Is Jesus God or a god?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

but "my" trinity as I have already stated aligns completely with the SBC statement and definition of the trinity. I posted it twice and said that I agree with it. Are you saying that Baptists are modalists now? or 'bordering' on modalism? In what way?

That's right Genius. Same way the trinitairan link I furnished mantains it's trinity aligns perfectly with the Athanasian creed.

You also claimed that the Eastern Orthodox church disagreed with the Western/Roman Churches definition, but that is not true either. There are some slight variances on how each defines the relationship between the Father/Son/HolySpirit but all orthodox Christians agree (western and eastern) on the basic definition of the trinity, that there is only one God and that he is revealed in three persons, who coexist with each other and are NOT one person playing roles, or three beings/gods.

You say it's not true that the Eastern Orthodox church disagrees with the Western church but in the very next sentence you say they disagree to a slight degree. As usual you're speaking from both sides of your mouth. What you term slight variances are actually irreconcilable differences between east and west . For instance, the Nicean and his clique have been convicted by many in the west of bodering on tritheism, just as you also accuse the link I furnished(an orthodox perspective of the trinity) of the same.

Go do your homework Sparkey . You're beginning to bore me .


best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

1st it isn’t a modified theory, second I’ve already shown, John 1:18, which says Christ is the Only begotten God. Additionally I’ve beaten you unmercifully on the Mormon thread validating my view of the Jewish paradigm and the implications of Christ’s claim.

You're frustrating to deal with. I hesitate to call you stupid because Christ commanded us not to call anyone stupid. But I can barely contain myself. God forgive me.



Paul, if you assume the very premise you’re trying to prove, you are “begging the question.” This fallacy is also known as “arguing in a circle,” or “circular reasoning.” The purpose of deductive reasoning is to get from one point in an argument (the premise) to another (the conclusion) in a logical manner. But a circular argument does not allow this progression. If the premise or beginning of the argument is identical to its conclusion, the argument doubles back on itself and becomes barren. Do you understand? You're begging the question by using your trinitarian eisegesis a la John 1:18 to show only begotten son of God means God in Jewish paradigms.

I've furnished you a Jewish source, the Jewish Encyclopedia , to show that only begotten son of God does not mean God, not my own interpretation of John 1:18. Present proof such as I have or hold your peace.

best wishes,

[PaulT]

Hello Mickiel,

Thank you for your response.

Greetings Paul,

I understand. But don't get me wrong, If and when I see Christ, I will bend to my knees to him, and bow to him in complette submission, no doubt in my mind about that. Peace then, Mickiel.

It is not my intention to be rude, and if you take the following question as rude I apologize, but nevertheless I am compelled to ask you the following. If you deny who He is during this life how do you know you will not receive the same greeting the Pharisees will receive, Matt 7:23?

I just do not see him as God, I see him as the Son of God. I see Jesus, like his Father sees him. The Father God does not view Jesus as being God himself. Jesus always spoke of not giving himself Glory. Wouldn't you think that if someone claimed to be God, that certainly can be interpited as them giving themselves Glory.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I think it a bit problematic that you see Christ the same way God the Father sees Him. 1st the Father has called the Son God, 2nd your perspective is that of a created being, God’s thoughts are infinitely superior to our thoughts therefore making it impossible for man to fully grasp/understand what God is. We only know what has been revealed to us about God, there are still elements of God that we cannot comprehend or fully understand. It would seem your presupposition is that those passages that clearly equate Christ with God the Father are not God the Father’s thoughts.

Regarding your question, I’m not sure I follow. Christ’s function was to express the Glory of God to man. As I’ve previously said, a difference in function does not equate to and inferiority in nature.

I agree with you that Just because one views Christ as God, that doesnot mean they disrespect God the Father. Certainly God himself takes no anger in not being reconized by humanity, neither would he be angry if we view him or Christ in inncorrect manners. Without his help, we couldnot anyway. I myself hold no issue with anyone for whatever they believe, I see in you belief, I honor that. I simply view things differently than you.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I think I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day, there is truth. If we deny the Son, which would seem to indicate the what of Him as well as the who of Him, then we also deny the Father. This is truth, and I don’t believe it is accurate to assume a denial of the what of Christ will go unnoticed.

I don’t follow you statement that God takes no anger in not being recognized by humanity. The wrath of God was poured out on Christ to rectify humanities lack of recognition of God.

The real issue is, is Jesus a God. The Father said he is God, and there is no other Gods. The Father said He is God and beside him there is no other God, and Jesus was sitting next to him when he Spoke this. I believe in what the Father has said, others tend to believe in the few biblical writers who called Jesus a God. I understand that.

Peace then, Mickiel.

Truly this is the issue, the same issue the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy over. If there are no other “Gods” beside the Father how is it the Father called Christ God? If your answer is the same as that of Pythagoras, we need not go there because clearly Heb 1:8 is an explanation of Ps 45:6,7. Again, if both Christ and the Father are God, yet we know there is only one God, how do we solve this apparent dilemma?

Jesus is the Son of A God, does that make him a God, not according to the Father God. Once the Father has Spoken something, it does not matter what men speak on it. I am convinced by the Father, that is all the explination I will ever need. I know that Next to God, Jesus is the most powerful, Glorious, Holy Being Alive. If I find out he is a God, it won't bother me none. But I am like you. simply posting what I see. I cannot see all of what Jesus is, or the Holy Spirit, but I can see a little of what they are not.

I think you meant to say Jesus is the Son of God, not “A” God. I understand your view, the issue for you is that this view cuts out so much Scripture on the who and what of God, the who and what of Christ. If you find out that you have been denying Christ all this time, how do you not expect to receive the same reception as those Christ spoke of in Matt chapter 7?

Much language is involved. What does God mean, what does Lord mean? What does it mean if a biblical writer calls Jesus God, or just records someonelse calling Jesus their God, does that mean he is? I'm not really sure, but I am open to learning.

Peace then, Mickiel.

I appreciate your openness and questions. I trust I have not offended you, if I have, I truly apologize. God is the creator who is far, far, far above our thoughts. God has revealed Himself through 3 distinct Personalities who are coequal and coeternal. How this works I don’t know, but then me being a created man, understand that I will never fully comprehend God, after all I’m the clay and He is the Potter. I just bow to the teaching of His revealed Word.

Regards,

Paul

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

You're frustrating to deal with. I hesitate to call you stupid because Christ commanded us not to call anyone stupid. But I can barely contain myself. God forgive me.

best wishes,

Is this your attempt at maintaining a façade of reformation? Nevertheless, I find you as well very frustrating to deal with due to your penchant for never answering the question but rather addressing the question with another question.

Hi Paul,

Paul, if you assume the very premise you’re trying to prove, you are “begging the question.” This fallacy is also known as “arguing in a circle,” or “circular reasoning.” The purpose of deductive reasoning is to get from one point in an argument (the premise) to another (the conclusion) in a logical manner. But a circular argument does not allow this progression. If the premise or beginning of the argument is identical to its conclusion, the argument doubles back on itself and becomes barren. Do you understand? You're begging the question by using your trinitarian eisegesis a la John 1:18 to show only begotten son of God means God in Jewish paradigms.

best wishes,

Thank you for the lesson in “begging the question” but I believe I’ve established a basis for all of my conclusions. The translation of John 1:18 is not eisesgesis but rather a legitimate translation of the passage, further more it makes complete sense given that John starts off in John 1:1B by saying the same thing he concludes with in John 1:18.

Perhaps, if you engaged in a dialogue where in you answer questions and deal with the ramifications of your ludicrous arguments you would find your suggestion that my argumentation is circular, would evaporate. However, this fact which is not lost on me is why you continue to spray false accusations, you recognize if you have to deal with the facts of the matter you will end up capitulating like you did on the Mormon thread.

Hi Paul,

I've furnished you a Jewish source, the Jewish Encyclopedia , to show that only begotten son of God does not mean God, not my own interpretation of John 1:18. Present proof such as I have or hold your peace.

best wishes,

And I have rebutted your source, IOW blown your evidence out of the water, deal with the rebuttal and the evidence I provided, answer the questions.

Regards,

Paul

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

This is not even an attempt at addressing the issue.

Your ignorance does not mean that my response did not address the issue, it just indicates you don’t have an understanding that silence can very well be an answer.

Hi Paul,

Nice try! What did Thomas believe verse 29? That Jesus had risen. Christ's response here was actually sadness that Thomas had to see physical proof in order to believe in his resurrection.

best wishes

What Thomas believed is not hidden in the passage he said, “my Lord and my God”. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. Additionally what is not lost on most, expect apparently you, is that this statement, which is not duplicated in the Synotpic Gospels, is at the end of the same Gospel that declares Christ God in the 1st chapter. You will note that this is a literary style of reinforcing your message called “book ends”.

How can the doctrine of the trinity be consistent with John 17:3? Jesus clearly says the Father is the only true God. In other words the Son cannot also be the true God, if words have meaning .

...I would like to see your explanation of 17:3 to fit the trinity doctrine. Go on make a fool of yourself, explain how 17:3 is not inconsistent with the trinity doctrine. ...I'm gonna sit back and have a big laugh .

best wishes

The doctrine of the Trinity says God is the ONE TRUE GOD, not partially God or multiple Gods. The only folks laughing are those who realize how ridiculous my answer made you look. I think Sparko is right, you really don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Regards,

Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

The doctrine of the Trinity says God is the ONE TRUE GOD, not partially God or multiple Gods. The only folks laughing are those who realize how ridiculous my answer made you look. I think Sparko is right, you really don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nice try.

The doctrine of the trinity says the Father is true God, the Son is true God, the Holy Spirit is true God , all three persons are true God, with these three persons being one triune God. . But Jesus says only the Father is true God, which directly contradicts the trinity doctrine.

best wishes

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.



Is this your attempt at maintaining a façade of reformation? Nevertheless, I find you as well very frustrating to deal with due to your penchant for never answering the question but rather addressing the question with another question.



Thank you for the lesson in “begging the question” but I believe I’ve established a basis for all of my conclusions. The translation of John 1:18 is not eisesgesis but rather a legitimate translation of the passage, further more it makes complete sense given that John starts off in John 1:1B by saying the same thing he concludes with in John 1:18.

Perhaps, if you engaged in a dialogue where in you answer questions and deal with the ramifications of your ludicrous arguments you would find your suggestion that my argumentation is circular, would evaporate. However, this fact which is not lost on me is why you continue to spray false accusations, you recognize if you have to deal with the facts of the matter you will end up capitulating like you did on the Mormon thread.



And I have rebutted your source, IOW blown your evidence out of the water, deal with the rebuttal and the evidence I provided, answer the questions.

Regards,

Paul

It's obvious by now that you don't a shred of evidence that in Jewish paradigms only begotten son of God, let alone son of God , means God.

best wishes,

[apostoli]

Hello PaulT,

Forgive my intrusion. But from a trinitarian view there are a couple of errors in your post to Mickiel regarding John 20:28 that should be clarified.

John begins his Gospel by explaining the Word of God, is indeed God

Actually John 1:1 doesn't call the Logos God, the meaning in Greek basically says whatever you conceive God as, the Logos is. The NEB has "what God was, the word was".

You might say, that is the same thing but this is the basis of the "homoosian" vs "homoios" debate throughout the 4th century. Arius himself believed in what he called the triad and believed Jesus to be God, but he thought the Son was made from nothing and not begotten of the Father.

just like His name which means God with us.

Jesus means YHWH is salvation. Immanuel means God with us, which is an appellation that would be applied. We get Jesus from the latin, the closest English equivalent of the actual Aramiac/Hebrew name is Joshua.

Of interest, regarding the archangel Michael, his name means - who is like God.

John then closes his book by giving us Thomas observation that indeed Christ is both Lord and God. Clearly John is sending us a message.

In the end of the book, superceding the account of Thomas, John makes his message very clear "these [things] are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

The significance of this Sonship. That the only begotten Son was sent, is highlighted in 1 John 4:9 & 5:20.

In theological trinitarianism, Jesus is not God himself, but the true Son of of the Father, begotten in the ousia of the Father.

To comprehend the phrase "three persons one being" one has to understand what the Greek word ousia indicates. Ousia has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides. Ousia is the feminine present participle of the verb `to be'; it has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated `being' or `beingness'. Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.
http://www.formalontology.it/substance.htm

Now I'm sure someone will do some homework and retort God is not a species. Indeed that is true, in philosophy God cannot be thought of as consisting as any type of aggregate - including his qualities and works. But in faith, that is the only way, via the scriptures we conceive and perceive God. On the weight of scripture, believing in the pre-existence of the Son/Logos and believing he become flesh, dwelt amongst us and was caused to be our Christ, the scriptures attribute to the Son those things we conceive and perceive of God. Arius and the Homoosians at least agreed on this point.

All the best

ps: Py, at one time, and I assume still holds, a position which, in polite society, we should respect seems. However, imo, Pys opinion seems very close to that held by Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, mid 3rd century).

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Paul.S denied that the Son/Christ had pre-existence. Paul.S believed that the Son/Logos is without hypostasis, being merely the wisdom and science of God, which is in Him as reason is in a man. As for the Son/Christ: The Logos as Wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus and worked in Him as inspiration, teaching Him and being with Him, and was united with Him not substantially (or essentially, ousiodos), but qualitatively (kata poioteta).

Imo, it is rather futile to use catechal argument with anyone coming from such an angle - there is little likely hood, anyone can persuade such a one that the Trinity, either economic or ontological is scriptural truth, let alone Jesus is of the essence and nature of God. (Heb 1:3)

[mickiel]

[color=black]

I appreciate your openness and questions. I trust I have not offended you, if I have, I truly apologize. God is the creator who is far, far, far above our thoughts. God has revealed Himself through 3 distinct Personalities who are coequal and coeternal. How this works I don’t know, but then me being a created man, understand that I will never fully comprehend God, after all I’m the clay and He is the Potter. I just bow to the teaching of His revealed Word.

Regards,

Paul

Greetings Paul,

I am not offended in any manner. I understand differently than you. In John 14:28, Jesus plainly states that the Father is Greater than he is, I see no co-equal in that. Not at all, Jesus said it because he foreknew of this effort to make him equal to God would be made by men. In 15:20, Jesus stated that the servant is not greater than his Lord. Do I need to prove that Christ is the servant of his Father? I mean I can do that, but I would hope that at the least, that is understood. Jesus came to earth because he was sent by God, 1John 4:14, to do the Fathers will, not his own, John 8:42. There is no co-equal in this. These verses, these very statements of Christ convince me as to how to believe. What men teach is meaningless to me.

Peace then, Mickiel.

[alam]

Hello Paul,

I’m not sure I understand your point.

It was this statement from the TDNT ("Μονογενής", vol. IV, 737-741, Büchsel),

"[μονογενής θεός] can only mean "an only-begotten God'; to render "an only-begotten, one who is God," is an exegetical invention" (above).

When the Son is called a μονογενής θεός, where μονογενής modifies the noun θεός, μονογενής to that extent describes the Son as θεός.


Presumably μονογενής does not describe the Father as θεός. However, if They were the same θεός, then the one would not differ from the other as θεός in any respect. To the extent They differ in this way, they are not the same θεός.


At least, this seems to be the reasoning behind the TDNT calling the reading of μονογενής θεός a "weakening of monotheism". I figure it is also why many versions try to split the expression by translating μονογενής as substantive, so that instead of a μονογενής θεός, we have [someone] who is both θεός and a μονογενής.

"God the One and Only" (NIV)

"The only Son, who is truly God" (CEV)

"the only One, who is God" (ESV ftn.)

"it is an only Son, God" (NRSV ftn.)


This is the thing the TDNT calls "an exegetical invention". An adjective with a noun of the same case, gender, and number is normally understood to modify that noun. This is the case in John's parallel expressions where μονογενής modifies υιός (Son), John 3:16,18.

John’s prologue begins by explaining God and who the Word was and is. Raymond Brown says the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John is that, “They, (speaking of the Synoptic Gospels) move the story of Jesus back to his conception, but John’s poetic opening takes it back before creation” Within this prologue john identifies God and 2 distinct Persons, the Father and the Word, aka Begotten aka Son.

No problem there.

It seems to me the issue in the NASB translation of John 1:18 isn’t speaking to the “Being” of the only “Begotten” but rather the Person.

Perhaps there is an analogy between the Bible's use of the words for "God" and its use of the Hebrew word "Adam," which, according to Gesenius, can mean "the first man made", "a man" or "any one", or "the human race". As individual persons, two human beings are not the same Adam (man), but as respects their nature, they are both instances of Adam (humanity).

Other translations of John 1:18 refer to the “Begotten” as the “One and Only”, (NIV), “only Son” (NRSV), “only begotten Son” (KJV).

There is some dispute over the original wording of John 1:18. The KJV translates from the Textus Receptus' ο μονογενής υιός (the only-begotten Son), not the expression μονογενής θεός.


In respect of the versions which neglect to translate the -γενής suffix, the same article from TDNT states:

"In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is monogenes as the only begotten....


It is not wholly clear whether μονογενής in Jn. denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it probably does, Jn. calls Jesus ο γεννηθείς εκ του θεου 1 Jn. 5:18. Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipient of God's love. It is to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus. For this reason μονογενής probably includes also begetting by God" (ibid. 741).

Justin Martyr understood "μονογενής" to denote the generation.

"For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten (μονογενής) of the Father of all things, being begotten (γεγενημένος) in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs" (Dial. Tryph. 105).

Hopefully that clears up what my point was. If it doesn't let me know.

Therefore, this isn’t violating the law of non-contradiction, because “Begotten” is identifying a unique characteristic of one of the Persons of God, not describing the “Being” of the Begotten.

If those other readings are correct, you may be right. But my earlier post had a particular focus: the relevance of the reading μονογενής θεός, specifically as translated by the NASB, to the question posed in the thread title. Whether the Trinity itself violates non-contradiction, is not something I can discuss at this time.


Btw- sorry for the late response.


Regards,

[Pythagoras]

Greetings apostoli,

Peace in Christ.

However, imo, Pys opinion seems very close to that held by Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, mid 3rd century).

Yo're sounding like the priest Malchion. Where's the substance in your accusations?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Paul.S denied that the Son/Christ had pre-existence.

Not exactly. He believed Jesus was two persons, only one without pre-existence!. Perhaps alam could verify or amend this. I certainly do not hold to the notion that there are two persons in Christ Jesus, which Paul of Samasota did. . .

Paul.S believed that the Son/Logos is without hypostasis, being merely the wisdom and science of God, which is in Him as reason is in a man.

Paul's doctrine is in some fundamental ways close to the dynamistic Monarchiansim of Theodotus. Mine isn't in the least. I also do not belive the Logos is God's Wisdom.

As for the Son/Christ: The Logos as Wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus and worked in Him as inspiration, teaching Him and being with Him, and was united with Him not substantially (or essentially, ousiodos), but qualitatively (kata poioteta).

I believe nothing of the sort.

Imo, it is rather futile to use catechal argument with anyone coming from such an angle - there is little likely hood, anyone can persuade such a one that the Trinity, either economic or ontological is scriptural truth, let alone Jesus is of the essence and nature of God. (Heb 1:3)

Scripture does not teach the trinity. Therefore I cannot accept it . Nothing personal.

P.S. Immanuel is a theophoric name , God with us, and does not mean the one in possession of such a name is God.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Alam,

God bless you richly.

Two brothers and their close friend, the Cappadocian fathers, took it unto themselves to preserve Nicene orthodoxy. These three, adhering to the official definition of the trinitarian creed, emerged a doctrine of the trinity which tethered on tritheism , according to many trinitarians in the west . Could you please, at your leisure, furnish examples of western trinitarians who accused the Cappadocians, and indeed the whole eastern church of tritheism? And if possible, the eastern church leaders who branded the westerners as thinly disguised modalists.

[alam]

Greetings Alam,

God bless you richly.

Two brothers and their close friend, the Cappadocian fathers, took it unto themselves to preserve Nicene orthodoxy. These three, adhering to the official definition of the trinitarian creed, emerged a doctrine of the trinity which tethered on tritheism , according to many trinitarians in the west . Could you please, at your leisure, furnish examples of western trinitarians who accused the Cappadocians, and indeed the whole eastern church of tritheism? And if possible, the eastern church leaders who branded the westerners as thinly disguised modalists.

Greetings Pythagoras,


Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople, considered the Western filioquist view 'semi-Sabellian'. The following link, Excerpts from The Orthodox Church, by Kallistos Ware, explains some of the problems the EO see with the western view. "But western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father to the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn, or rather some semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102, 289B)."


The Cappadocians themselves are considered saints and their teachings orthodox by the Catholic church. The following link explains the worries a Western adherent (in this case Paul L. Owen) might have about the eastern view: "...there is an element of ontological subordinationism which remains in the Eastern view, which in the mind of those inclined toward the view of the Western tradition leaves the door open to implicit Arianism. Furthermore, by making the one ousia which is shared by the three persons abstract, and locating it in the person of the Father, the Eastern view confuses divine substance (Deity) with divine nature (Divinity), and hence leaves the door open to tritheism" (Reflections on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Part 2).


In the West something closer to the Cappadocian view has gained ground under the name 'social trinitarianism.' There is much discussion on it online, for and against. Here is a criticism of that view by Michael C. Rea, which recently appeared in The Journal of Theological Studies.


Hope this helps. God bless

[Pythagoras]

Hi alam,

That greatly helped. Thanks . I hope Sparkey begins to understand now....

The peace of Christ, alam,

[apostoli]

Greetings Pythagoras,

Peace.

I apologise if I have misrepresented you.

I've always been confused what your actual belief is. Knowing only that you are dead against the trinity. The operative words in my post were "imo, Pys opinion seems. Not worth a grain of salt unless substantiated. And so it has proved as you have corrected me.

In an earlier discussion you had questioned the "pre-existence of the Son". So I admit to various speculations. Though I vaguely remember that you said to Alam, you are open on the question.

Thanks for your clarification.

Even the Gregories and Basil had their disagreements. Friendship can take many forms, so I hope we remain friends.

All the best.