job_15:8, Job_16:20-21 (2), Job_19:6, Job_19:21, Job_19:26, Job_21:9, Job_21:19, Job_22:12, Job_22:26, Job_24:12, Job_27:3, Job_27:8, Job_27:10, Job_29:2, Job_29:4, Job_31:2, Job_31:6, Job_33:12, Job_33:26, Job_35:10, Job_37:15, Job_37:22, Job_39:17, Job_40:2, Psa_18:31, Psa_50:22, Psa_114:7, Psa_139:19, Pro_30:5, Isa_44:8, Dan_11:37-39 (4), Hab_3:3

In all cases it is translated as "God" by all of the translations I can check,

I wonder why Rashi chose to translate it as "Judgement" in that one place?

Hmmm...

ok you'r e right in this Sparko "eloha" means God.

but not in this:


Next, Job expected a redeemer, one that would set foot on earth one day, and that he would see him with his own eyes (showing he expected to be resurrected some day to see this redeemer)

Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

This passage show several things: The Redeemer will stand on the earth in the end. This means that way in Job’s future his redeemer will come to earth – probably referring to after the resurrection since Job is speaking of seeing him with his own fleshy eyes. The second sentence shows that Job expects this redeemer to be God and that he will be seeing God with his fleshy eyes. God is spirit and no one can see him directly, he is invisible. So he must be “in flesh” in order for Job to see him. Also, he must be a man as well as God in order to be our redeemer.

because of it is contrary the purpose of the book Job.

culminating in Job 42:5,


I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, and now, my eye has seen You.

note that it speaks here about the Lord , HaShem.

so I think Rashi in his commentary has had in mind what he wrote on Genesis 1:1,

"Elohim created" But it does not say “HaShem created" (i.e., it should say “HaShem Elohim created” as below 2:4 “on the day that HaSehm Elohim made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day that HaShem Elohim made earth and heaven.”

more: the book Job is about the same thing ; it illstrates how Satan (the accuser, prosecutor)
has been tricked by (HaShem) God from the very beginning.

[SteveScianni]

Some people ought to be driven away, and considering how much dodging Patty is doing in responding to AP and Sparko, he's not showing himself to be deserving of much more.

JPH, nobody deserves to be driven away from the truth with insults. Drive them away with arguments and reason if they must go. Let them walk away because they don't like the Truth itself, not because they don't like the Truth speaker.


If they were right, I'd admit it.

I'll take your word for it...But under your breath you'd mutter, 'They could have shown me I was mistaken without calling me incorrigibly stupid.'


...I've been staring at (not "glancing") this topic for 8 or more years now; I've been consulting the sources and the scholarship,... so don't condescend to suggest that I need to look more than once at this kind of shoddy work to see it for what it is.

I have never doubted this is a topic you are very familiar with and know very well...but 'first glance' was your phrase and it was used in regard to Patrick only using 'pop' writers, however, a closer look at his work will show that, although he did not quote any of the authorities you feel are the most relevant, he did quote scholars and works that go beyond Charles Stanley and Max Lucado.


The more important point is that the most credible, detailed work on the subject is totally absent from Patty's pages.

That is a problem, I would agree with you. However for me to agree that that is the case with Pat's book, I would have to know, first, what the most relevant sources are (and I'll take your word for it that the list you provided would be them) and second, I would have to know most of what was in Patrick's book. Now God bless him and the other gentlemen, but I don't have the desire to know that much about this topic. So I'll plead ignorance and council Patrick, when I see him, to read the books you listed and that he ought always to be the best and most careful scholar before publishing.


Don't pretend you can show otherwise -- my profession is as a researcher, trained in the use of sources and knowing their value and relevance. You're trying to tell a professional exterminator he doesn't know what a cockroach looks like.

JPH, I have not once called into question your competency, abilities, knowledge, or training...I've simply tried to tell the 'exterminator' to be a 'professional.'


These are all CRITICAL works for understanding early Christology

First, thank you for the list, it was appreciated. However, I was looking for the best orthodox apologists/scholars in general...not just the Trinity and that's my fault for not clarifying. Can you share some names in that regard.


So tell me this: Do you think YOU should be writing books on complex subjects you haven't read up on?

No. I agree that there is hard work to be done before printing and 'top-notch' scholars are rare breeds and they are the ones I want to spend my time reading...the careful, the meticulous, the honest, the objective and the thorough - of course if you could mix all that with spirit and personality, you have a tremendous resource.


The problem today is with people like Patty who think they deserve credence just because they have an opinion and a public library card...Then they publish crap like his book and just add to the mess.

This is to oversimplify a more complex issue. Is it a problem? To a degree, yes. But there are at least three things that come to mind that are part and parcel of this 'mess.'

(1) This is a necessary evil in a society with freedoms of thought, conscience and speech. To eliminate these is to impose even greater evils.

(2) This is the beauty of collaboration and why people ought to work with, not against, each other. In Science, poor theories are offered and tested and they are shown to be just that - poor. But that is straighest line there is to the truth. So while a book may not be perfect (or far from it) it's imperfections eventually are noted and improved upon, all the while offering whatever value it does contain. In this particular case, a dissenting voice to received tradition, which leads one to 'test all things' as a 'berean' - which is a principle, no matter what stance one takes on the Trinity, every Protestant must cherish.

(3) There is a root cause for anti-Trinitarian publications, that is, the Bible is not indisputably clear on this matter. And I mean this tautologically, not polemically. The history of heresies and dissenters, along with Trinitarians allowing for it being an 'inferred' not didactic teaching of the canon proves to us that there is an interpretative dispute. That said, let's let this continue to play out, only now in an era when you're not killed for it. And we can rest assured that no Truth needs to fear or will ever be lost to the pecking of a few spring chickens.

[PatrickNavas]

Therefore, Jesus Christ is God, although it appears that He was God in the NT, Patrict Navas still denied Him for such glory. He doesn't want to go of what is beyond of the decription of Christ in the Scripture. That is fine. But I will re-phrase St. Thomas the apostle's confession to Jesus Christ - "My Lord and my God..." This is enough for me. I hope PN's conclusion will be the same to St. Thomas'.

I also conclude and confess, with Thomas, that Jesus is "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

[PatrickNavas]

There has been a lot of discussion going on regarding the use of "pop" writers. This is only the opinion or one man and a bizarre way of trying to dismiss the validity of one's arguments. The arguments in behalf of the Trinity are well known. They are not a mystery. James White, Robert Morey, John MacArthur amd Robert Reymond may be described by some as "pop" writers but, as far as I can tell, they are among the most prominent teachers who have had the most influence on the public mind. My goal in writing the book was to expose the fallacies of the most common and well known arguments in behalf of the doctrine of the Trinity. And, again, all that really matters is the evidence. That is all I'm interested in discussing. I have no interest in personally insulting anyone, or receiving insults. The moment a person brings the conversation to that level, in my mind they lose all credibility. The discussion can go nowhere.

Why refer to me as "Patty"? What does that accomplish? What does that have to do with anything? Is this a professional, scholarly or Christian attitude? Who hear on this board thinks it is?

[PatrickNavas]

Pardon my spelling errors everyone:

There has been a lot of discussion going on regarding the use of "pop" writers. This is only the opinion of one man and a bizarre way of trying to dismiss the validity of one's arguments. The arguments in behalf of the Trinity are well known. They are not a mystery. James White, Robert Morey, John MacArthur amd Robert Reymond may be described by some as "pop" writers but, as far as I can tell, they are among the most prominent teachers who have had the most influence on the public mind. My goal in writing the book was to expose the fallacies of the most common and well known arguments in behalf of the doctrine of the Trinity. And, again, all that really matters is the evidence. That is all I'm interested in discussing. I have no interest in personally insulting anyone, or receiving insults. The moment a person brings the conversation to that level, in my mind they lose all credibility. The discussion can go nowhere.

Why refer to me as "Patty"? What does that accomplish? What does that have to do with anything? Is this a professional, scholarly or Christian attitude? Who here on this board thinks it is?

[sylvius]

If Jesus is a copy of God, then he is another God. That flies in the face of scripture where God says there is no other God but him, and none have been formed before or after him. He flat out says he never made another God, no copies.

You say "no copies" but Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being. Evidently you do not accept this teaching. But I believe that the NT documents, as we have them, reflec the original teachings of Christianity. But here is some additional insight into the meaning of the term, from various translations and commentaries.

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is the reflection of his glory and the perfect representation (C. B. Williams); “the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

The word translated "copy/representation" in some versions is charakter. It means "copy" or "reproduction."

It was noted in another respected commentary that charakter “is ‘the exact reproduction,’ as a statue of a person; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original…The idea of character as a replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21:2) : ‘hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.’” --The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt D.D., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) pp. 6, 7 (emphasis added)

Another commentary notes that the word refers to “an impression such as a seal leaves on wax, an exact reproduction of the original.” Strong’s Dictionary defines charakter as “a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving, the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).” Thayer’s Lexicon says of charakter: “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect (cf. facsimile).”

A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Charakter is an old word from charasso, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = ter) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Acts 17:29; Rev. 13:16f.)…The word occurs in the inscriptions for ‘person’ as well as for ‘exact reproduction’ of a person.

Bible scholar William Barclay observed: “charakter comes very easily to mean ‘an exact replica,’ copy or reproduction. This meaning was extended so that, for instance, a man could speak of a statue as character tes emes morphes, an exact reproduction of my shape. So then to say that Jesus is the charakter of God is to say, as it were, that Jesus is the exact reproduction of God, that in Jesus there is a clear and accurate picture of what God is.” —Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 319.

This is all documented in my book on the Trinity.[/QUOTE]

Greek:

oV wn apaugasma thV doxhV kai carakthr thV upostasewV autou





χαρακτηρ , "charaktèr"
denotes something else than eikwn, "eikon" = image.

what?

Rashi on Genesis 1:26,

And God created man in His image In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a die, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French. And so Scripture states (Job 38:14): “The die changes like clay.” - [from Letters of Rabbi Akiva , second version; Mid. Ps. 139:5; Sanh. 38a]

and next:

in the image of God He created him It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]


"the image of the likeness", Hebrew "tselem d'yukan".

Note that Mark plays with these notions --

Mark 12: 15-16,

Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, "Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at." They brought one to him and he said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?" They replied to him, "Caesar's."

image = "eikon"; inscription "epigrafè".

the word "epigrafè" returning in Mark 15: 26,

The inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

that you know who has been crucified; viz. man created in the image and the likeness of God.

We all are Adam (= I am like, I resemble) in the depth of our being.

[sylvius]

OK think about it. If Jesus is the EXACT image of God. And there is Only ONE God and there are no gods formed before or after Him (Isaiah) ....

then the only conclusion is that Jesus is the SAME God as the Father. He has the same nature as the Father, the same attributes, he is the Image of the Father. But he has the quality of being human too. The Father does not have that quality does he? so you have two persons, who are both the SAME god.

Welcome to the trinity pat. There is no other logical conclusion you can come too unless you deny that God said there is only ONE God.


what then about Paul? was he an heretic? '


1 Timothy 2:5-7,

eiV gar qeoV, eiV kai mesithV qeou kai anqrwpwn, anqrwpoV cristoV ihsouV,


One is God. and there is ome mediator between God and human being, the human being Christ Jesus,

[sylvius]

how you edit a post?


what then about Paul? was he an heretic? '


1 Timothy 2:5-7,


eiV gar qeoV, eiV kai mesithV qeou kai anqrwpwn, anqrwpoV cristoV ihsouV,


For one is God and one is mediator between God and men, man Christ Jesus,

[JB]

how you edit a post?

If you click the blank space right next to your name, the option should appear at the top of your post.

[jpholding]

There has been a lot of discussion going on regarding the use of "pop" writers. This is only the opinion of one man and a bizarre way of trying to dismiss the validity of one's arguments.

Good night you're stupid.

This is a FACT, Patty. You just try to sumbit a paper to someplace like Catholic Biblical Quarterly using White or MacArthur as sources and you''ll be laughed up a flagpole. :lmbo:

If you're trying to overturn a long held consensus then you need to get out of the playpen and deal with MEAT. Because unless you do, you're not dealing with "evidence" but with a baby version of it.


I have no interest in personally insulting anyone, or receiving insults. The moment a person brings the conversation to that level, in my mind they lose all credibility.

It's too bad your mind is so warped that way.

Instead of wasting so much time being a crybaby, why don't you shut me up with an informed, actual answer?

Hebrews 1, by the way, ALSO uses the language of hypostatic Wisdom and so again is against you.

[sylvius]

Hebrews 1, by the way, ALSO uses the language of hypostatic Wisdom and so again is against you.



you again bake the cookies brown what?

[jpholding]

JPH, nobody deserves to be driven away from the truth with insults.

Oh? Who died and made you Moral Master of such things? Besides, that's not what's being done. What's being done is that lies are being driven away.



I'll take your word for it...But under your breath you'd mutter, 'They could have shown me I was mistaken without calling me incorrigibly stupid.'

No, I wouldn't, and you just keep losing any right to credibility with that sort of asinine and hypocritical statement.


closer look at his work will show that, although he did not quote any of the authorities you feel are the most relevant, he did quote scholars and works that go beyond Charles Stanley and Max Lucado.

Quoting one line from a multi-volume set full of arguments and data that refute your position. isn't showing any credibility or intelligence. There's not even a bibliography in his book -- what the heck is that all about???


Now God bless him and the other gentlemen, but I don't have the desire to know that much about this topic.

In that case, you sure are mouthing off a lot in defense of something you know nothing about. :lolo:



JPH, I have not once called into question your competency, abilities, knowledge, or training...I've simply tried to tell the 'exterminator' to be a 'professional.'

Riiiight....you're playing the same passive-aggressive game of dodgeball you did in your very first message which MM caught you at first.

Spare me, eh? You're just using your imagination to make it so you're always right no matter what.


Can you share some names in that regard.

Yeah sure -- check the list in the background of panel #7 at

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/notthere/notthere4.html



(1) This is a necessary evil in a society with freedoms of thought, conscience and speech. To eliminate these is to impose even greater evils.

Who said anything about "eliminating"? I just say if you're going to be stupid and incompetent, you'd better be ready to be called on it and not cry when you are, like Patty does.


(2) This is the beauty of collaboration and why people ought to work with, not against, each other.

Pffft....PC drivel. Next you're have us working with Osama bin Laden. :lolo:


In this particular case, a dissenting voice to received tradition, which leads one to 'test all things' as a 'berean' - which is a principle, no matter what stance one takes on the Trinity, every Protestant must cherish.

Um, you seem to forget -- this "test" has been had before. Countless times. Patty didn't even check to see if this was the case and didn't look for the sources. Nothing will erase that sort of thing as anything but irresponsible.


(3) There is a root cause for anti-Trinitarian publications, that is, the Bible is not indisputably clear on this matter.

Yes, it is, to those who get out of their armchair and stop dowing Doritos long enough to do some real homework. Only blind ignorance will say otherwise. And unless you produce credible scholarship to the contrary, you're just running your mouth with a platitude.

It's too bad you're not as good at dealing with facts as you are at composing poultry-based metaphors. :hehe:

[sylvius]

What's being done is that lies are being driven away.

He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house:
he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.

psalms 101:7



there is a wordplay

"sheker" = lie
written with the same letters:
"kesher" = knot.

"the knot" --the knot of the tefilin in the neck.


Exodus 33:23
[

"and thou shalt see my back parts"
Rashi: He showed him the tefilin-knot.

cf. John 1:18

the knot connects the upper and the lower.

the lie is the untied knot , the denial of the mystery. .

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yo Pat! Are you gonna answer our questions or not? If I wrote something, I'd be prepared to defend it. I fear you're not.

[PatrickNavas]

And yet, most of these statements seem to go against you and you don't even give your own views again. Just quote-ripping. Haven't you learned about this yet?

I'm confused by your comments. Weren't you the one who implied that the word in Hebrews 1:3 does not mean "copy"?

It also says image and not copy. The two are different

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm confused by your comments. Weren't you the one who implied that the word in Hebrews 1:3 does not mean "copy"?

It also says image and not copy. The two are different

um. Yeah. I did. I also pointed out that you said Jesus is God's wisdom. The syllogism goes like this.

Premise: Jesus is God's wisdom.
Premise: God's wisdom is eternal
Conclusion: Jesus is eternal.

To deny this, you must show I used a term ambiguously, that one of the premises is false, or that I performed a logical fallacy. Please do so.

[PatrickNavas]

This is a FACT, Patty. You just try to sumbit a paper to someplace like Catholic Biblical Quarterly using White or MacArthur as sources and you''ll be laughed up a flagpole.

You have ignored my post then. And I seriously doubt that the people at the Catholic Biblical Quarterly are as disrespectful as you.

The book was written to Evangelicals. Most Evangelicals respect MacArtur, James White, R. C. Sproul, Robert Bowman, etc. They are leading spokesman for Protestantism. The evidences these men seek to produce for the Trinity are essentially the same as the evidence all people of all time have used. My purpose was, again, to show that the common and popular arguments (like the "I am" statemens of John) in behalf of the Trinity are wrong. Trinitarians themselves were the greatest aid in helping me accomplish this.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

This is a FACT, Patty. You just try to sumbit a paper to someplace like Catholic Biblical Quarterly using White or MacArthur as sources and you''ll be laughed up a flagpole.

You have ignored my post then. And I seriously doubt that the people at the Catholic Biblical Quarterly are as disrespectful as you.

The book was written to Evangelicals. Most Evangelicals respect MacArtur, James White, R. C. Sproul, Robert Bowman, etc. They are leading spokesman for Protestantism. The evidences these men seek to produce for the Trinity are essentially the same as the evidence all people of all time have used. My purpose was, again, to show that the common and popular arguments (like the "I am" statemens of John) in behalf of the Trinity are wrong. Trinitarians themselves were the greatest aid in helping me accomplish this.

Only by quote-ripping

[PatrickNavas]

Wait, let's back up. You first denied that charakter means "copy." Then you said it goes against my position. What are you saying now?

This is what I am saying.
(1) Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus and the Father are separate persons but the same being, the same God (consubstantial).
(2) The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus and the Father are the same being, or share the same being.
(3) The Bible teaches that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being.
(4) I teach that Jesus is a copy of God's being because I believe the Bible is reliable and inspired of God.
(5) The statement "Jesus is a copy of God's being" is the true biblical doctrine, not "Jesus is a partaker or sharer in God's being." Jesus is a copy, not the original. And, normally, when you have a copy or reproduction of something else, you then have two of them. Trinitarianism does not teach or accept that the Father and Son represent 2 beings. But Jesus is a copy/reproduction of God's being. Therefore they constitute two beings.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Wait, let's back up. You first denied that charakter means "copy." Then you said it goes against my position. What are you saying now?

This is what I am saying.
(1) Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus and the Father are separate persons but the same being, the same God (consubstantial).
(2) The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus and the Father are the same being, or share the same being.
(3) The Bible teaches that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being.
(4) I teach that Jesus is a copy of God's being because I believe the Bible is reliable and inspired of God.
(5) The statement "Jesus is a copy of God's being" is the true biblical doctrine, not "Jesus is a partaker or sharer in God's being." Jesus is a copy, not the original. And, normally, when you have a copy or reproduction of something else, you then have two of them. Trinitarianism does not teach or accept that the Father and Son represent 2 beings. But Jesus is a copy/reproduction of God's being. Therefore they constitute two beings.

Except I don't see Jesus as a copy of God but the image of God.

Thus, what you say doesn't really faze me.

Now let's get to the syllogism you so avoided.

Premise: Jesus is God's wisdom.
Premise: God's wisdom is eternal.
Conclusion: Jesus is eternal.

YOu must in order to invalidate this show a term used ambiguously, a false premise, or a logical fallacy.

[Sparko]

ok you'r e right in this Sparko "eloha" means God.

but not in this:



because of it is contrary the purpose of the book Job.

culminating in Job 42:5,

I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, and now, my eye has seen You.

So, you admit that Job is talking about seeing God when he talks about his redeemer?

Problem is that in Job 42:5 his redeemer has not yet set foot on earth as in my previous quote of Job it was a theophany (the storm), and neither has all the skin been stripped from Job's body (a reference to death and resurrecton) so the verse in 42:5 is not the fulfillment of the verse 19:25

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=ApologiaPhoenix;1842237]Except I don't see Jesus as a copy of God but the image of God.

You don't see Jesus as a copy of God but the image of God. I believe Jesus is the image of God and the exact "copy" of God's being because the Bible teaches this. I reject the doctrine that says Jesus and God are the same being because the Bible nowhere teaches this.

[Sparko]

. There's not even a bibliography in his book -- what the heck is that all about???

There isn't??? I guess since 99% of his book is all quotes he is probably going to publish the bibiography as a second volume (larger than the first)

[PatrickNavas]

Both the Bible and Jewish Wisdom literature teach that Wisdom was created, not eternal.

The footnotes in the New English Translation (Dallas Theological Seminary) have the following observation regarding Proverbs 8:22:

There are two roots (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation ‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it, ‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’ Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ The third parallel verb is (kholalti) [v. 24], ‘I was given birth.’ Some translate it ‘brought forth’—not in the sense of being presented, but in being ‘begotten, given birth to.’ Here is the strongest support for the translation of (qanah) as ‘created’ in v. 22

Another commentary made the same point:

“The verb qanah can mean either ‘possess’ or ‘create.’…Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (qanani [‘brought me forth,’ v. 22]; nissakti [‘I was appointed,’ v. 23]; and kholalti [‘I was given birth,’ v. 24] argue for the idea of ‘create/establish.’” —The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), p. 946.

According to another source, “In view of the following verb (‘I was brought forth,’ vv 24-24), ‘beget’ seems preferable (cf. also Gen 4:1)…” —Murphy, Word Biblical Commentary, Proverbs, Volume 22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, p. 1998), p. 48.

Jaroslav Pelikan observed:

“Although the transmission of the documents of Arianism is even more confused than that of other heretical literature, it does seem clear that the Arian controversy broke out over the exegesis of Proverbs 8:22-31.”

Pelikan also observed:

“According to Athanasius, [the belief that Christ was ‘created’] was part of [the Arian’s] original doctrine (but according to Basil a later refinement by the Anomoeans) to argue: ‘We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called Only-Begotten, because only he was brought into being by God alone, while all other things were created by God through the Son.’”

Not even Athanasius denied that the passage had reference to the Son. However, he did attempt to put forward another interpretation.

According to Pelikan, “This meant, above all, that ‘he created me’ in Proverbs 8:22 either had to be using ‘created’ in an improper sense or had to be speaking of the created humanity of the incarnate Christ. The latter was the easier solution, taking the words to mean ‘that the Lord Jesus was created from the Virgin in order to redeem the works of the Father.’” —The Christian Tradition, Volume 1, A History of the Development of Doctrine, pp. 193, 196, 205.

If one believes Jesus is the Wisdom of God, described in Proverbs 8 and in Jewish Widsom literature, then one must be prepared to accept that Wisdom was created. If it is your choice to do so, feel free to argue that the word "created" means "eternal" or "eternally created." There isn't anything I can say to stop you.

[sylvius]

[/B][/INDENT]So, you admit that Job is talking about seeing God when he talks about his redeemer?

Problem is that in Job 42:5 his redeemer has not yet set foot on earth as in my previous quote of Job it was a theophany (the storm), and neither has all the skin been stripped from Job's body (a reference to death and resurrecton) so the verse in 42:5 is not the fulfillment of the verse 19:25


didn't say fulfillment.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Both the Bible and Jewish Wisdom literature teach that Wisdom was created, not eternal.

The footnotes in the New English Translation (Dallas Theological Seminary) have the following observation regarding Proverbs 8:22:

There are two roots (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation ‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it, ‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’ Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ The third parallel verb is (kholalti) [v. 24], ‘I was given birth.’ Some translate it ‘brought forth’—not in the sense of being presented, but in being ‘begotten, given birth to.’ Here is the strongest support for the translation of (qanah) as ‘created’ in v. 22

Another commentary made the same point:

“The verb qanah can mean either ‘possess’ or ‘create.’…Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (qanani [‘brought me forth,’ v. 22]; nissakti [‘I was appointed,’ v. 23]; and kholalti [‘I was given birth,’ v. 24] argue for the idea of ‘create/establish.’” —The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), p. 946.

According to another source, “In view of the following verb (‘I was brought forth,’ vv 24-24), ‘beget’ seems preferable (cf. also Gen 4:1)…” —Murphy, Word Biblical Commentary, Proverbs, Volume 22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, p. 1998), p. 48.

Jaroslav Pelikan observed:

“Although the transmission of the documents of Arianism is even more confused than that of other heretical literature, it does seem clear that the Arian controversy broke out over the exegesis of Proverbs 8:22-31.”

Pelikan also observed:

“According to Athanasius, [the belief that Christ was ‘created’] was part of [the Arian’s] original doctrine (but according to Basil a later refinement by the Anomoeans) to argue: ‘We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called Only-Begotten, because only he was brought into being by God alone, while all other things were created by God through the Son.’”

Not even Athanasius denied that the passage had reference to the Son. However, he did attempt to put forward another interpretation.

According to Pelikan, “This meant, above all, that ‘he created me’ in Proverbs 8:22 either had to be using ‘created’ in an improper sense or had to be speaking of the created humanity of the incarnate Christ. The latter was the easier solution, taking the words to mean ‘that the Lord Jesus was created from the Virgin in order to redeem the works of the Father.’” —The Christian Tradition, Volume 1, A History of the Development of Doctrine, pp. 193, 196, 205.

If one believes Jesus is the Wisdom of God, described in Proverbs 8 and in Jewish Widsom literature, then one must be prepared to accept that Wisdom was created. If it is your choice to do so, feel free to argue that the word "created" means "eternal" or "eternally created." There isn't anything I can say to stop you.


I'll make this easy then. Wisdom is not eternal? Then that means that there was a time when he was without wisdom. Romans 16:27 tells us that God is the only wise God though. Malachi 3:6 tells us that God cannot change.

Thus, either wisdom is eternal as God is described as wise meaning he always had to be wise, or else God changed.

Which verse is wrong?

(And I'm kind of wondering what God was like when he wasn't wise.)

[sylvius]

Then that means that there was a time when he was without wisdom.

is eternity then also time with before and and after?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

is eternity then also time with before and and after?

There is no before and after in eternity.

[Sparko]

Wait, let's back up. You first denied that charakter means "copy." Then you said it goes against my position. What are you saying now?

This is what I am saying.
(1) Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus and the Father are separate persons but the same being, the same God (consubstantial).
(2) The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus and the Father are the same being, or share the same being.
(3) The Bible teaches that Jesus is a "copy" of God's being.
(4) I teach that Jesus is a copy of God's being because I believe the Bible is reliable and inspired of God.
(5) The statement "Jesus is a copy of God's being" is the true biblical doctrine, not "Jesus is a partaker or sharer in God's being." Jesus is a copy, not the original. And, normally, when you have a copy or reproduction of something else, you then have two of them. Trinitarianism does not teach or accept that the Father and Son represent 2 beings. But Jesus is a copy/reproduction of God's being. Therefore they constitute two beings.

Pat why do you keep ignoring me?

1. The bible does teach that Jesus is God. John 1:1, 2 Tim 3:16, John 20:27, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 -- and creator: John 1:3, Col 1:16

2. The bible say Jesus is the exact representation of God, NOT a COPY.
If you are right then there are now TWO Gods.

3. The bible clearly says that GOD the Father is the only God: There is no other.

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."

"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).

There ARE no copies of God!

4. The bible says that God is the only creator....

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

and yet John 1:3 and Col 1:16 say that JESUS created everything.

5. The only logical solution is that JESUS is indeed God, and the SAME God as the Father.

6. We know that Jesus is not the same PERSON as the Father, because they talked to each other, and the Father was not born on earth.

Conclusion: Two persons who are both shown to be God in the bible. There is only ONE God. Add in where the bible says that the Holy Spirit is a person Ephesians 4:30, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:12, John 14:16, etc and you have THREE Persons who are all ONE God. The Trinity.

Your only other choice in this is to declare Jesus is another God (a copy) and totally ignore the OT where it says there is only ONE God. And that is intellectually dishonest Pat. Especially for someone who claims to have researched this topic so well.

Pat, I know that you can see that you are wrong and that is why you keep avoiding these posts, but you need to not let your pride get in the way. I know you have a lot invested in your book and that alone makes it hard to stop and say "I was wrong" - but to keep denying the trinity and claiming that Jesus is a clone of God is just stubborness. God rewards humbleness, not pride. Pray about it.

[PatrickNavas]

Why does Proverbs teach that wisdom was "created"?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why does Proverbs teach that wisdom was "created"?

I see. No answer to the questions yet. Sigh. Haven't we told you enough times that you are implying a temporal status to created that Scripture doesn't?

Now are you going to answer my syllogism or not?

Premise: Jesus is God's wisdom.
Premise: God's wisdom is eternal.
Conclusion: Jesus is eternal.

You either have to show a term used ambiguously, a false premise, or that there is a fallacy in thinking.

And if God was without his wisdom, then the nature of God changed as it had wisdom added to it which means God has not always been God and always been perfect as well as that God was unwise at one point for how can you be wise and not have wisdom?

Edited to add: I'm off to work and I hope I have an answer when I return this evening.

[PatrickNavas]

Pat why do you keep ignoring me?

I'm not ignoring you. I'd be happy to discuss all the verses you pointed to. You have already ignored my point twice.

Once again you say:

2. The bible say Jesus is the exact representation of God, NOT a COPY.
If you are right then there are now TWO Gods.

The term charakter means "copy" or "reproduction." I have disclosed evidence for this. That is what the word means. So the Bible does say that Jesus is a copy of God's being. Simply contradicting the known and available facts only hinders the discussion. I refer you to my earlier post. See A. T. Robertson, Strong's dictionary, Thayer's lexicon, William Barclay, etc. These all agree that charakter means "copy. "We can make no progress if you simply deny what the term means.

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=ApologiaPhoenix;1842285]I see. No answer to the questions yet. Sigh. Haven't we told you enough times that you are implying a temporal status to created that Scripture doesn't?

If the word "created" doesn't mean "created," then I'm at a loss for words. Tell me, what does "created" mean?

Does the term "created" (a different Hebrew word) in Genesis 1 not mean "created" also? Does it mean "eternally created"?

[sylvius]

There is no before and after in eternity.

aren't then all the attributes of God eternal?


and what about the Gospel?

has the the Gospel a beginning in time?

(like Mark 1:1 is (mis?)translated :
here (time ca.30 CE, place, desert beyond the river Jordan) begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God.)

[Sparko]

Pat why do you keep ignoring me?

I'm not ignoring you. I'd be happy to discuss all the verses you pointed to. You have already ignored my point twice.

Once again you say:

2. The bible say Jesus is the exact representation of God, NOT a COPY.
If you are right then there are now TWO Gods.

The term charakter means "copy" or "reproduction." I have disclosed evidence for this. That is what the word means. So the Bible does say that Jesus is a copy of God's being. Simply contradicting the known and available facts only hinders the discussion. I refer you to my earlier post. See A. T. Robertson, Strong's dictionary, Thayer's lexicon, William Barclay, etc. These all agree that charakter means "copy. "We can make no progress if you simply deny what the term means.


And you keep ignoring the implication of what you are claiming. Not to mention the whole rest of my post.


IF jesus really is a exact COPY of God then he must be exactly the same as God in every way.

1. That means there are now 2 Gods when the bible (as I keep quoting you) says there is only ONE God and there was never any other nor will there be any other.

2. If Jesus is an exact copy of God, then God must be exactly like Jesus too. That means the Father is a Copy of Jesus. How can that be? Was the Father born of a Virgin? Did he get crucified on the cross?

Your view is completely illogical and scripture clearly denies it.

For someone who is so careful at researching the topic of the trinity, why are you so blind to the faults of your own doctrine?

they are pretty glaring.

[PatrickNavas]

Your view is completely illogical and scripture clearly denies it

My view that Jesus Christ is a "copy of God's being" is illogical and denied by Scripture yet Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is a "copy of God's being"?

[Sparko]

Your view is completely illogical and scripture clearly denies it

My view that Jesus Christ is a "copy of God's being" is illogical and denied by Scripture yet Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is a "copy of God's being"?


will you please answer my questions instead of continually dodging them?

If Jesus is an exact COPY of God, then how do you reconcile that with the bible saying that there is only ONE god and that there are no other gods before or after the ONE God?

If Jesus is an exact copy of God then that means that God is an exact copy of Jesus, they are identical. Doesn't that mean that God was born of a virgin, and died on a cross for our sins?


the only logical reconciliation is that if Jesus is an exact representation of God, that is because he IS God. A second person who is the SAME God as the Father. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to. Now stop dodging my posts and questions and answer them.

Any further dodging just means that you realize the failure of your view and are just too proud to admit that you are wrong because you have too much invested in your "book"

[jpholding]

You have ignored my post then. And I seriously doubt that the people at the Catholic Biblical Quarterly are as disrespectful as you.

Yeah, those are great excuses for doing a crappy job: "I was just trying to deal with the simple, common, popular stuff." Yoo hoo, Patty? The right way is to FIRST master what the experts say, and THEN you can whittle it down for a popular audience. Cart before the horse, which is why you now look like the south end of a northbound horse with your "arguments".

I didn't ignore your post; I exposed it as a stupid excuse for a lousy job.


Both the Bible and Jewish Wisdom literature teach that Wisdom was created, not eternal.

Look, dumb grass: I already TOLD you THREE things which blow you out of the water with this: 1) "Wisdom" is an attribute some person has, so qanah HAS to be read in its "possessed" sense; especially since 2) it is used THE SAME WAY in the rest of Proverbs advising humans to qanah wisdom, and 3) you STILL can't answer the point that there is NO temporal connotation in ANY verb, and I showed you examples of people using the phrases "eternally created" and "eternal creation" and all you did was go DUH! :doh:



Does the term "created" (a different Hebrew word) in Genesis 1 not mean "created" also? Does it mean "eternally created"?

Good grief you're stupid! Are "earth" and "sun" etc. "attribute" words like WISDOM is??? :hehe: Were the Hebrews pantheists?

Why don't you shut us all up by giving us ONE verb that connotes eternal action, without any other word helping it?

[PatrickNavas]

If Jesus is an exact COPY of God, then how do you reconcile that with the bible saying that there is only ONE god and that there are no other gods before or after the ONE God?

The Bible teaches there is only one true God. I agree. Yet the Bible also teaches, at the same time, that others can be called God or gods in a postivie sense. The angels are called elohim, gods. The human judges of Israel were called gods by God. This was a point Jesus himself made in John ch. 10. So, biblically, there is no problem with the existence of other gods. But these are the gods who God himself calls gods based on the authority God has given them as his representatives. The angels may be called gods based on the fact that they are supernatural, celestial beings who dwell with and serve God in the heavenly realm. If they can be called "gods" Jesus can also be called "God" or "a god" without violating the principles of Isaiah.

If Jesus is an exact copy of God then that means that God is an exact copy of Jesus, they are identical. Doesn't that mean that God was born of a virgin, and died on a cross for our sins?

No. Jesus is a copy of God, but that does not mean that God did everything Jesus did. God did not die on a cross. God's Son, the copy of God's being, did.

the only logical reconciliation is that if Jesus is an exact representation of God, that is because he IS God. A second person who is the SAME God as the Father. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to. Now stop dodging my posts and questions and answer them.

This is certainly not logical. We would never say, "since this is a copy of the constitution then it is the original constitution." It would not be. It would be a copy of the original constitution. Jesus is the copy. His Father is the original. If there is God and a copy of God's being, the copy is not God but a copy, a reproduction of the original. This is common sense logic and we can apply it to any situation. The copy is not the original. That is why it is called a copy.

[Sparko]

If Jesus is an exact COPY of God, then how do you reconcile that with the bible saying that there is only ONE god and that there are no other gods before or after the ONE God?

The Bible teaches there is only one true God. I agree. Yet the Bible also teaches, at the same time, that others can be called God or gods in a postivie sense. The angels are called elohim, gods. The human judges of Israel were called gods by God. This was a point Jesus himself made in John ch. 10. So, biblically, there is no problem with the existence of other gods. But these are the gods who God himself calls gods based on the authority God has given them as his representatives. The angels may be called gods based on the fact that they are supernatural, celestial beings who dwell with and serve God in the heavenly realm. If they can be called "gods" Jesus can also be called "God" or "a god" without violating the principles of Isaiah.

But are angels EXACT COPIES of GOD? were the human judges copies of God's being? You are backpedalling now.

if Jesus is an EXACT COPY of God's being then he is not just being CALLED "God" He IS a God. So my question stands....

If Jesus is an exact copy of God then how can you reconcile that with there only being ONE GOD?




If Jesus is an exact copy of God then that means that God is an exact copy of Jesus, they are identical. Doesn't that mean that God was born of a virgin, and died on a cross for our sins?No. Jesus is a copy of God, but that does not mean that God did everything Jesus did. God did not die on a cross. God's Son, the copy of God's being, did.
How can something be an exact copy of another thing and that NOT mean the other thing is a copy of the first?

If I have a exact copy of your book for example... how can you book not be exactly like my exact copy? How can my copy be MORE than what your original is? If my copy has attributes that your original does not, then I don't have an exact copy, do I?




the only logical reconciliation is that if Jesus is an exact representation of God, that is because he IS God. A second person who is the SAME God as the Father. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to. Now stop dodging my posts and questions and answer them. This is certainly not logical. We would never say, "since this is a copy of the constitution then it is the original constitution." It would not be. It would be a copy of the original constitution. Jesus is the copy. His Father is the original. If there is God and a copy of God's being, the copy is not God but a copy, a reproduction of the original. This is common sense logic and we can apply it to any situation. The copy is not the original. That is why it is called a copy.If I have an exact copy of the constitution, then that means that it is exactly like the constitution. That means the constitution must be exactly like my copy too, right? If not I don't have an exact copy. But now we have two constituions. If someone were to have said "there is only one US constitution, and there will never be one formed before or after this one" then that statement would be a lie if I had an exact copy of the constition wouldn't it?

And exact copy doesnt mean just a forgery or imitation of the original, it means EXACT in every detail, Indistinguishable from the original. You would have two originals at that point.

So if Jesus is an exact copy of God, then God has to be an exact copy of Jesus, and they would both be God. you either end up with TWO Gods, or two people who are both fully God. your choice.

[PatrickNavas]

As always, James, your humilty, charitable attitude and good manners are a blessing to us all!

[Sparko]

As always, James, your humilty, charitable attitude and good manners are a blessing to us all!

well after watching you dodge around for several pages now I really can't blame JPH for not bothering to take you seriously.

You try to pass yourself off as some biblical expert and scholar on the trinity, and yet all you do is quote mine others. When asked about what you do believe you dodge around the issue until I finally got you to admit that it all boils down to "Jeuss is an exact copy of God" - and you still refuse to believe in the trinity. You still don't see the inherent contradiction in that view, and keep dodging my and ApologiaPheonix's attempts to point them out to you and ask you questions. I am pretty sure you will ignore my last post to you too.

The only way Jesus can be an exact representation/image of God is if he IS fully God. The only way that the Father can be fully God and not be born of a virgin and have died on the cross for our sins if he is a different person from Jesus. Two persons - same God. The only explanation that fits what scripture tells us. Your inconsistant view makes Jesus another God, in direct violation of God himself saying he is the only God.

[jpholding]

As always, James, your humilty, charitable attitude and good manners are a blessing to us all!

As always, Patty, your crocodile tears are about as moving as a sailboat race. :lolo: :rofl:

[PatrickNavas]

well after watching you dodge around for several pages now I really can't blame JPH for not bothering to take you seriously.

You try to pass yourself off as some biblical expert and scholar on the trinity, and yet all you do is quote mine others.

These are all ideas that you choose to derive. I myself do not claim to be a biblical expert or scholar. I am not as self-assuming as you wish to portray me. Believe me, I am very much aware of my limitations. I do know that Bible does not teach the Trinity. If it did I would believe it. It doesn't take much theology or inference to convince me that Jeus is the Messiah or that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is because the Bible explicitly teaches and emphasizes these facts. So, I accept them. In the case of the Trinity, a doctrine that is allegedly necessary to accept in order to be saved, the Bible never even mentions such a doctrine. That is what is so strange about the entire discussion.

When asked about what you do believe you dodge around the issue until I finally got you to admit that it all boils down to "Jeuss is an exact copy of God" - and you still refuse to believe in the trinity.

I do believe Jesus is an exact copy of God's being. Therefore, Jesus is not the original, but a copy or representation of God. A representation or copy of something or someone is not the original. This is another axiomatic statement that doesn't even require explanation.

This the the reason you are in error and this is the fact you are unable to appreciate regarding Hebrews 1:3:

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus and God are the same being. Hebrews 1:3 does not say or teach that. The text indicates that Jesus is a copy of a being other than himself, namely, God's. To say that Jesus and God are the same being is to say something the Scripture does not say and to ignore what the Scripture does say. If you are a copy of something, you are not that something. It is really that simple. The main point of my reference is to compare the Nicene formula (homoousios, of identical substance/being) with the scriptural formula. They are not the same. And they are not reconcileable. Jesus is a copy of God's being, not a partaker in God's original being. I simply accept the scriptural formula and reject the post-scriptural formula.

The only way Jesus can be an exact representation/image of God is if he IS fully God.

Why not argue, "the only way Adam could be said to be in the image of God is if he is fully God"?

When the Bible says that Jesus is the image of God it means just that. He is God's perfect representative, not God himself. It really should not be difficult to understand the concepts of "representation" and "Image." They are simple concepts and they were meant to be. A representation of something is never the original. If it was, what would be the point of the "representation" language. Jesus doesn't represent himself. He represents God. Jesus does not do his own will, but the will of God, his Father. Jesus does not teach his own teachings, but those which God has commanded him to deliver.


The only way that the Father can be fully God and not be born of a virgin and have died on the cross for our sins if he is a different person from Jesus. Two persons - same God. The only explanation that fits what scripture tells us. Your inconsistant view makes Jesus another God, in direct violation of God himself saying he is the only God.

Hebrews 1:3 does not say "Jesus is an exact copy of the Father's person." It says "he is an exact copy of the Father's being." So we have two beings.

If the angels are gods why is this not "in direct violation of God himself saying he is the only God"?

[sylvius]

But are angels EXACT COPIES of GOD? were the human judges copies of God's being? You are backpedalling now.

if Jesus is an EXACT COPY of God's being then he is not just being CALLED "God" He IS a God. So my question stands....

If Jesus is an exact copy of God then how can you reconcile that with there only being ONE GOD?

How can something be an exact copy of another thing and that NOT mean the other thing is a copy of the first?

If I have a exact copy of your book for example... how can you book not be exactly like my exact copy? How can my copy be MORE than what your original is? If my copy has attributes that your original does not, then I don't have an exact copy, do I?

If I have an exact copy of the constitution, then that means that it is exactly like the constitution. That means the constitution must be exactly like my copy too, right? If not I don't have an exact copy. But now we have two constituions. If someone were to have said "there is only one US constitution, and there will never be one formed before or after this one" then that statement would be a lie if I had an exact copy of the constition wouldn't it?

And exact copy doesnt mean just a forgery or imitation of the original, it means EXACT in every detail, Indistinguishable from the original. You would have two originals at that point.

So if Jesus is an exact copy of God, then God has to be an exact copy of Jesus, and they would both be God. you either end up with TWO Gods, or two people who are both fully God. your choice.

the point is;

χαρακτηρ , "charaktèr" , does not mean: copy.

why don't you say that Sparko?

might it be the same as what Rashi calls "d'yukan"?

what does it mean?

"d'yukan" mostly translated as imago. profile, portrait.
(like JPH's nasty rabbits).

from ""diyuk", accuracy, precision, exactness.

Rashi:

in the image of God He created him It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a

"the image of the likeness" = "tselem d'yukan"

aren't we all created in the image and after the likeness of God?

name Adam denoting "ani domeh" -= I am like, I resemble?

see:
http://www.geocities.com/fweinreb_documentation/Tradam.html


what is special about Jesus?

[PatrickNavas]

[QUOTE=sylvius;1842536]the point is;

χαρακτηρ , "charaktèr" , does not mean: copy.

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is...“the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

One commentary noted that charakter “is ‘the exact reproduction,’ as a statue of a person; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original…The idea of character as a replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21:2) : ‘hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.’” --The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt D.D., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) pp. 6, 7 (emphasis added)

Another commentary notes that the word refers to “an impression such as a seal leaves on wax, an exact reproduction of the original.” Strong’s Dictionary defines charakter as “a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving, the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).” Thayer’s Lexicon says of charakter: “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect (cf. facsimile).”

A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Charakter is an old word from charasso, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = ter) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Acts 17:29; Rev. 13:16f.)…The word occurs in the inscriptions for ‘person’ as well as for ‘exact reproduction’ of a person.

Bible scholar William Barclay observed: “charakter comes very easily to mean ‘an exact replica,’ copy or reproduction. This meaning was extended so that, for instance, a man could speak of a statue as character tes emes morphes, an exact reproduction of my shape. So then to say that Jesus is the charakter of God is to say, as it were, that Jesus is the exact reproduction of God, that in Jesus there is a clear and accurate picture of what God is.” —Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 319.

[sylvius]

[QUOTE=sylvius;1842536]the point is;

χαρακτηρ , "charaktèr" , does not mean: copy.

Hebrews 1:3 states:

“[the Son] is...“the exact representation” (New International Version); “the exact likeness” (Today’s English Version); “an exact copy” (New Century Version); “the perfect copy” (Jerusalem Bible/Beck) of [God’s] being.”

One commentary noted that charakter “is ‘the exact reproduction,’ as a statue of a person; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original…The idea of character as a replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Gn 21:2) : ‘hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’s) face, as like as possible to him.’” --The International Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, James Moffatt D.D., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) pp. 6, 7 (emphasis added)

Another commentary notes that the word refers to “an impression such as a seal leaves on wax, an exact reproduction of the original.” Strong’s Dictionary defines charakter as “a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving, the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [figuratively] representation).” Thayer’s Lexicon says of charakter: “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect (cf. facsimile).”

A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Charakter is an old word from charasso, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = ter) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by charagma (Acts 17:29; Rev. 13:16f.)…The word occurs in the inscriptions for ‘person’ as well as for ‘exact reproduction’ of a person.

Bible scholar William Barclay observed: “charakter comes very easily to mean ‘an exact replica,’ copy or reproduction. This meaning was extended so that, for instance, a man could speak of a statue as character tes emes morphes, an exact reproduction of my shape. So then to say that Jesus is the charakter of God is to say, as it were, that Jesus is the exact reproduction of God, that in Jesus there is a clear and accurate picture of what God is.” —Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 319.

a coin is not (the same as) a copy.

Rashi on Genesis 1:27, http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8165&showrashi=true

And God created man in His image: (...)
Man was made with a die, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, (...)

in the image of God He created him
It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]

that's also what the question about paying taxes to Caesar is about.

they (certain kind of Christians, like JPH, Sparko and ApologiaPhoenix)) make an idol out of God.

that's why Paul wrote, Romans 1:22-23,

While claiming to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

[jpholding]

And Loudmouth is still ignorant....



The book of Hebrews, while never identifying Jesus directly as Wisdom, does indicate an equivalence. In verse 3 the rare Greek term apaygasma is used to describe Jesus as the "brightness of God's glory," just as the word is used in Wisdom of Solomon (7:25-26) to describe Wisdom's radiance. Hebrews ascribes to Jesus the same functions that the Philonic/Alexandrian Wisdom literature assigned to Wisdom: mediator of divine revelation, agent and sustainer of creation, and reconciler of God and man (Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-8:1). For more on this word see here.

Hebrews also says of Jesus what Philo says of the Logos. Philo referred to Wisdom as the "charakter of the eternal Word" just as Hebrews uses this term of Jesus. Hebrews also "asserts the superiority of Jesus over a group of individuals and classes that served mediatorial functions in Alexandrian thought," including angels, Moses, Melchizidek, and the high priest. Finally, in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, though universal in scope, by God's decree rests in Jerusalem, and is regarded as having the role of the priesthood: "In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion." (24:10) Compare this proclamation with what is found in the Book of Hebrews chapters 3-10 describing Christ as our "high priest" ministering at a heavenly tabernacle.

Time to drop the Playskool scholarship, Patty. You're quite nearly as dumb as sylvius is.

[Sparko]

Seriously pat, will you stop screwing up the quote tags and learn to use them correctly? It is NOT that hard. When you reply w/quote the tags are already in place. Just look and learn. if you select text and select the quote button (looks like a yellow cartoon speech balloon in the editor toolbar, it will put quote tags around the selected text. if you can't even figure out how to do that, you have no business in this thread.



well after watching you dodge around for several pages now I really can't blame JPH for not bothering to take you seriously.

You try to pass yourself off as some biblical expert and scholar on the trinity, and yet all you do is quote mine others.

These are all ideas that you choose to derive. I myself do not claim to be a biblical expert or scholar. I am not as self-assuming as you wish to portray me. Believe me, I am very much aware of my limitations. I do know that Bible does not teach the Trinity. If it did I would believe it. It doesn't take much theology or inference to convince me that Jeus is the Messiah or that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is because the Bible explicitly teaches and emphasizes these facts. So, I accept them. In the case of the Trinity, a doctrine that is allegedly necessary to accept in order to be saved, the Bible never even mentions such a doctrine. That is what is so strange about the entire discussion.
No what is strange is that you keep denying that the bible teaches the trinity. It clearly does. It teaches that Jesus is God, it teaches the Father is God, and it teaches the Holy spirit it God. It also teaches there is only one God. There are only two conclusions you can come to: Either the bible is teaching that three persons are all the SAME God, or the bible is full or error and can't be trusted.




When asked about what you do believe you dodge around the issue until I finally got you to admit that it all boils down to "Jeuss is an exact copy of God" - and you still refuse to believe in the trinity. I do believe Jesus is an exact copy of God's being. Therefore, Jesus is not the original, but a copy or representation of God. A representation or copy of something or someone is not the original. This is another axiomatic statement that doesn't even require explanation.
You just refuse to think about the logical consequences of that belief. If Jesus is an exact copy of God then he is A GOD. Get it??? ANOTHER GOD????

:clueless: Hello? Earth to Pat! If we have TWO Gods then God lied in the Old Testament when he said he was the ONLY God. He also lied when he said he created the earth by HIMSELF since John 1:3 and Col 1:16 say that Jesus created everything including the earth.



This the the reason you are in error and this is the fact you are unable to appreciate regarding Hebrews 1:3:You are in error because you are holding on to hebrews 1:3 and denying every other scripture that tells us that God is ONE and that Jesus is God.




Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus and God are the same being. Hebrews 1:3 does not say or teach that. The text indicates that Jesus is a copy of a being other than himself, namely, God's. First it doesn't say "being" it says Hupostasis which means the essential nature of someone or something. Their essence. That means Jesus has the same ESSENTIAL NATURE as God. It is saying that Jesus IS God. Not "another" God, not a clone of God, he is GOD.



To say that Jesus and God are the same being is to say something the Scripture does not say and to ignore what the Scripture does say. If you are a copy of something, you are not that something. It is really that simple. The main point of my reference is to compare the Nicene formula (homoousios, of identical substance/being) with the scriptural formula. They are not the same. And they are not reconcileable. Jesus is a copy of God's being, not a partaker in God's original being. I simply accept the scriptural formula and reject the post-scriptural formula.JPH is right about you. I think you are pretty dense. If Jesus is a Copy of God's being, then he must have the same "being" as God does. The same nature. That makes Jesus ANOTHER God. If you were the exact copy of me, you would not only look like me, act like me, and think like me, you would have the same nature as me, you would be a human being. There would be two of me. Get it?

You can't have TWO Gods. Not unless you want to deny everything the Old Testament teaches.

The only way Jesus can be an exact representation/image of God is if he IS fully God.


Why not argue, "the only way Adam could be said to be in the image of God is if he is fully God"? Adam was not the EXACT image of God, he was made in God's image. He had some of God's qualities, he was not a COPY. Genesis doesn't even use the same word for image. It uses Tselem, which means resemblance.


When the Bible says that Jesus is the image of God it means just that. He is God's perfect representative, not God himself. It really should not be difficult to understand the concepts of "representation" and "Image." They are simple concepts and they were meant to be. A representation of something is never the original. If it was, what would be the point of the "representation" language. Because the language is not saying Jesus is a copy of God, it is explaining that Jesus IS God. Just like John 1:1 does, and 1 Peter 1:1 does and Titus does, and 1 Tim 3:16 does. You just keep trying to twist it into saying that Jesus is a clone. But you keep ignoring the fact that if he is a copy of God you end up with TWO Gods.



If the angels are gods why is this not "in direct violation of God himself saying he is the only God"?Because the Angels are not exact copies of GOD.

Patrick if Jesus is a God and an exact copy of God, how do you avoid having two Gods?

and please learn how to use the quote tags.

[PatrickNavas]

And Loudmouth is still ignorant....



Time to drop the Playskool scholarship, Patty. You're quite nearly as dumb as sylvius is.

I'm sorry to tell you James, but there are several posts you have responded to that were not mine. Once again, this was not my post. You may want to check carefully next time. Make sure you are directing your comments to the person who actually posted.

[jpholding]

I'm sorry to tell you James, but there are several posts you have responded to that were not mine. Once again, this was not my post. You may want to check carefully next time. Make sure you are directing your comments to the person who actually posted.

I'm sorry to tell you that:

1) Even if true: It's your own fault you're too stupid to master the quote function to distinguish your words from those of others.
2) The message is still to you regardless of who said it.