To Trinitarian Apologists: An Open Letter & Personal Request

[barley]

Which just proves that "God" is a title and not an identity statement. "God" is a fiction! The father of Jesus Christ isn't!

Yeah!

[Bill the Cat]

Yes Moses is called god as well, as are those by whom the word of God came. Exodus 7:1, John 10:34-35

God has no problem giving that title to those men of God who deserve it.

like Jesus Christ.

Like Moses

So you have exposed Exodus 7:1 and John 10:34-35 as falsehoods!

I am sure that earned you some really big brownie points in God's heart.

You have struck out.

oatmeal

Tired arguments that have been refuted over and over, and yet you still cling to them...

[Bill the Cat]

Which just proves that "God" is a title and not an identity statement. "God" is a fiction! The father of Jesus Christ isn't!

No. It proves that there is a much wider semantic range for the Hebrew word "elohim", as it referred to one who was in a position of authority over another. The discoveries at Ugarit show that range from describing the pantheon of deities to their human and semi-divine messengers. The ones whom God designated "elohim" were only temporary assignments of authority for specific purposes of judgement on God's behalf. Jesus is said to be God "in the beginning", eternal as the Father is eternal, God as the Father is God, and monotheistically so. But trying to do justice to this topic in such a short post is not possible.

[apostoli]

No. It proves that there is a much wider semantic range for the Hebrew word "elohim", as it referred to one who was in a position of authority over another. The discoveries at Ugarit show that range from describing the pantheon of deities to their human and semi-divine messengers. The ones whom God designated "elohim" were only temporary assignments of authority for specific purposes of judgement on God's behalf. Jesus is said to be God "in the beginning", eternal as the Father is eternal, God as the Father is God, and monotheistically so. But trying to do justice to this topic in such a short post is not possible.

Point of fact: YHWH is rarely called elohim or el in the OT without qualification. As any Hebrewist will tell you "god/God" is an honorific not an identity statement! For instance: Jacob set conditions on his acceptence of YHWH as his god/God...

Of course, I'm discussing linguistics not theosophy... if you contemplate the last two chapters of Revelation + 1 Cor 15:24 you'll get an idea of what I mean...or for that matter John 4:23 + John 17:3...

[robrecht]

Which just proves that "God" is a title and not an identity statement. "God" is a fiction! The father of Jesus Christ isn't!

This is a very interesting post. Thank you. Was your perspective here theosophy, and if so, what do you mean by that?

[Bill the Cat]

Point of fact: YHWH is rarely called elohim or el in the OT without qualification. As any Hebrewist will tell you "god/God" is an honorific not an identity statement!

Actually, it is a term of authority which literally means "mighty one", which conforms to what I said above, and when it is used of humans, it was a temporary term applied to one who was in authority over another. Only YHWH was "the mighty one" by nature, therefore He could naturally make the statements in Isaiah about being the "only elohim".

For instance: Jacob set conditions on his acceptence of YHWH as his god/God...

Agreed. Jacob was asking for a reason why he should consider YHWH as in authority over him. Once we understand how the Jews used the term, these verses burst into clarity in full support of monotheism.

Of course, I'm discussing linguistics not theosophy... if you contemplate the last two chapters of Revelation + 1 Cor 15:24 you'll get an idea of what I mean...or for that matter John 4:23 + John 17:3...

None of those verses contradict the Trinity

[barley]

Tired arguments that have been refuted over and over, and yet you still cling to them...

Yes, you say that.

But they are God's word.

Why do you refute them?

It is because scripture refutes your theology.

Scripture is truth.

Clearly, the scriptures I showed refute your theology.

It is high time you adjust your theology to what scripture says. and not vice versa

barley

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, you say that.

But they are God's word.

And they have a specific meaning - one that you are ignoring.

Why do you refute them?

I am not refuting them. I am letting them speak in their proper context and language while you are taking the English words and a western mindset and calling it scripture.

It is because scripture refutes your theology.

False. Scripture fully supports my theology.

Scripture is truth.

In their proper context and original language, yes.

Clearly, the scriptures I showed refute your theology.

No they don't. Not even close. They SUPPORT my theology fully.

It is high time you adjust your theology to what scripture says. and not vice versa

It's high time you learn what the scriptures meant in Hebrew, not 21st century English.

[apostoli]

This is a very interesting post. Thank you. Was your perspective here theosophy, and if so, what do you mean by that?

I use the term theosophy as a contrast to the word philosophy, and define it as mankind's speculations concerning God.

To put my earlier statement in perspective I quote from Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed (LXI) "IT is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, hé, vau and hé. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar...I have restricted my explanation to the term Adonay, the substitute for the Tetragrammaton, because it is more commonly applied to God than any of the other names which are in frequent use, like dayyan, "judge," shadday, "almighty," ẓaddik, "righteous," ḥannun, "gracious," raḥum, "merciful," and elohim "chief" all these terms are unquestionably appellations and derivatives. The derivation of the name, consisting of yod, hé, vau, and hé, is not positively known, the word having no additional signification. This sacred name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the sanctuary by the appointed priests, when they gave the sacerdotal blessing, and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, undoubtedly denotes something which is peculiar to God, and is not found in any other being. It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence." In short, the majesty of the name and the great dread of uttering it, are connected with the fact that it denotes God Himself, without including in its meaning any names of the things created by Him. Thus our Sages say: "'My name' (Num. vi. 27) means the name which is peculiar to Me." All other names of God have reference to qualities, and do not signify a simple substance, but a substance with attributes, they being derivatives. On that account it is believed that they imply the presence of a plurality in God, I mean to say, the presence of attributes, that is, of some extraneous element superadded to His essence. Such is the meaning of all derivative names: they imply the presence of some attribute and its substratum, though this be not distinctly named. As, however, it has been proved, that God is not a substratum capable of attributes, we are convinced that those appellatives when employed as names of God, only indicate the relation of certain actions to Him, or they convey to us some notion of His perfection.".
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp071.htm

[apostoli]

Of course, I'm discussing linguistics not theosophy... if you contemplate the last two chapters of Revelation + 1 Cor 15:24 you'll get an idea of what I mean...or for that matter John 4:23 + John 17:3...

None of those verses contradict the Trinity

I have no idea why you'd think they were meant to (?) Especially, since I advocate Trinitarianism...

A subtlety of the final chapters of Revelation is that worship ceases = there is no temple in the New Jerusalem.

[robrecht]

I use the term theosophy as a contrast to the word philosophy, and define it as mankind's speculations concerning God.

To put my earlier statement in perspective I quote from Maimonides ...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp071.htm

Thanks. What about the idea that 'God' is a fiction? Do you understand that in an apophatic sense? If theosophy is speculation, is it like natural theology or is it based on revelation, eg, the revelation of the tetragrammaton?

[apostoli]

Thanks. What about the idea that 'God' is a fiction?

Imu, "god/God' is a human construct. You might note that in Genesis, "God" at no time demanded "I am God bow down and worship me!", but rather with Adam/Eve, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob he was quite fatherly...

Do you understand that in an apophatic sense?

To an extent, though as such was a major plank of Eunomius and other extreme Arians I'm not inclined to follow such logic. I hold that "God" is fully knowable in a relational sense...

If theosophy is speculation, is it like natural theology or is it based on revelation, eg, the revelation of the tetragrammaton?

Good question! Maimonides argued that each man's (prophet's) experience of God was/is unique to each man. On the basis of the NT witness I don't fully buy into that argument, as from my viewpoint though my brother and sister had/have a different perspective concerning our biological father, we had a common experience...

In my studies I've come to the conclusion that "God" never desired to be "God", instead he wanted us to be interactive with him, and one can't be interactive with something/someone that only inspires dread...as A.John put it "God is love"...In some respects I guess that A.John's insight could count as Revelation but I'd suggest it was a remedial education for what I consider is obvious in the OT....

[robrecht]

Imu, "god/God' is a human construct. You might note that in Genesis, "God" at no time demanded "I am God bow down and worship me!", but rather with Adam/Eve, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob he was quite fatherly...

To an extent, though as such was a major plank of Eunomius and other extreme Arians I'm not inclined to follow such logic. I hold that "God" is fully knowable in a relational sense...

Good question! Maimonides argued that each man's (prophet's) experience of God was/is unique to each man. On the basis of the NT witness I don't fully buy into that argument, as from my viewpoint though my brother and sister had/have a different perspective concerning our biological father, we had a common experience...

In my studies I've come to the conclusion that "God" never desired to be "God", instead he wanted us to be interactive with him, and one can't be interactive with something/someone that only inspires dread...as A.John put it "God is love"...In some respects I guess that A.John's insight could count as Revelation but I'd suggest it was a remedial education for what I consider is obvious in the OT....

Very interesting. Thank you. I never realized there was a connection between extreme Arianism and apophatic theology. It makes sense, but I don't think there is a necessary connection between the two. But obviously I need to read and think about this some more.

[apostoli]

I never realized there was a connection between extreme Arianism and apophatic theology. It makes sense, but I don't think there is a necessary connection between the two. But obviously I need to read and think about this some more.

Here is a link to Eunomius first apology - well worth a read... Generally, the core argument from the Arian position was that the Son is not unbegooten, and the Father is not begotten...
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu..._apology01.htm

__________________

In an attempt to stay on the threads topic, I'll make the following remarks...

Regularly I encounter Muslims and nominal Christians who attack Trinitarian doctrine by starting from a false premise = Trinitarian doctrine teaches there is one person with three faces (one hypostasis, with three modes of existence), this idea was rejected and combated by Trinitarians in the early third century AD when it was first advocated. Trinitarianism in its simplest expression teaches the exact opposite, that there are "three hypostases, but one mode of existence".

Various anti-trinitarians also misrepresent the Nicea coouncil of 325CE, and think that the debate was about Trinitarianism. Pointedly, a tiny amount of time was spent on considering Arius' readmission to the church (he had already been cast out years before by a Synod of his immediate peers), the council spent little time reviewing Arius' opinion. Another misconception is Athanasius' role. He was merely a clerk to Bishop Alexander and had no direct participation in the council. Another misconception is Constantine' involvement. He was just an observer (he couldn't figure out what the debate was about, as far as he was concerned the opposing parties were saying the same thing and just quibbling over words). It is true that he later ratified and attempted to enforce the conclusions of the bishops. Finally, it was the Bishop of corba that suggested the insertion of "homoousia" into the creed to overcome an impasse - there was nothing in the creed, including the phraase "God from God, perfect God from perfect God" that the majority of the "Arian" bishops hadn't already agreed to...it was the insertion of the word "homoousia" that gave rise to later controversies, and that issue was resolved when Basil the Great insisted on a common definition of "hypostasis" and "ousia" (before then there was ambiguity in word usage).


Many people don't realise that all the classes of 4th century "Arianism" argued from a near Trinitarian perspective, albeit they infused into their positions ideas such as subordination, functionalism and so on...

For instance: "the extreme Arian" Eunomius (d. 393) in his first apology presents a creed that he says is "common to all who either are careful to appear [to be Christians], or [are] Christians"

We believe in One God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things.
And in One only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.
And in One Holy Spirit the Comforter, by whom the Distribution of all Grace is bestow'd on every one of the Saints, according to their proportion, to profit withal.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu..._apology01.htm

Another example is Arius' letter to Alexander wherein he demanded "we say, at the will of God, [the Son was] created before times and ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He [the Father] has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences...". Imu, Arius' letters are only preserved in their Latin transcription. "Subsisterie" is used by many Latin writers as the equivalent to the Greek "Hypostasis" (Heb 1:3). In modern times this idea has been taken to equate to "person", but in ancient times such would have been considered unacceptable, except amoungst the Sabellian types (=one Hypostasis, three persona (actors masks)). Like Orthodox Trinitarians, the "Arians' demanded that there were three hypostases in the Godhead, though they seemed to have emphasised the distinction rather than the unity.
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arian_letters.html

A further example is Arius' letter to his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia wherein he openly declared the Son "perfect God" - "we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His [the Son's] own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten".
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arian_letters.html

The Arian's at their simplest level argued that "the Father is not begotten" and "the Son is not unbegotten" but both are "autotheos"="God of themselves", two distinct "wills" which co-operate (an idea that on face value seems to advocate Tritheism). The formal Trinitarian response is that the Father is God of himself, whereas the Son, being Son, is God in himself (his theotēs being imbued by the Father (cp. Col 1:19, 2:9), two wills in natural unity and thus indistinguishable (cp. Jn 12:945; 14:10-11; 17:21. The Greeks have a wonderful word to describe the activity of this unity = "the Perichoresis").

[barley]

And they have a specific meaning - one that you are ignoring.




I am not refuting them. I am letting them speak in their proper context and language while you are taking the English words and a western mindset and calling it scripture.



False. Scripture fully supports my theology.



In their proper context and original language, yes.



No they don't. Not even close. They SUPPORT my theology fully.



It's high time you learn what the scriptures meant in Hebrew, not 21st century English.

Well, if you wish to continue to ignore scripture, that is your choice.

Romans 1:23 is another truth you might want to consider.

barley