No bible writer teaches the Trinity as Doctrine, in context. [Archive] - Page 2

JCA

July 12th 2003, 02:28 AM

Today @ 01:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147272#post147272)
OldShepherd:

Quite simple, I was answering an objection.

What objection? The post you quoted and replied to was the bottom part of this post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139908#post139908

What objection where you answering with those two scriptures that this person said in the part you quoted?

The leading Christian party at the time was tortured and brutally killed because they would not deny their faith. The vast, overwhelming majority of those who teach differently did not show up until about 1750 years later.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.. I was refering more to the movements of people like Athanasius and his rival Arius around the early 300's.

Arius held that Christ is the Son of God, and that because He is the Son He therefore had a beginning. It is a necessary condition of the filial relation,” He wrote, “that the Father must be older than his Son. The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship. A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.

Now, I'm not saying I agree totally with Arius's position.. but this is way before the 1750 years later you are mentioning..

Discussion by link violates the rules of this forum. I'm here, present your discussion here. I have time.

Oh do stop being silly.. I'm not discussing by link... I go on with my post and make part of my arguments.. the links are for reference material for people who want to understand more about where I'm coming from, or, as I said, as reference.. I have plenty of time to make my points one by one thank you.

There are 31,172 verses in the KJV. You mentioned 100. How many describe Jesus and God as being one? How about the OT?

Sorry, I don't see your scriptural support.. go ahead and present it here.. I have time.

"IMHO" As you said it is your "opinion" and I did not see any scriptural support.

And everything you've typed has been whos opinion exactly??

But seeing as clicking a link that has all the information for you to ponder at your liesure wasn't enough, here's some verses to read:

Matthew 27:46
Mark 1:24
Mark 10:18
Mark 15:34
Mark 16:19
Luke 2:52
Luke 6:12
Luke 18:19
John 3:2
John 8:42
John 8:54
John 9:3
John 13:31
John 14:1
John 17:3
John 20:17
Acts 2:22
Acts 2:32
Acts 2:36
Acts 3:13
Acts 4:10
Acts 5:30
Acts 7:55
Acts 10:36
Acts 10:38
Acts 13:23
Acts 20:21
Romans 1:7
Romans 1:8
Romans 2:16
Romans 3:22
Romans 4:24
Romans 5:1
Romans 5:11
Romans 5:15
Romans 5:17
Romans 6:23
Romans 7:25
Romans 8:34
Romans 10:9
Romans 15:5
Romans 15:6
Romans 16:27
1 Corinthians 1:3
1 Corinthians 1:9
1 Corinthians 1:30
1 Corinthians 8:6
1 Corinthians 15:57
2 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 1:3
2 Corinthians 11:31
2 Corinthians 13:14
Galatians 1:1
Galatians 1:3
Ephesians 1:2
Ephesians 1:3
Ephesians 1:17
Ephesians 2:6
Ephesians 6:23
Philippians 1:2
Philippians 2:11
Colossians 1:3
Colossians 3:17
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 1:3
1 Thessalonians 3:11
1 Thessalonians 3:13
1 Thessalonians 4:14
1 Thessalonians 5:9
2 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:2
2 Thessalonians 1:12
2 Thessalonians 2:16
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 1:2
1 Timothy 2:5
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 6:3
2 Timothy 1:1
2 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 4:1
Titus 1:4
Titus 2:13
Philemon 1:3
Hebrews 13:20
James 1:1
1 Peter 1:2
1 Peter 2:5
2 Peter 1:1
2 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:1
1 John 5:20
2 John 1:3
Jude 1:1
Jude 1:4
Jude 1:21
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:1
Revelation 1:2
evelation 14:12

One of the things I like to do in these discussions is review church history. When people disagree over whether or not, e.g. the Trinity, is scriptural we can go back and read the record of the early church, immediately following the time of the apostles, the late first and early second century and see how they interpreted those disputed passages on the nature of Christ. Do you know what we will find?

Yes, that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Holy Bible... It's a man made doctrine trying to explain God.

In Love and Peace

JCA

OldShepherd

July 12th 2003, 03:45 AM

Today @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147309#post147309)
JCA:

What objection? The post you quoted and replied to was the bottom part of this post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139908#post139908

What objection where you answering with those two scriptures that this person said in the part you quoted?

"Jesus was rather lax in his attention to the matter"

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.. I was refering more to the movements of people like Athanasius and his rival Arius around the early 300's.

I said, "The vast, overwhelming majority of those who teach differently did not show up until about 1750 years later." I did NOT say none!

Sorry, I don't see your scriptural support.. go ahead and present it here.. I have time.

Oh look he can say, "Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo." I have already cited scriptures in support of my argument. "Scripture' not just book, chapter and verse.

And everything you've typed has been whos opinion exactly??

See previous answer.

Matthew 27:46 * * *evelation 14:12

Oh goody a list of books, chapters, and verse. I wonder what they are supposed to mean? Here try my list of books, chapters, and verses. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/)

Yes, that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Holy Bible... It's a man made doctrine trying to explain God.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And OBTW I did visit your Holy Trinity link. I saw ONE (1) verse of scripture at the top of the page, 1 John 5:7. And not one other verse quoted or referenced, nothing but opinion.

For example this,"In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the 'presenting' aspect of the whole Multiverse." Can you tell me where I can find the words or concept of God being the "presenting aspect"? Or where is the word or concept of "Multiverse" in the Bible?

And I stand by my first statement about discussion by link. I saw nothing at your site which was quoted here.

I also took a quick look at the second site. Here is their section seven. It is a pack of lies from start to finish. Virtually everything written about Constantine and the Nicaean council can be proven false by simply reading Encyclopædia Britannica, the history of Eusebius, a Christian historian who lived at the time of Constantine, or the history of Lactantius, who was Constantine's son's tutor. But heaven forbid that we should pollute the clap trap, at this site, with the truth.

http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08g.htm

JCA

July 12th 2003, 11:54 AM

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147334#post147334)
OldShepherd:

"Jesus was rather lax in his attention to the matter"

And you felt that helped YOUR case in what way?

I said, "The vast, overwhelming majority of those who teach differently did not show up until about 1750 years later." I did NOT say none!

Do calm down.. I never said you said none.. :bonk:

And I don't care who said what over a thousand years later.. I'm not concerned with what man argued about years after Christ.. about the Gospels.. They stand for themselves, without mans added word to others.

Oh look he can say, "Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo." I have already cited scriptures in support of my argument. "Scripture' not just book, chapter and verse.

Really? If it is like the scripture you posted that I mention above, then it didn't go to help you at all... I do hope ALL of it was directly from the Bible, and not other documents..

And the stuff I have read you post, still doesn't make you right according to Gods word; not the word of man.

Plus, I too have posted book,chapter, and verse on this subject.. many times..

I didn't realise that someone who is claiming to be wiser than others to the point of saying uncatagorically that they are wrong, wouldn't know the meaning just by me putting the book and verse.

I guess I'm surprised that you need me to actually post the whole verse of say Luke 2:52.. didn't you know what this passage said? You needed me to spell it out for you?

See previous answer.

I did.. it was empty of meaning from someone claiming that people are wrong by coming to their own conclusions from the Bible itself, when that is exactly what you are doing.

Oh goody a list of books, chapters, and verse. I wonder what they are supposed to mean? Here try my list of books, chapters, and verses. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/)

Once again, you don't know what those point to? Have you read the Bible then? I generally understand what people mean when they just put a book, chapter, and verse down.. I don't really need the verse itself written.. I can either look it up if I have forgotten what it meant, or I already know what it says..

Of course I was being fascicious with the have you read it crack.. I tend to treat people as they treat others, believing that this is how they want to be loved, as it is how they love others.. However, I don't really like to be that way.. so why don't you calm down, climb off the soapbox, and we can communicate like two Christians.. and not like two people out to prove each otehr wrong..

Which btw, I'm not out to do.. you aren't going to change my beliefs about the Trinity, and I'm not out to change yours.. but I will show you WHY I believe what I believe.

Also, nice link :teeth:

How clever of you. Did you make the link yourself?

Of course, it just shows me that you aren't intersted in decent discussion.. you are striking out because you feel threatened.. when you shouldn't be. Be strong in your faith.. this isn't something that will destroy your salvation - UNLESS you start to get bitter about it:

Heb 12:15
15 looking diligently lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled;

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And OBTW I did visit your Holy Trinity link. I saw ONE (1) verse of scripture at the top of the page, 1 John 5:7. And not one other verse quoted or referenced, nothing but opinion.

Yes, I agree with The Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost being one.. absolutely..

The WORD being Gods reasoning and will and morality, expressed. God later forms this into Christ.. and, as I have stated on the pages you read, and here before, the Holy Spirit within them makes them of ONE morality.. there is NO indication, except with added meaning by men, that Christ, God, and the Holy spirit are the same entity.. whether or not you choose to see it that way, is entirely up to you.. :smile:

For example this,"In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the 'presenting' aspect of the whole Multiverse." Can you tell me where I can find the words or concept of God being the "presenting aspect"? Or where is the word or concept of "Multiverse" in the Bible?

Yes, it is an analogy explanation.. God is indeed presented as the Creator and ruler of all the "multi-verse".. and I say multi-verse becasue I cannot say for sure that there is only OUR universe.. Quantum Mechanincs points there being the possibility of more. I see that we are being grown up and addressing the issue, and not trying to make diversions.. :poke:

PS - there is no word TRINITY in the Bible either.. :bonk:

And I stand by my first statement about discussion by link. I saw nothing at your site which was quoted here.

Exactly the reason why your complaining about the links I originally posted as being my argument was assinine.. :argh:

However, I did allude to things that my site says... take a deep breath, and go back and read..

I also took a quick look at the second site. Here is their section seven. It is a pack of lies from start to finish. Virtually everything written about Constantine and the Nicaean council can be proven false by simply reading Encyclop&#230;dia Britannica, the history of Eusebius, a Christian historian who lived at the time of Constantine, or the history of Lactantius, who was Constantine's son's tutor. But heaven forbid that we should pollute the clap trap, at this site, with the truth.

Oh good fallacy! So just because you disagree with the site makers history, you then conclude that what he believes from scripture, and puts very well, and cites his reasoning for, is all lies?? I'm sorry.. you already are bitter.. better read the scripture I posted above again..

http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08g.htm

Yes, whoever wlse reads this post.. please do click the link.. and if you beleive that the whole site is lies, or rather lacks any truth at all, as is alluded to, please comment..

Keep in mind that there are verse and scripture on that site, and to class it all as lacking truth calls these also lies..

Gee.. see how easy it is to go to the extreme? :ahem:

In Love and Peace

JCA

Ron Macy

July 12th 2003, 02:06 PM

IronMetro,

You wrote,
I'll set aside some time come Sunday or Monday to reply. Or would you rather start a new thread on one of the topics (e.g. Phil2)?

Whenever you have the time. I understand time constraints.

A new thread is fine. Whatever you wish.

Ron

OldShepherd

July 13th 2003, 06:13 AM

Today @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147481#post147481)
JCA:

And you felt that helped YOUR case in what way?

Yes. You have not proved otherwise.

Do calm down.. I never said you said none.. :bonk:

You implied it.

And I don't care who said what over a thousand years later.. I'm not concerned with what man argued about years after Christ.. about the Gospels.. They stand for themselves, without mans added word to others.

But you are going to link to a site which presents false church history information 1400 ± years ago? Eating your cake and having it too?

Really? If it is like the scripture you posted that I mention above, then it didn't go to help you at all... I do hope ALL of it was directly from the Bible, and not other documents.

I do hope you understand the meaning of the word "scripture"

And the stuff I have read you post, still doesn't make you right according to Gods word; not the word of man.

In your opinion.

Plus, I too have posted book,chapter, and verse on this subject.. many times..

So have I. But, when I reference a scripture, I quote the verse, I do not expect people to have memorized the entire Bible. I also find that most scholars generally do the same.

I didn't realise that someone who is claiming to be wiser than others to the point of saying uncatagorically that they are wrong, wouldn't know the meaning just by me putting the book and verse.

See previous answer.

I guess I'm surprised that you need me to actually post the whole verse of say Luke 2:52.. didn't you know what this passage said? You needed me to spell it out for you?

See previous answer.

Of course I was being fascicious with the have you read it crack.. I tend to treat people as they treat others, believing that this is how they want to be loved, as it is how they love others.. However, I don't really like to be that way.. so why don't you calm down, climb off the soapbox, and we can communicate like two Christians.. and not like two people out to prove each otehr wrong..

Several years ago when Carol Burnette placed her daughter Carrie, who recently died, in a "Tough Love" drug treatment facility, she said, "You have to love your kids enough to let them hate you, if that is what it takes."

Which btw, I'm not out to do.. you aren't going to change my beliefs about the Trinity, and I'm not out to change yours.. but I will show you WHY I believe what I believe.

I have seen that attitude in many cultists. "Nothing you say will make me change my mind." Don't flatter yourself, you are not the only one reading this forum.

Of course, it just shows me that you aren't intersted in decent discussion.. you are striking out because you feel threatened.. when you shouldn't be. Be strong in your faith.. this isn't something that will destroy your salvation - UNLESS you start to get bitter about it:

Oh But I am interested in decent discussion. What I am not interested in is anybody's and everybody's private interpretation of the scripture. Interpretation which generally goes something like this, "I don't care what a bunch of guys said 1000 years ago. The church has been wrong for 2000 years and only I have the correct understanding." Threatened , in a pig's eye. I have been a Christian since 6 months before the 6 day war. I haven't seen the post, book, or website yet which even comes close to threatening my beliefs. I just happen to think heresy should be eliminated so that the less informed do not fall victim to it.

The WORD being Gods reasoning and will and morality, expressed.

Definitely NOT supported by scripture.

God later forms this into Christ..

The Word "became" NOT "God forms."
Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.

And the Word became flesh (kai o logoV sarx egeneto). See verse #3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than hn of verse #1.

and, as I have stated on the pages you read, and here before, the Holy Spirit within them makes them of ONE morality..

I do NOT see the Word or concept "morality", anywhere in this passage.

there is NO indication, except with added meaning by men, that Christ, God, and the Holy spirit are the same entity.. whether or not you choose to see it that way, is entirely up to you.. :smile:

I choose to go with the consistent definition by the church for about 2000 years. Rather than ideas which have grown up in the last 100 years or so. After all the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius, were disciples of John the apostle, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Poycarp, and they spoke the Biblical languages. And I trust thier definition over yours. Whether or not you choose to see it that way, is entirely up to you.. :smile:

PS - there is no word TRINITY in the Bible either.. :bonk:

Now THAT is certainly original. "Trinity" means tri-unity, one word which expresses the same thought as the twenty two words in 1 John 5:7.

Oh good fallacy! So just because you disagree with the site makers history, you then conclude that what he believes from scripture, and puts very well, and cites his reasoning for, is all lies?? I'm sorry.. you already are bitter.. better read the scripture I posted above again..

If they cannot handle history correctly, which is ridiculously easy to verify, should I even consider trusting them to handle the scripture correctly?

Keep in mind that there are verse and scripture on that site, and to class it all as lacking truth calls these also lies..

Gee.. see how easy it is to go to the extreme? :ahem:

Only if they handle them falsely.

JCA

July 14th 2003, 01:09 AM

I started a new thread, in which you are free to come and dicuss with me what I beleive..

However, if you think that tough love means going around being rude all the time, or shouting just for the sake of it, or belittling at every sentence, then I would say you are wrong..

And as with all things, there is a time and a place for it..

As for my mention of you never changing my mind.. you won't, not with that attitude.. keep that for those who do not believe in Christ, if that is what you want, but I do.. and although I may not have everything right, I know enough that anyone who thinks they are going to teach another better do it as the Bible describes.. and at least make me feel as if they can produce the fruits.. which I address in my other post.

I believe we can probably talk about it and find out what it is I am missing.. but as I said, not with that attitude :wink:

It's not hard to find.. it's called JCA's thoughts ion the Trinity.

In Love and Peace

JCA

OldShepherd

July 14th 2003, 01:41 AM

Today @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148182#post148182)
JCA:

I started a new thread, in which you are free to come and dicuss with me what I beleive..

Which I will certainly do when I have time.

However, if you think that tough love means going around being rude all the time, or shouting just for the sake of it, or belittling at every sentence, then I would say you are wrong..

Strongly believing what I do and stating it assertively is NOT being rude. When do I shout? I use bold so I can read my own posts more easily. I have stated so several times on this forum. Shouting is using all CAPS and/or using several exclamation points. I do not do that. I occasionally capitalize a word or two for emphasis.

What do you consider belittling? Belittling is NOT stating something is wrong and posting what I believe to be correct. An example of belittling might be for one person to say to another person, e.g. "YOU are immature, only a 6 years old would say something so childish." Note, it is comments directed at the person which is intended to make the person feel little, thus "BE-LITTLE." For me to state posted material is wrong, false etc. can in no way be considered belittling.

And as with all things, there is a time and a place for it..

The time for saying something is false is when it is spoken or posted.

As for my mention of you never changing my mind.. you won't, not with that attitude.. keep that for those who do not believe in Christ, if that is what you want, but I do.. and although I may not have everything right, I know enough that anyone who thinks they are going to teach another better do it as the Bible describes.. and at least make me feel as if they can produce the fruits.. which I address in my other post.

I believe we can probably talk about it and find out what it is I am missing.. but as I said, not with that attitude :wink:

"you aren't going to change my beliefs about the Trinity," I was responding to this statement. My reply was, "I have seen that attitude in many cultists. 'Nothing you say will make me change my mind.' Don't flatter yourself, you are not the only one reading this forum."

I was not the one who said I would never change my mind no matter what. You did. I can be, and have been, convinced by sound Biblical exegesis, supported with acknowledged lexical, and historical evidence.

But I will not be convinced when someone ignores church history and tells me "I don't care about what someone said a thousand years ago" and attempts to tell me that the truth is really some heretical belief which is around 100 years old.

JCA

July 14th 2003, 02:25 AM

Sigh.. still I suppose I better address this..

Yes. You have not proved otherwise.

I was not out to prove ANYTHING.. I asked you some simple questions about what you posted.. your supposition that I was out to prove anything, shows that you are indeed off on the wrong track with me completely.

You implied it.

Please show where I make the implication.. as I was NOT implying anything of the sort.. I was merely talking about a different time and people than you mentioned.. once again, it is you who are jumping to conclusions here.

But you are going to link to a site which presents false church history information 1400 ± years ago? Eating your cake and having it too?

Then please post what is wrong with it, and correct it, instead of just standing there flapping your gums/fingers.. it would be much appreciated if you could do it without the attitude.. unless, when talking to a plumber about something you may not know all about, you expect him to treat you like an idiot.. If I have something wrong, or have linked to somewhere that has incorrect information, I would expect one of Christ to at first try talking reasonably, before they fell on the excuse of tough love..

Guess that's no longer the Christian way.. now it's shoot first, ask questions later..

I do hope you understand the meaning of the word "scripture"

Sigh.. here we go. Please site all documents YOU perceive to be scripture, and why.. just so I know what I need to be dealing with beyond the Bible.. thank you..

In your opinion.

And once again, I'm the ONLY one in the world with an opinion.. you don't have, or have never expressed any of your own. :poke:

Please.. does it really have to be this way? All you have are opinions.. it's all any of us have... opinions on what is truth.. some are just more dogmatic than others.

So have I. But, when I reference a scripture, I quote the verse, I do not expect people to have memorized the entire Bible. I also find that most scholars generally do the same.

Then why act like you have memorized the whole Bible? You didn't reply to me with Scripture either.. but besides the point, in giving you that you are correct, and that I should at least give more reason for what I am saying, I went ahead and made my other post.

Still, although I do not expect everyone to know EVRY passage in the Bible, I would expect someone who is arguing FOR the Trinity to know the verses that also oppose, or at least appear to oppose it. You had a reference to them, IF needed..

Several years ago when Carol Burnette placed her daughter Carrie, who recently died, in a "Tough Love" drug treatment facility, she said, "You have to love your kids enough to let them hate you, if that is what it takes."

First, I'm not your kid.. second, if you are teaching your kids to HATE, or that hating is okay, then you aren't following Christ’s second commandment, and neither are they. Also, this is a good excuse to allow corporal punishment back in schools.. it also points to someone who is on a drug addiction.. are you implying something there?

As I said, if tough love means smacking all people the second you meet them and then belittling them, just to feel superior before you "teach" them the error of their ways, then you don't have it all correct.. Or is that the ONLY example you see in the Bible of how Christ preaches and teaches?

I have seen that attitude in many cultists. "Nothing you say will make me change my mind." Don't flatter yourself, you are not the only one reading this forum.

I address this in my previous post.. I should have made the qualifier of how I view your effort to "prove me wrong".. and I don't flatter myself.. in fact, you couldn't be farther from the truth.
In case you aren't aware, I'm not here to try and teach you anything, or suggest that I am correct.. I am sharing what I believe, in the spirit that these Forums where made for.. I am also open to correction.. but not from those who have become so embroiled in online 'fighting' and bickering, that they forget there is another way to treat people.. one that Christ used MUCH more frequently than your version of "Tough Love".. JMHO.. of course.

Oh But I am interested in decent discussion. What I am not interested in is anybody's and everybody's private interpretation of the scripture. Interpretation which generally goes something like this, "I don't care what a bunch of guys said 1000 years ago. The church has been wrong for 2000 years and only I have the correct understanding." Threatened , in a pig's eye. I have been a Christian since 6 months before the 6 day war. I haven't seen the post, book, or website yet which even comes close to threatening my beliefs. I just happen to think heresy should be eliminated so that the less informed do not fall victim to it.

As I said, first thing you need to do is step down off the soapbox.. you make so many suppositions and jump to so many conclusions in this quote, that I'm not sure exactly how to address it all..

First, I have never said the Church had it wrong.. just because I have read the Bible myself, and searched it for my own answers and come to my own conclusions from it, does not mean that i say anyone else is wrong.. in fact, I state quite often that it may indeed be me that does not have it right. At least make righteous judgments about my person, instead of ill informed assumptions. Please.

As for the Heresy part.. that is also a little strong, especially when I have stated that I may not be correct.. and have also opened it up for review.. I can find nothing in the Bible that says not believing in a Tri-une God is heretical.. maybe you can point it out to me..

I said ~ The WORD being Gods reasoning and will and morality, expressed.

You said ~ Definitely NOT supported by scripture.

WORD
G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

This word in itself is enough to show that the WORD is the reasoning and motive, and divine expression.. it is also the intent (will) and the Doctrine (Objective Morality) of God.

What is unscriptural about that?

The Word "became" NOT "God forms."

Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T.

And the Word became flesh (kai o logoV sarx egeneto). See verse #3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than hn of verse #1.

[/b]John 1:12-14[/b]
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(was) made..
G1096
γίνομαι
ginomai
ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

Seems to me, in context, the passage is talking about the sons of God that God gave power to etc.. and then speaks about the Word and how it is made Flesh.. Come into being, arisen as Flesh, and to have a self..

What does this say to me? That God formed his Word (Doctrine and will and divine expression) into His Son..

Show me how this is wrong.

I do NOT see the Word or concept "morality", anywhere in this passage.

I'm not sure if you are pulling me leg here. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not the bearer of the Divine Objective Morality?

I choose to go with the consistent definition by the church for about 2000 years. Rather than ideas which have grown up in the last 100 years or so. After all the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius, were disciples of John the apostle, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Poycarp, and they spoke the Biblical languages. And I trust thier definition over yours. Whether or not you choose to see it that way, is entirely up to you..

Once again, you are supposing that I have taken this from some other peoples ideas that have only been around for 100 years or so. You don't know me, and haven't bothered to ask.. and so make an incorrect statement.

But, you say you are open to discussion and debate (which would also presume possibly learning something that may change your point of view), but then state that you would rather take someone else’s point of view over anyone else’s anyway.. you seem to be saying that no matter what anyone says, if they don't agree with Polycarp, then they don't agree with you, and therefore you aren't open to real discussion anyway. :whack:

Now I'm not saying I have anything to teach, or even truth to share.. if I am to learn that I do not, then I will have to see how I need to correct my beliefs..

What you don't seem to understand is that there are millions of people in the word today that will do exactly as I do/did.. pick up a Bible, and read.. if the Bible of today is not enough to learn and come to God by, then there must be something wrong with the Bible. As the Bible does not teach the Trinity in any direct manner, as the Commandments are for example, then most of these people are not going to believe that it is something required for salvation..

You can stand up and yell all you like about false teachings etc.. and heresy.. but just because I get my belief directly from the Bible itself, and not from Polycarp, or Arius, or whomever.. which was the original intent of the author, was it not?

This is part of what having Faith is all about.. if you KNOW you are 100% right, then you have no need of Faith.. of which, without, we are nothing.

Now THAT is certainly original. "Trinity" means tri-unity, one word which expresses the same thought as the twenty two words in 1 John 5:7.

I address this in my other post.. I have no problem with that verse.. it doesn't make Christ and God and the Holy Ghost, one. It does in your opinion, but in light of the other verses I have posted before, I don't find what you believe to be the correct intention of the author. This is the kind of thing I am willing to discuss.

If they cannot handle history correctly, which is ridiculously easy to verify, should I even consider trusting them to handle the scripture correctly?

Had you have asked me if I thought the history as presented on the site was correct, I may well have answered you.. however, my linking to the site was mainly for the scriptural references posted there tat backed up what I was saying. To presume that just because someone doesn't get their history straight that they then also can't understand scripture, or are somehow 'unworthy' does not become anyone of any intelligence.

So if you can't tell me as much as I know about Artesian Wells, or Sir Francis Drake, or any other subject I may know something in depth about, you aren't worth talking to about God, right? :bonk:

Only if they handle them falsely.

You had already pre-judged them, and also stated that you wouldn't trust them anyway based upon a lame assumption that because someone’s worldly history may be lacking, they are unable to understand God. Is this not true?

Still, the offer is open.. if you would like to discuss with me what it is I have missed, or why certain things say certain things and not others, and can do so in a manner more befitting, then I would welcome it.

In Love and Peace

JCA

Edited for spelling...

OldShepherd

July 14th 2003, 08:09 AM

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148215#post148215)
JCA:

Sigh.. still I suppose I better address this..

I was not out to prove ANYTHING.. I asked you some simple questions about what you posted.. your supposition that I was out to prove anything, shows that you are indeed off on the wrong track with me completely.

Please show where I make the implication.. as I was NOT implying anything of the sort.. I was merely talking about a different time and people than you mentioned.. once again, it is you who are jumping to conclusions here.

OS:The leading Christian party at the time was tortured and brutally killed because they would not deny their faith. The vast, overwhelming majority of those who teach differently did not show up until about 1750 years later.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.. I was refering more to the movements of people like Athanasius and his rival Arius around the early 300's. * * *

Now, I'm not saying I agree totally with Arius's position.. but this is way before the 1750 years later you are mentioning..

First you don't know what I'm talking about and the mention of 1750 years, only, implies I did not qualify it.

Then please post what is wrong with it, and correct it, instead of just standing there flapping your gums/fingers..

I did, and I told you where you could find the truth. But you are so intent on defending your one source which supports you, you haven't bothred to consult any other sources, including those I referenced. Which you should have done BEFORE posting that link.

it would be much appreciated if you could do it without the attitude.. unless,

Oh you mean like "flapping your gums/fingers."?

If I have something wrong, or have linked to somewhere that has incorrect information, I would expect one of Christ to at first try talking reasonably, before they fell on the excuse of tough love..

I told you what was wrong and where you could find the truth.

Sigh.. here we go. Please site all documents YOU perceive to be scripture, and why.. just so I know what I need to be dealing with beyond the Bible.. thank you..

This is so infantile it doesn't even deserve a response. Go to my profile and search every post I have made and tell me once when I have ever cited anything but scripture as scripture. And if you do not know or understand why I cite other sources also then you don't belong in this discussion.

And once again, I'm the ONLY one in the world with an opinion.. you don't have, or have never expressed any of your own. :poke:

You said my exegesis of a verse was wrong. THAT is only your opinion, which OBTW you didn't back up with doodly squat.

Then why act like you have memorized the whole Bible? You didn't reply to me with Scripture either.. but besides the point, in giving you that you are correct, and that I should at least give more reason for what I am saying, I went ahead and made my other post.

I don't act like I have memorized the Bible. I have memorized many verses, but I don't expect anyone to know what I am talking about if I only post, book, chapter, and verse. and I can't recall any Biblical scholar, in any book or paper, doing it either. If all the Bible scholars can do it why can't you?

First, I'm not your kid.. second, if you are teaching your kids to HATE, or that hating is okay, then you aren't following Christ’s second commandment, and neither are they.

Now you can see why the attitude. True you are not my kid, but you are acting like one, a snot nosed one at that. I did not state or imply that you were my kid, so this is just infantile dog puke to muddy up the water.

Second, go back and read my post I did not say teach a kid to hate. In fact I didn't say hate at all, I was quoting someone else. And what I posted was, "You have to LOVE your kids enough to LET THEM hate you, if that is what it takes." Evidently you do not know the difference between "teach" and "let" Perhaps you should go take a remedial reading course and come back when you can comprehend what is being posted.

Also, this is a good excuse to allow corporal punishment back in schools.. it also points to someone who is on a drug addiction.. are you implying something there?

More of your blatantly false dog puke implications.

As I said, if tough love means smacking all people the second you meet them and then belittling them, just to feel superior before you "teach" them the error of their ways, then you don't have it all correct..

You seem capable of looking up the meaning of words, perhaps you could look up "belittle"

I am also open to correction..

I don't think so, I think your previous comment was much truer than you are willing to admit, “you aren't going to change my beliefs about the Trinity”

but not from those who have become so embroiled in online 'fighting' and bickering, that they forget there is another way to treat people.. one that Christ used MUCH more frequently than your version of "Tough Love".. JMHO.. of course.

What was Christ’s attitude toward those false teacher’s of His day. The one’s who told Him, “you aren't going to change our beliefs about anything?” “Brood of vipers,” comes to mind. But to those who are genuinely seeking Jesus said, “Come you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

At least make righteous judgments about my person, instead of ill informed assumptions. Please.

I haven’t made any judgments about your person, period. I have made judgments about the material you have posted. Please learn the difference.

WORD
G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004;something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

This word in itself is enough to show that the WORD is the reasoning and motive, and divine expression.. it is also the intent (will) and the Doctrine (Objective Morality) of God.

What is unscriptural about that?

Although you posted vs. 14 you ignored it in your interpretation. Also the pertinent part of this definition is specifically (with the article in John) the [b]Divine Expression (that is, Christ):

(was) made..
G1096
γίνομαι
ginomai
ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

Seems to me, in context, the passage is talking about the sons of God that God gave power to etc.. and then speaks about the Word and how it is made Flesh.. Come into being, arisen as Flesh, and to have a self..

What does this say to me? That God formed his Word (Doctrine and will and divine expression) into His Son..

Show me how this is wrong.

You are reading your own ideas into the text. Those who believe on Christ are GIVEN power. The word was NOT made or given, the Word on its own became flesh and never stopped being the Word.

Also the pertinent part of this derfinition is, "(“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) [b]to become (come into being) the definition of the root word does NOT apply to the declension found in John1.

Once again, you are supposing that I have taken this from some other peoples ideas that have only been around for 100 years or so. You don't know me, and haven't bothered to ask.. and so make an incorrect statement.

My reasoning, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, etc. But since you have admitted that this is your own invention I will say, “beliefs which have been formulated within the last 20-30 years, or less, which contradict the history of the church.”, instead of 100 year old beliefs.

But, you say you are open to discussion and debate (which would also presume possibly learning something that may change your point of view), but then state that you would rather take someone else’s point of view over anyone else’s anyway..

Is this supposed to make sense?

you seem to be saying that no matter what anyone says, if they don't agree with Polycarp, then they don't agree with you, and therefore you aren't open to real discussion anyway. :whack:

More infantile dog puke implications. I am based in the far east, my wife’s country of birth. Although I do speak some of the language, if I want to know what someone is saying I ask my wife. What, you may ask, does this have to do with anything?

If, for example, I want to know what something written in Greek means I ask a person who knows the language. And taking this a step further, if, for example, I want to interpret a passage from the writings of John, I could consult the writings of someone who was taught by John, who read and wrote Greek, Polycarp or Ignatius, for example. Their writings do NOT contradict the scriptures but do contradict beliefs which have been formulated by people within the last 20-30 years, or less.

Or I could get stupid and ask someone who neither reads nor writes Greek, who doesn’t know a pluperfect from a pineapple, who only knows the Bible from reading his favorite English translation. If that is not true then read this quote from the GNT for me.
kuwn epistreqaV epi to idion exerama kai uV lousamenh eiV kulisma borborou
What you don't seem to understand is that there are millions of people in the word today that will do exactly as I do/did.. pick up a Bible, and read.. if the Bible of today is not enough to learn and come to God by, then there must be something wrong with the Bible. As the Bible does not teach the Trinity in any direct manner, as the Commandments are for example, then most of these people are not going to believe that it is something required for salvation..

You can stand up and yell all you like about false teachings etc.. and heresy.. but just because I get my belief directly from the Bible itself, and not from Polycarp, or Arius, or whomever.. which was the original intent of the author, was it not?

May I suggest that, no, you, and millions of others, do not pick up the Bible and read. You pick up your favorite English translation and read and your beliefs are strongly influenced, as much or more, by stuff like the website you have linked to twice, as the Bible. And that the very most you may do is look up a word or two in Strong’s concordance, which tells you nothing about mood, case, tense, person, gender, etc. And see you just made another dog puke accusation that I get my beliefs from the early church fathers, not the Bible.

I have no problem with that verse.. it doesn't make Christ and God and the Holy Ghost, one. It does in your opinion, but in light of the other verses I have posted before, I don't find what you believe to be the correct intention of the author. This is the kind of thing I am willing to discuss.

Well the verse certainly says "these three are one." Are you implying that you know more than John? I posted some more verses in the other thread, Let’s discuss. Also, earlier in this thread, I posted quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia about the Jewish understanding of The Word and God and the origin of the Trinity in pre-Christian Judaism. John was not saying anything new. To the Jews before the time of Jesus, the Word was literally, God. Not His plan, thoughts, etc. 07-02-2003 @ 12:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137238#post137238)

Had you have asked me if I thought the history as presented on the site was correct, I may well have answered you.. however, my linking to the site was mainly for the scriptural references posted there tat backed up what I was saying. To presume that just because someone doesn't get their history straight that they then also can't understand scripture, or are somehow 'unworthy' does not become anyone of any intelligence.

I think I proved, in the other thread, that the scriptural references are also wrong.

You had already pre-judged them, and also stated that you wouldn't trust them anyway based upon a lame assumption that because someone’s worldly history may be lacking, they are unable to understand God. Is this not true?

See my post on the other thread. Their exegesis of the Greek is also wrong.

o2bwise

July 14th 2003, 09:20 AM

OS,

I have had you on ignore, but elected to read a couple of your replies.

Myself
Cal Minion
Tony S
JCA
Thomas (is that his name, the one discussing 501c3?)

Every one of us is wrong, right? We all think your attitude just plain sucks. But, of course, we're all wrong.

Sometimes God speaks through others. He uses human instrumentalities to correct. If he uses people in that way, when one rejects them, one is rejecting God.

You sit yourself very high, perhaps as high as God Himself. Oh, you would never profess it, of course.

You are in a seriously precarious spiritual state. Man, do you ever need to be humbled.

Come down from where you seat yourself, OS.

Tony (o2)

OldShepherd

July 14th 2003, 09:47 AM

Today @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148336#post148336)
o2bwise:

OS,

I have had you on ignore, but elected to read a couple of your replies.

Myself
Cal Minion
Tony S
JCA
Thomas (is that his name, the one discussing 501c3?)

Every one of us is wrong, right? We all think your attitude just plain sucks. But, of course, we're all wrong.

Sometimes God speaks through others. He uses human instrumentalities to correct. If he uses people in that way, when one rejects them, one is rejecting God.

You sit yourself very high, perhaps as high as God Himself. Oh, you would never profess it, of course.

You are in a seriously precarious spiritual state. Man, do you ever need to be humbled.

Come down from where you seat yourself, OS.

Tony (o2)

Get out of my face with your hypocrisy. Put me back on ignore. "the Whore is the papal system the foundation of her faith is the Trinity" All Trinitarians are part of the whore of Babylon? Tell me whose attitude sucks and who is setting themself up so high again. I kinda figured you did have me on ignore but I'll PM this to you so you won't miss it.
07-04-2003 @ 10:07 AM
post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139074#post13
9074)
o2bwise:

Well, I do believe the Whore is the papal system and I believe her wine is her doctrine and I believe the foundation of her faith is the Trinity. Where the latter is concerned, the papacy would most heartedly agree. Furthermore, the wine is described as intoxicating.

07-08-2003 @ 11:00 PM
post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143113#post14
3113)
o2bwise:

CRI, just part of Babylon.

Not that I don't think they said some nice things!

o2bwise

July 14th 2003, 10:46 AM

You are one sick, sick man.

FYI, I believe the Whore is a SYSTEM.

Am I a hypocrite? Of course I am! Who is anyone to have the audactity to pick any sin and to claim, I am 100% cleansed of that!

I am a sinner. I am imperfect.

But Cal Minion, Tony S, JCA, Thomas, and myself have some discernment.

You will not be reproved.

That is your choice, that is your downfall.

Take Care...

Tony (o2)

JCA

July 14th 2003, 02:38 PM

So let's see if there is any of this in your post:

EXHIBIT 1: Gentleness, Respect, and compassion

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Mar 6:34
And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.

Which is prefaced with things like..

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

There are others, but that will do for now.. Onward..

Today @ 08:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148308#post148308)
OldShepherd:

First you don't know what I'm talking about and the mention of 1750 years, only, implies I did not qualify it.

Once again, what are you talking about?? Where do I say ONLY, or even mention NONE? And not only that, what 1750 years has to do with what I was talking about from my point of view, was zero.

I did, and I told you where you could find the truth. But you are so intent on defending your one source which supports you, you haven't bothred to consult any other sources, including those I referenced. Which you should have done BEFORE posting that link.

And I told you I have viewed other sources and they haven't persuaded me.. just as YOU have said that you have read loads of other sources and have been unpersuaded too.. I have read pretty much every discussion on it here, at ToL, and lots of other places, as well as looked at the references you mention.. I remain unconvinced that my stance is incorrect..

And I wasn't defending them.. lol.. talk about seeing things where there isn't anything..

I AM however, much more open than you to discuss it.. in your eyes, as you have posted, we don't need the Bible, all we need is Polycarps interpretation of it.. after al, Polycarp, and now yourself by following that instead of the Bible itself, now know the mind of God. Or so you seem to be saying.

Oh you mean like "flapping your gums/fingers."?

Yes, you do this a lot.. is there something you normally take to calm down?

I told you what was wrong and where you could find the truth.

No, you where trying to be clever, and posted a link to a Bible page.. :wink:

Yes the truth is there.. and I have told you what it revealed to me..

This is so infantile it doesn't even deserve a response. Go to my profile and search every post I have made and tell me once when I have ever cited anything but scripture as scripture. And if you do not know or understand why I cite other sources also then you don't belong in this discussion.

Ahh.. so asking for you to supply the external documants from the Bible that you refer to is 'infantile' :bonk:

refer to exhibit 1 at the top of the page...

You said my exegesis of a verse was wrong. THAT is only your opinion, which OBTW you didn't back up with doodly squat.

No, I didn't.. please show me where I tell you you are wrong on your exegesis.. just because I have a different opinion, don't accuse me of being dogmatic and rude like yourself, and accuse anyone of being "wrong".. as i said, you appear to be a bitter old man..

I don't act like I have memorized the Bible. I have memorized many verses, but I don't expect anyone to know what I am talking about if I only post, book, chapter, and verse. and I can't recall any Biblical scholar, in any book or paper, doing it either. If all the Bible scholars can do it why can't you?

Because I don't put myself forward as a "Bible Scholar".. like you are claiming you are, apparently.. I am a man, trying to make the narrow gate, using the Bible as my guide.. and i already replied to this.. you are just continuning on an argument for the sake of it.. how Christian of you.

Now you can see why the attitude. True you are not my kid, but you are acting like one, a snot nosed one at that. I did not state or imply that you were my kid, so this is just infantile dog puke to muddy up the water.

So there IS an attitude.. funny thing was, you had it before I had even really said much.. in fact, you've had it all the way through this thread pretty much..

Lovely comments, by the way.. so far, you haven't exhibited one fruit of the spirit, and have exhibited pride, arrogance, lies, and unrighteous judging..

I withdraw my offer for you to enter into discussion and help me to define my definition of the Trinity.. I was indeed correct when i said that YOU would not change my view.. you have not the Spirit in you to do so.. IMHO.

Second, go back and read my post I did not say teach a kid to hate. In fact I didn't say hate at all, I was quoting someone else. And what I posted was, "You have to LOVE your kids enough to LET THEM hate you, if that is what it takes." Evidently you do not know the difference between "teach" and "let" Perhaps you should go take a remedial reading course and come back when you can comprehend what is being posted.

Oh I'm sorry.. did I do like you and jump to a conclusion loosely based upon what you said, and therefore get it ALL wrong? My, we must be more alike than you think!

I see.. parents should let their kids hate.. that is what you have said..

And if I LET my Children take drugs, then I AM teaching them that it is okay.. are you really that dense? Don't answer, the next quote proves it without your saying another word..

More of your blatantly false dog puke implications.

See Exhibit 1 for the Christianity that just oozes out of that quote.

You seem capable of looking up the meaning of words, perhaps you could look up "belittle"

belittle

\Be*lit"tle\, v. t. To make little or less in a moral sense; to speak of in a depreciatory or contemptuous way. --T. Jefferson.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Funny that, but you have been nothing but contemptuous, and have even admitted it.. you are that way with everyone YOU believe to be a Heretic.. be they one or not.. so yes.. I can look up the meaning of the word.. however, I did notice something missing.. it doesn't have your name attached to it's description - which I find unusual seeing as you are being a perfect example of a 'belittler' :teeth:

I don't think so, I think your previous comment was much truer than you are willing to admit, “you aren't going to change my beliefs about the Trinity”

Perfectly true, when it comes to people like yourself.. I would have to have some respect for the person responding to me, and I can have none for one who can't even seem to produce ONE fruit of the spirit in 4 rather long and inane posts..

What is comical though, is your own stance on your own beliefs.. which appear to be much broader than mine when it comes to never changing them.. you, it would appear, will hold on to the truth as revealed by others, and use them as your examples as ultimate truth, and not be persuaded by any information.. which is what you accuse ME of, and yet with you it is with EVERYONE who disagrees with you.. at least I am willing to limit it to those who actually SEEM Christlike, without them having to claim superiority, or belittle etc.. But then, that is probably lost on you..

What was Christ’s attitude toward those false teacher’s of His day. The one’s who told Him, “[I]you aren't going to change our beliefs about anything?” “Brood of vipers,” comes to mind. But to those who are genuinely seeking Jesus said, “Come you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

Funny that.. I'm not a teacher.. see exhibit 1 above.. I'm a Sheep without a Shepherd maybe.. but a false teacher? Maybe if I claimed like you, and presume to teach others, it would be true..

But lets see what you are implying here.. people shouldn't come to this site with their own thoughts, and share them, maybe so they can learn or discover more.. becasue if they don't have it right when they post it, they are heretics, from a brood of vipers, and false teachers.. EVEN when they claim to NOT be a teacher, and only giving their opinion...

And you say you aren't bitter? Plus you are also claiming the ability to discern as Christ, that you can look into a mans heart and rein and judge.. and you claim OTHERS to be false teachers?? :whack:

I haven’t made any judgments about your person, period. I have made judgments about the material you have posted. Please learn the difference.

Is that right? Let's see..

You said ~ "I have seen that attitude in many cultists. "Nothing you say will make me change my mind." Don't flatter yourself, you are not the only one reading this forum."

That is one right off the top of my head.. you had that judgment from the word go.. everyone who disagrees with you on this subject is a 'cultist' it seems, or a heretic.. no matter what they are trying to do, and even if that is discover more truth..

And if you call sharing the Gospel reading someone elses thoughts on it and saying "dog puke" as a response is what a Christian should do, then I'm very very happy that I don't believe as you.. as you certainly aren't a representative of the Christ of the Bible I read.. IMHO..

And by the way, I have only judged your ability to teach *ME* anything.. how you are in real life, how you might be with people you actually care about (forget Christs second commandment, you aren't showing that you know what it means in this thread), I have no idea.. and so cannot make a judgment, nor would I ever want to.

Although you posted vs. 14 you ignored it in your interpretation. Also the pertinent part of this definition is specifically (with the article in John) the [b]Divine Expression (that is, Christ):

I don't skip it at all.. I explain that in context with all the other verses and scripture I referred to, it would make more sense for it to mean what I believe it means from it's own definitions, rather than one taken to fit a predifined "Doctrine"..

In other words, taking the meaning to say that God cannot share the Divine expression and Doctrine with His Son.. you take it to mean that because it has ONE part that says 'become' in the definition, it supports the whole One Being of the Trinity.. I show you there that when used in conjunction with the contexts of the other verses, it makes more sense to see it as Christ becoming and assembly using the Word..

What you are missing is, IMHO, the idea that Gods WORD (His divine expression and doctrine and will) can be shared with His Son, without it having to be given up.. it's like both of them have exactly the same book.. each having a copy, when referred to, say the same thing.. it doesn't have to mean they are reading fro the SAME physical book.

You are reading your own ideas into the text. Those who believe on Christ are GIVEN power. The word was NOT made or given, the Word on its own became flesh and never stopped being the Word.

No, I am reading what the text tells me.. and the verse says the Word was MADE Flesh.. YOU are the one reading it as became.. I gave the meanings of the woprds, and how looking at the context I have put it in, it makes sense..

What you fail to see is that you are of one opinion, and I of another.. but neither of us appear to have a grasp of the Objective Truth of the matter.. at least, I'm willing to admit that I may not..

Also the pertinent part of this derfinition is, "(“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) [b]to become (come into being) the definition of the root word does NOT apply to the declension found in John1.

And you back this scripturaly how?

My reasoning, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, etc. But since you have admitted that this is your own invention I will say, “beliefs which have been formulated within the last 20-30 years, or less, which contradict the history of the church.”, instead of 100 year old beliefs.

Actually, try 31.. I was 7 years old when I first read the Bible and came to these first conclusions.. over the years, they have only been strengthened.

So if it walks and quacks like a duck, forget all Godly manners and Christian ethics amoungst Christians, and start belittling and acting like a bitter old man.. I was wrong, you are teaching me something :thumb:

Is this supposed to make sense?

Sure does.. as I note above, you may as well tell people to put away the Bible and just read Polycarps interpretation.. they have done all the work, and obviously explain it better than Gods own inspired works.. :wink:

More infantile dog puke implications.

Another fruit of the spirit... NOT!

If, for example, I want to know what something written in Greek means I ask a person who knows the language. And taking this a step further, if, for example, I want to interpret a passage from the writings of John, I could consult the writings of someone who was taught by John, who read and wrote Greek, Polycarp or Ignatius, for example. Their writings do NOT contradict the scriptures but do contradict beliefs which have been formulated by people within the last 20-30 years, or less.

I see.. so researching the context of the words used, isn't enough.. one must then go on to look at what Polycarp believes the verses to mean..

If I want to interpret a passage from John, I get the Bible, and a Lexicon, strongs etc.. and look up he meaning of the words myself.. and then use that to base *MY* interpretation off.. I don't read someone elses interpretation of what it means.. I'm not asked to.. Plus, you have yet to show exactly where I contradict the scriptures.. :bonk:

Or I could get stupid and ask someone who neither reads nor writes Greek, who doesn’t know a pluperfect from a pineapple, who only knows the Bible from reading his favorite English translation. If that is not true then read this quote from the GNT for me.
kuwn epistreqaV epi to idion exerama kai uV lousamenh eiV kulisma borborou

As I said, your Christianity is above all others in the world.. and so udge so righteously

2 Peter 2:22 (KJV) But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

May I suggest that, no, you, and millions of others, do not pick up the Bible and read. You pick up your favorite English translation and read and your beliefs are strongly influenced, as much or more, by stuff like the website you have linked to twice, as the Bible. And that the very most you may do is look up a word or two in Strong’s concordance, which tells you nothing about mood, case, tense, person, gender, etc. And see you just made another dog puke accusation that I get my beliefs from the early church fathers, not the Bible.

You may suggest.. but like so many other things you have suggested, it would be wrong :teeth:

καταλείποντες εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βοσόρ, ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν,

or (as I'm not sure this system can has the fonts):

katalipontev thn euyeian odon eplanhyhsan exakolouyhsantev th odw tou balaam tou bosor ov misyon adikiav hgaphsen

From here, the reast of your post can not be taken seriously.. you have been shown to be wrong in several different places, and have even gone as far as to lie and say that you haven't made any personal judgment, while calling me a cultist..

As I said, no.. no thank you.. Christian you may be.. but not one that I would wish to resolve my doctrine with.. however much you may or may not know.. you do not inspire learning, nor produce a fruit that would show me that you would be able to teach me in the method the Bible prescribes..

I do wish you Love and peace, in all sincerity..

God Bless.

JCA

AVmetro

July 14th 2003, 07:58 PM

Critiques of another poster's character should be discussed in the Locker Room (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&forumid=30). Otherwise the thread runs off course. Thank you.

OldShepherd

July 14th 2003, 09:34 PM

Today @ 04:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148569#post148569)
JCA:

OS: I did, and I told you where you could find the truth. But you are so intent on defending your one source which supports you, you haven't bothered to consult any other sources, including those I referenced. Which you should have done BEFORE posting that link.

And I told you I have viewed other sources and they haven't persuaded me.. just as YOU have said that you have read loads of other sources and have been unpersuaded too..

The specific topic here was the blatantly false information about Constantine and the Nicaean council at your link. I suggested that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica and the contemporary histories of Eusebius and Lactantius for the truth. But you claim the undocumented information at your link is more persuasive that these sources. And later you claim you are NOT defending the information at this site.

I AM however, much more open than you to discuss it.. in your eyes, as you have posted, we don't need the Bible, all we need is Polycarps interpretation of it..

Now this IS a blatant and deliberate falsehood. I have neither stated nor implied that. The resources are aids to understanding. Much more so than someone who does NOT read Greek, reading their favorite English translation. This shows, more than anything I can say, how desperate you are that you have to resort to out and out falsehood to make your argument.

OS: Oh you mean like, "JCA: flapping your gums/fingers."?

Yes, you do this a lot.. is there something you normally take to calm down?

Pointing out your hypocrisy. You complain about what I say, then you say this, “ flapping your gums/fingers." And it was not until later I saw the implication that I need to be medicated. Tsk. tsk. Is that the way YOU demonstrate Christlike behavior to me?

OS: I told you what was wrong [about Constantine] and where you could find the truth.

No, you where trying to be clever, and posted a link to a Bible page..

See actual context above.

OS: This is so immature it doesn't even deserve a response. Go to my profile and search every post I have made and tell me once when I have ever cited anything but scripture as scripture. And if you do not know or understand why I cite other sources also then you don't belong in this discussion.

Ahh.. so asking for you to supply the external documants from the Bible that you refer to is 'infantile'

No, it was a blatantly false implication that I cited other than Biblical sources, as scripture, rather than aids to understanding.

OS: You said my exegesis of a verse was wrong. THAT is only your opinion, which OBTW you didn't back up with doodly squat.

No, I didn't.. please show me where I tell you you are wrong on your exegesis..

07-13-2003 @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147481#post147481)
JCA:

Really? If it is like the scripture you posted that I mention above, then it didn't go to help you at all... I do hope ALL of it was directly from the Bible, and not other documents..

And the stuff I have read you post, still doesn't make you right according to Gods word; not the word of man.

OS: Second, go back and read my post I did not say teach a kid to hate. In fact I didn't say hate at all, I was quoting someone else. And what I posted was, "You have to LOVE your kids enough to LET THEM hate you, if that is what it takes." Evidently you do not know the difference between "teach" and "let" Perhaps you should go take a remedial reading course and come back when you can comprehend what is being posted.

I see.. parents should let their kids hate.. that is what you have said..

And if I LET my Children take drugs, then I AM teaching them that it is okay.. are you really that dense? Don't answer, the next quote proves it without your saying another word..

More and more deliberate falsehoods, misrepresenting what I said and the context of it. Again demonstrating how bankrupt your homemade religion is. Evidently the only way you can discuss it is to make deliberately false statements about the opposition. And you presume to correct me. Not nice.

belittle

\Be*lit"tle\, v. t. To make little or less in a moral sense; to speak of in a depreciatory or contemptuous way. --T. Jefferson.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Funny that, but you have been nothing but contemptuous, and have even admitted it..

When and where did I ever “[I]speak of [you] in a depreciatory or contemptuous way”? As opposed to the views posted.

OS: I haven’t made any judgments about your person, period. I have made judgments about the material you have posted. Please learn the difference.

Is that right? Let's see..

You said ~ "I have seen that attitude in many cultists. "Nothing you say will make me change my mind." Don't flatter yourself, you are not the only one reading this forum."

Note, “I have seen that attitude” Are YOU an attitude? Or is attitude something you possess and/or display?

OS: Also the pertinent part of this derfinition is, "(“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being) the definition of the root word does NOT apply to the declension found in John 1. Note, I have emphasized the primary meaning of the word in the source you, listed.

And you back this scripturaly how?

First you tell me how you back this, which you posted earlier, scripturally. Note, I have emphasized the primary meaning of the word in the source you listed, "(“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being) Again the definition of the root word does NOT apply to the declension found in John 1.

(was) made..
G1096
ginomai
ginomai
ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be “gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

May I suggest in your explanation you refer to a good Greek grammar. And you might want to consider, even in English, words, depending on their form, have different shades of meaning, for example, running, ran, to have run, etc. do not mean the same thing as “run,” and are not interchangeable. Greek is the same in that respect.

I see.. so researching the context of the words used, isn't enough.. one must then go on to look at what Polycarp believes the verses to mean..

If I want to interpret a passage from John, I get the Bible, and a Lexicon, strongs etc.. and look up he meaning of the words myself.. and then use that to base *MY* interpretation off.. I don't read someone elses interpretation of what it means.. I'm not asked to.. Plus, you have yet to show exactly where I contradict the scriptures..

I have shown you where you are wrong. See previous answer. You want to use language resources, e.g. Strong's, Lexicons, etc., to make your argument but cop-out when I use those same sources, and others, to prove your posts wrong.

OS: May I suggest that, no, you, and millions of others, do not pick up the Bible and read. You pick up your favorite English translation and read and your beliefs are strongly influenced, as much or more, by stuff like the website you have linked to twice, as the Bible. And that the very most you may do is look up a word or two in Strong’s concordance, which tells you nothing about mood, case, tense, person, gender, etc. And see you just made another dog puke accusation that I get my beliefs from the early church fathers, not the Bible.

You may suggest.. but like so many other things you have suggested, it would be wrong

kataleiponteV euqeian odon eplanhqhsan, exakolouqhsanteV th odw tou balaam tou bosor, oV misqon adikiaV hgaphsen

or (as I'm not sure this system can has the fonts):

katalipontev thn euyeian odon eplanhyhsan exakolouyhsantev th odw tou balaam tou bosor ov misyon adikiav hgaphsen.

Posting a quote from the GNT does not a Greek scholar make. You have already shown that you have no idea how to parse a Greek verb. See ginomia, above. Next time give me something that is a challenge, “balaam” was a dead giveaway. And as I said, “you just made another accusation that I get my beliefs from the early church fathers, not the Bible.”
2 Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam [the son] of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness

And OBTW egeneto in John 1:14, incorrectly translated "was made," in the KJV, is in the Second Aorist, Middle Deponent, Indicative mood. Which means that the subject was the doer or performer of the action. And who is the subject of John 1:14? The logoV.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word logoV was made [became] egeneto flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

JCA

July 16th 2003, 02:04 PM

07-14-2003 @ 09:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148842#post148842)
OldShepherd:

The specific topic here was the blatantly false information about Constantine and the Nicaean council at your link. I suggested that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica and the contemporary histories of Eusebius and Lactantius for the truth. But you claim the undocumented information at your link is more persuasive that these sources. And later you claim you are NOT defending the information at this site.

The specific topic of my post wasn't to do with the History of the Trinity at all (strike one)..

I don't claim anything about that link except that it has verses on it that can be referenced to back up what I was saying - I also claim that I did my own research from the Bible, you are incorrect again (strike two)..

And yes, I am not defending the history posted on that site.. it wasn't even what I was speaking of it being a reference for.. you are the only one spouting on and on about the incorrect histry posted there, take that up with them.. I linked to it for the 100 verses they have quite conveniently put all in one place and linked. I will defend those 100 verses, as they are in the Bible. (Strike three)

When you make so many incorrect statements and come to so many incorrect conclusions, and in your first paragraph, and have already been told that I really don't care what you have to say because I don't particularly like your condescending attitude and bitterness (something it seems others have noticed as well) - then I would say that you haven't quite got the concept that you and I have nothing to talk about.. However, we do not.. There is only one with Authority over my Spirit and in charge of my Guidance, and that is Christ.. as pointed out, you bear none of his fruits in your posts to me.. and so I have nothing to gain, nothing to learn, and no reason to partake of your bitterness.

And, seeing as the KJV is obvioulsy a false Gospel, as you have pointed out that it doesn't actually mean what it says, and is incorrect in it's context, as one has to refer to the original or greek translation to get it right, I would make sure you make one big post about that, and inform all the Sunday Schools, Libraries, and all the millions of readers of the KJV.

As for the rest of your post.. I tire of you, and even having to bother to read your words. Your bitterness and lack of fruits chokes me.. and I'm tired of having to keep looking up to where you have put yourself..

Maybe when I have more time, I'll bother then.. but don't hold your breath.

IN Love and Peace

JCA

OldShepherd

July 16th 2003, 08:00 PM

Today @ 04:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150216#post150216)
JCA:

07-14-2003 @ 09:34 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

The specific topic here was the blatantly false information about Constantine and the Nicaean council at your link. I suggested that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica and the contemporary histories of Eusebius and Lactantius for the truth. But you claim the undocumented information at your link is more persuasive that these sources. And later you claim you are NOT defending the information at this site.

The specific topic of my post wasn't to do with the History of the Trinity at all (strike one)..

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
The topic of the specific post which I was referring to, at that point, was your link and the false information about Constantine and the Nicaean council. :bonk: Here is the specific post and comment I was referring back to, i.e. "The specific topic here. . .
I also took a quick look at the second site. Here is their section seven. It is a pack of lies from start to finish. Virtually everything written about Constantine and the Nicaean council can be proven false by simply reading Encyclopædia Britannica, the history of Eusebius, a Christian historian who lived at the time of Constantine, or the history of Lactantius, who was Constantine's son's tutor. But heaven forbid that we should pollute the clap trap, at this site, with the truth.

http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08g.htm

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147334#post147334)

I don't claim anything about that link except that it has verses on it that can be referenced to back up what I was saying - I also claim that I did my own research from the Bible, you are incorrect again (strike two)..

The first scripture reference at your link is interpreted falsely and gives false information about Greek grammar. You have never acknowledged that.

I will defend those 100 verses, as they are in the Bible. (Strike three)

See 1 Jn 2:4. I have never said anything about the verses as they are in the Bible. But I have said that they are interpreted falsely at that link. If all you are interested in is the list of verses, copy the list and refer to them instead of a link which has blatantly false information. I'm sure you do have a Bible, why do you need a link to a pack of lies website, if you are not promoting the false information at that site?Don't you keep saying you believe the Bible? Then use the Bible, not a website.

I would say that you haven't quite got the concept that you and I have nothing to talk about.. However, we do not..

That really troubles me greatly. But anyone, you or the man in the moon, posts opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc., etc. which contradict the historic, evangelical, Trinitarian church, I'm afraid I am going to be right there posting the truth. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :flaming:

And, seeing as the KJV is obvioulsy a false Gospel, as you have pointed out that it doesn't actually mean what it says, and is incorrect in it's context, as one has to refer to the original or greek translation to get it right, I would make sure you make one big post about that, and inform all the Sunday Schools, Libraries, and all the millions of readers of the KJV.

1 John 2:4 . . .is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

07-15-2003 @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148866#post148866)
JCA:

OS: In 1 Tim 3:16, Jesus is called God manifest in the flesh.
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Yes, God was manifest in the flesh.. I have already stated that this could mean Gods morality as was manifest within Christ..

Seems to me that this could be saying that God was apparently manifesting his nature and morality through His Son, Christ. Gods morality and nature made Flesh.. begotten of God.. shared with His Son - who was a Human Being (Fully Human).

IN Love and Peace

JCA

It is evident that JCA disagrees with the KJV, he believes it is “obviously a false Gospel” because he changes, “God was manifest in the flesh to “this could mean Gods morality as was manifest within Christ..” “God was apparently manifesting his nature and morality through His Son, Christ”

AVmetro

July 18th 2003, 10:19 PM

Ron Macy and others-

I began this {linked below} thread a couple of days ago but I realize that some might not take notice of it if I don't announce it in this thread. Sorry about the inconvenience. :cwink:

If there are any points in this thread you would like me to address {image, Phil2 etc.} before I begin on the other thread, let me know. Otherwise I was going to take things one at a time.

God bless

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7343

Scott Gardner

July 23rd 2003, 03:38 AM

Because you do not find the word "trinity" in the bible does not make it a false teaching. The bible is clear on the concept of God-Son-Holy Spirit. The three work together. We them working together right from the beginning (Gen. 1:26). Also, we must remember that because a concept or teaching may pose it's difficulties doesn't make it a false teaching. Sometimes we assume that if we can't fully understand it, it must not be true. "God is in heaven and we are on earth."

Scott

AVmetro

July 23rd 2003, 05:42 PM

Scott Gardner:

Because you do not find the word "trinity" in the bible does not make it a false teaching. The bible is clear on the concept of God-Son-Holy Spirit. The three work together. We them working together right from the beginning (Gen. 1:26). Also, we must remember that because a concept or teaching may pose it's difficulties doesn't make it a false teaching. Sometimes we assume that if we can't fully understand it, it must not be true. "God is in heaven and we are on earth."

Scott

Ditto here.

The problem with Cal's proposition is that it requires a context which is indisputable in proving the 'Trinity'.

That is essentially why I have not participated in this thread. The argument will only end up being circular.

Any one context provided will be interpreted differently by Cal. The same goes for any biblical doctrine between two views. Arminianism vs Calvinism. Annihilationism vs Eternal torment. Works vs grace etc etc.

As some have mentioned earlier, I believe Matt28:19 provides exactly what Cal is asking for. His interpretation differs but that is expected but it is not an objection to a fulfillment of his request.

In his asking us "why is the doctrine of the Trinity different" he, by necessity, grants our view for the sake of argument yet questions why it is taught in a different fashion than, in his opinion, every other biblical doctrine.

He inquired as to why our doctine was "unique" in the regards he argued. From our view, said passage fits the bill quite nicely.

God bless

The_Chosen

November 24th 2003, 08:49 PM

Cal,

I personally have issues with believing in the Trinity as I have not seen any proof in the Bible for it. I personally think that Trinity could have been man's creation to make Jesus into God and thereby make him seem more credible as the Messiah. To me, the trinity is a precept I have always been taught to accept without question but I simply cannot when I do not see the evidence in the Bible that is beyond reproof.

AVmetro

November 24th 2003, 10:40 PM

The_Chosen:

Cal,

I personally have issues with believing in the Trinity as I have not seen any proof in the Bible for it. I personally think that Trinity could have been man's creation to make Jesus into God and thereby make him seem more credible as the Messiah. To me, the trinity is a precept I have always been taught to accept without question but I simply cannot when I do not see the evidence in the Bible that is beyond reproof.

Hi, Chosen_One,

Who told you not to question the doctrine? I've actually done just this and through personal bible study have come to the conclusion that the Trinity is in fact biblical. Perhaps you have a caricature in mind that does not accurately reflect the biblical view of the Trinity? Many people accept it simply as fact but do not delve into scripture to see what these beliefs are founded upon.

God bless--AV

The_Chosen

November 25th 2003, 09:33 AM

AV,

I grew up in an Indy Baptist church if that clears up where the no questioning issue came from. As for present day, I do question a great many things I was taught because personal study has shown them not to be entirely accurate. As to my understanding of the Trinity. What I was taught and what seems to be a fairly common belief on TWeb are pretty much the same thing. It is somewhat difficult to explain but let me try so you will have a better idea of what it is that I think of as Trinity:
God is one God. He is unchanging however, he has always had three natures that can be revealed as seperate entities ie. in the person of Jesus Christ or the giving of the Holy Spirit to the nations. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but He is also one, complete God. I wish I could remember the exact words of the best explanation I've ever heard for what the Trinity is but I cannot and the book from which it came is at home. Hopefully, if I remember, I will look when I get home and put it up later. Until then, there you have my understanding of the Trinity, correct as you see fit but please do provide scriptural references.

Scott Gardner

November 25th 2003, 12:36 PM

Good morning "chosen one" -
Let me share some scripture that might help get you going on what the bible says about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
"Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness..." (Gen. 1:26). Granted, this verse requires a lot of study but it is the first evidence we see of a plurality of creators. Also, the word God in Genesis 1:1 is plural (elohiym). The evidence of Jesus and the Father being equal is strong, " He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. (John 12:45). More references; Jesus existed from eternity (John 1:1-3), He is equal with God (Philippians 2:5-6), He forgave sins, (Mark 2:1-12), He is the son of God (John 3:16), He was God in the flesh (Matthew 1:23).
IS the Holy Spirit God? Again, I am convicned the evidence is strong. Consider these scriptures; We are to baptize in the name of all three (Matthew 28:19), He is all-powerful (Romans 8:11), He is God (Acts 5:3-4), Further study will show He has all the characteristics of Deity.
Here is a little analogy that helped me to understand the "trinity" (which by the way is a manmade term describing a sound biblical teaching). How many parts make up an egg? Three: (1) Shell, (2) Yoke), (3) Whites. All three are seperate yet all three make up the egg. They all have a different function yet they are complete.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Scott Gardner

AVmetro

November 25th 2003, 11:22 PM

Hi, Chosen!

I like to start with God's command against idolatry. That is, God's jealous nature. Now read Jn5:23 "..that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." The word "honor" in this verse carries the meaning of "to value". We are to 'value' the Son JUST AS we are to 'hold at value' the Father. Read Rev5:13. The "honor", "glory" and "praise" are given equally to both God and the Lamb by ALL of creation. All of creation was made FOR Christ (Col1:15-16) and this very creation is giving Christ the glory reserved for Him. I would think that Christ's preexistence (Jn1:1-14) and role in creation (Heb1:10-12..cf..Is45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Rom11:36) would tell us enough given that YHWH creatd "by {Him}self" (Is44:24).

God bless--AV

HotTippic

December 18th 2003, 11:55 AM

I did not have time to look through all the posts to see if this verse was mentioned, but in John 10, Christ clearly claims to be God, and even the Jews pick up on this claim, wanting to stone Him for what they clearly saw as blasphemy.

John 10:30-38
"I and the Father are one."
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of theses do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If the called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

Also, in John 14 (v 16-18), when Jesus promises the Holy Spirit, and said,

"And I will ask teh Father, and eh will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you now him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."

He is saying that the Holy Spirit will come to them, and in the next breath, that He will come to them, implying that he and the Spirit are one.
The textual note says, "The words relate to the coming of the Spirit, but Jesus also speaks of his own appearances after the resurrection and at his second coming."

There are many other verses which, when taken together can "prove" the doctrine of the Trinity, but most of those are in the letters. This passage, "proof" of the Trinity, is straight from Christs lips.

AVmetro

December 18th 2003, 07:29 PM

Hi, HT!

Don't forget to refer to vss 28-29 as well as 30 to see that Christ is setting Himself on equality with God.

Good luck on the 12 page paper! :help:

God bless--AVmetro

Ron Macy

December 21st 2003, 06:44 PM

AVmetro,

You wrote,

Don't forget to refer to vss 28-29 as well as 30 to see that Christ is setting Himself on equality with God.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because Jesus said no one could snatch believers out His hand and no one could snatch believers out of the Father’s hand makes Jesus and the Father equal in your mind. Is this correct?

I am going to go wildly out on a limb and state the Jews didn’t really believe Jesus was really claiming equality with God in this passage OR Jesus’ statements in verses 34-36 effectively proved to the Jews Jesus was not claiming equality with God.

The claim by the Jews is an example of hyperbole. They were taking Jesus statement of oneness, unity, with the Father to an exaggerated conclusion. They were attempting to portray Jesus’ words as blaspheme in order to get the people behind their desire to kill Jesus.

The foundational reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus is found in John 7:7. “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” This is illustrated again in Luke 4:28-30. Jesus makes no statements of His relationship with God, but instead points out their evil attitude. The people wanted to kill Jesus for that reason alone.

The second, possibly subordinate (as in being a part of the first reason), reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus is found in John 11:46-53. They didn’t care that Jesus was giving proof of His Messiahship in the miracles He performed, they were more interested in keeping people from following Jesus’ teachings and loosing their positions of power (v. 48).

The were continually trying to make a case against Jesus which the people would accept. This is brought out in Luke 6:7 and 11:53, 54 (See also John 8:6). Luke fills out the picture of the need to get the people to accept their accusations is in 22:2, the leaders were afraid of the people.

So, the only reason the Jews attempted to equate Jesus with God was to build a case for killing Jesus the people would accept. They didn’t really believe the accusations they made. They were just trying to make a case the people would support.

Ron

kofh2u

December 29th 2003, 01:08 PM

[QUOTE]06-16-2003 @ 09:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124691#post124691)
Cal_Minian:

My challenge to Trinitarians, should they choose to accept it, is to explain why the Trinity stands alone in this regards. Why is the Trinity considered an essential Christian teaching if not even one bible writer ever teaches it in context as a clear doctrine for Christians?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have been reluctant to answer you on this because I know a short response will hardly be either acceptable to you, or convincing enough to avoid my own long involvement in responding more thoroughly.

Nevertheless, though I will not promise to supply more information, I suggest to you that the Trinity which has been so clearly required of christians to promote in their proselytizing,...

... concerns the "hidden manna"... mentioned many times and many places.

That Christ has not been quoted more clearly in this is not strange. What he tells us in parables is different than the secrets revealed directly to his apostles, was it not?

The Trinity is reinforced, and yet still veiled, by remembering that we are discussing the Word, the God of a trinity of three men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

We remember this idea of a triad in that the Heaven, the Earth, and the Sea were created somewhat unassociated, directly, with the specific creations or works of the seven days.

What I am suggesting is that there is a coded somewhat hidden construction in the bibles which make all this matter of Trinity very important to the cabala of the secret manna.

Is this possible?
Of course, it is mention many times.
Is my answer satisfactory?
Probably not,...yet...

kofh2u

December 29th 2003, 01:39 PM

12-21-2003 @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350616#post350616)
Ron Macy:

....reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus is found in John 11:46-53. They didn’t care that Jesus was giving proof of His Messiahship in the miracles He performed, they were more interested in keeping people from following Jesus’ teachings and loosing their positions of power (v. 48).

Ron

You hit upon a very important point here. Jesus was in competition with the established and institutionalized religion of his time. We are speaking, then, of jobs, status, position, authority,... priesthoods and lay people in attendance...people who saw the masses meeting Jesus and his apostles, (two by two wasn't it?) who did something not really explained to us.

Imagine this today, with all the diverseness in opinion and belief here, just on this message board. What COULD Jesus and his 12 men have been doing that brought all those people to hear him?

Yes, he did "miracles," but as you know, faith healers are with us today. They hold their healing services, and they attract crowds, and they heal. But, what Jesus was doing threatened the established church as we know. Today, what these healers do is reinforce it. So, what was he doing?

I suggest that he was resurrecting the original dramatic and authentic presentation of scripture in the mode of the Kohanim.

These lay priest were once, before 900BC, endowed with the responsiblity for the dramatic Oral Presentation of the scriptures (Torah Shebikav).

Jesus was taking the daily reading of scripture out of the Temple, offering it for free, circumventing the larceny and monopoly of the Sadduccees and Pharisees. He was giving the food of the Lord for free in a world where the priesthood held the kingdom of heaven hostage, had the keys but would neither enter themselves, nor allow anyone else to do so.

Part of what the kohanim did required a validation of a special orientation of their the hands, the forming of a fist, as it were, Look at the closed fist, not the knucles, but across the triangular face of the thumb pressing against the index finger. See the ancient "Eye of providence" formed, clearly implying an eye in the space centered in the triangle?

(If you want an email showing graphics on this from the Encyclopedia Judaiac, write kofh@gis.net and I'll send attachments.)

Ron Macy

December 30th 2003, 07:47 AM

kofh2u,

While I appreciate the suggestion of support for my position in my last post, I am not sure I can go along with what you have presented in your post.

I believe Jesus’ actions were fully explained. He preached, taught, and healed. The fact there are “faith healers” today, should not be a comparison to the work Jesus did. Many of these healers, today, fail in their attempts to heal diseases. I know of none, today, who have been able to raise the dead. I think what Jesus did was entirely unique.

You wrote,

Part of what the kohanim did required a validation of a special orientation of their the hands, the forming of a fist, as it were, Look at the closed fist, not the knucles, but across the triangular face of the thumb pressing against the index finger. See the ancient "Eye of providence" formed, clearly implying an eye in the space centered in the triangle?

This sounds, to me, like some kind of secret sign required by secret societies. In my opinion, the Bible doesn’t suggest such secret societies are valid. They seem to go along with some gnostic concepts.

I would have to say we may differ in our opinions about what Jesus was teaching which upset the religious leaders of the day.

Ron

AVmetro

December 31st 2003, 03:34 AM

Hello, Ron,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because Jesus said no one could snatch believers out His hand and no one could snatch believers out of the Father’s hand makes Jesus and the Father equal in your mind. Is this correct?

Yes. In fact, that's what He said (vs30). To clarify, no I don't believe this speaks necessarily of "oneness of being" but is a relation to vss 28 and 29. Now, what do you think Christ's statement entails? If they're reaction is genuine, then His statement holds some blasphemous quality in their eyes.

I am going to go wildly out on a limb and state the Jews didn’t really believe Jesus was really claiming equality with God in this passage OR Jesus’ statements in verses 34-36 effectively proved to the Jews Jesus was not claiming equality with God.

The claim by the Jews is an example of hyperbole. They were taking Jesus statement of oneness, unity, with the Father to an exaggerated conclusion. They were attempting to portray Jesus’ words as blaspheme in order to get the people behind their desire to kill Jesus.

Is that really the reason. Or could it be that they genuinely
took His words for 'blasphemy'?

The foundational reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus is found in John 7:7. “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” This is illustrated again in Luke 4:28-30. Jesus makes no statements of His relationship with God, but instead points out their evil attitude. The people wanted to kill Jesus for that reason alone.

The second, possibly subordinate (as in being a part of the first reason), reason the Jews wanted to kill Jesus is found in John 11:46-53. They didn’t care that Jesus was giving proof of His Messiahship in the miracles He performed, they were more interested in keeping people from following Jesus’ teachings and loosing their positions of power (v. 48).

The were continually trying to make a case against Jesus which the people would accept. This is brought out in Luke 6:7 and 11:53, 54 (See also John 8:6). Luke fills out the picture of the need to get the people to accept their accusations is in 22:2, the leaders were afraid of the people.

So, the only reason the Jews attempted to equate Jesus with God was to build a case for killing Jesus the people would accept. They didn’t really believe the accusations they made. They were just trying to make a case the people would support.

Could not the above etc,. be necessary corollaries to other problems they had with Christ's ministry?

BTW, did you get this argument from a specific place like a book? I can't put my finger on it (the exact argument), but it brings back memories of debating CDs which means it may have come from Buzzard.

God bless--AV

kofh2u

January 1st 2004, 03:38 PM

Posted: 07-02-2003 at 03:52 AM

But back to the topic of this thread.
Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra”, i.e. “Word” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The "Memra", i.e. "The Word", was God. John wasn’t saying anything new.

-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it."; "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God", but "the Memra", is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra" instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul", "My Memra" shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand", but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...mp;amp;letter=M

Where did the concept of a Trinity originate? Answer, ancient pre-Christian Judaism. Let us refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) again.

But the scoffers scoff, “The Jews reject the Trinity!” Not a good argument, at all, they also reject Jesus and say that the issue, i.e. the child, of a gentile, is as that of a beast, and an ass, in the same JE.

In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its [Note, the Zohar. OS] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "ma?ronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Ma??eh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Olsshep...
Great scholarship!
This is all relevant to the "hidden manna" of Revelation and to the meaning of Revelation 1:16,20.... if not ALL Revelation!

kofh2u

January 1st 2004, 06:18 PM

Faith healing... not only today, but by the apostles then, too, remember.

The placebo effect even works with modern medicine as well today,... and statistics tell us that support groups delay the progress of cancer and add years to the lives of heart patients. All of this recommends a brotherly relationship with others, and testifies to the power of the kingdom within, the mind.

In this, I see the image of God in us, in our mental abstraction of the cosmos outside ourselves, at work.

I am particularly attracted to the Gospel emphasis on raising the dead, and I see in this an implied hint at the resurrection if the Kohanim lay priesthood who ince served the function of Oral Torah.

Griffin

January 3rd 2004, 10:42 PM

Cal, a few points:

First I must say that I am cautious about defining which doctrines are essential for salvation because it is by grace through faith. As God is sovereign I cheerfully let Him make the call on who is saved.

Secondly, it seems clear that some measure of right knowledge (doctrine) is essential. If I trust for my salvation in a tree stump that I have named YHWH I'm (going to be) in a big heap of hurt.

Thirdly, I am troubled by the logical loophole that occurs in your final statement:
"... my focus is on why the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine considered essential ... when it is not taught by any bible writer in the same manner as all true essentail doctrines."
This begs the question and allows you to decide whih doctrines are worthy, true, and essential and which are tripe.

I am a trinitarian because God being three-in-one is what best fits the inspired data provided. From what I've seen, those who hold to a contrary position have more explaining to do. Shave the whole of Scripture with Occam's razor.

I am a trinitarian because this is the belief that I have been taught. I did consider monist interpretation when I was trying to understand the teachings of scripture ( I had not come across the term at that time.); I couldn't make monism fit. We can read trinitarianist words written by some of the earliest Church Fathers.

I am a trinitarian because understanding God ( Please don't interpret this to mean finite, broken me can grasp the Infinite Holy One.) this way best fits my life experiences and observations. There are fundamental threesomes in every area of human experience.

Finally, you use the example of the doctrine of baptism. This is too a composite from various Scriptural sources:
"... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
" Do you not know? We are baptized into His {Christ's] death."
"'What must we do to be saved?''Repent and be baptized, each one of you."
Etc., et al.
You wrote:
"We do not need to derive the concept of Baptism by taking an “immersion” verse, a “water” verse and a “repentance” verse and through “systematic theology” create the new concept of “Baptism.” The bible writers have already combined those elements for us so that we know it is indeed an essential bible teaching."
But this is exactly what we must do to undestand the doctrine of baptism. Why shoud you hold trinitarians to a different standard than you use for something you acknowledge to be an essential Bible teaching?

Ron Macy

January 4th 2004, 04:34 PM

AVmetro,

I wrote and you responded,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because Jesus said no one could snatch believers out His hand and no one could snatch believers out of the Father’s hand makes Jesus and the Father equal in your mind. Is this correct?

Yes. In fact, that's what He said (vs30). To clarify, no I don't believe this speaks necessarily of "oneness of being" but is a relation to vss 28 and 29. Now, what do you think Christ's statement entails? If they're reaction is genuine, then His statement holds some blasphemous quality in their eyes.

I believe the thing one must consider in verses 28 and 29 is the phrase, “My Father, who has given them to Me,…” If there is true equality, Jesus would not be receiving anything from the Father. Jesus would possess them on His own. What one can see here is Jesus has the believers in His hands (control) and Jesus, Himself, is in His Father’s hands (control). Since God will not lose Jesus from His hands, Jesus will not lose believers from His hands.

You wrote,

Is that really the reason. Or could it be that they genuinely took His words for 'blasphemy'?

They may have genuinely taken Jesus’ words as blasphemy. I doubt it, but it is possible. I believe Jesus ably defended His statement as non-blasphemous and in such a way it the accusation was never repeated. At least in relation this statement.

You wrote,

Could not the above etc,. be necessary corollaries to other problems they had with Christ's ministry?

BTW, did you get this argument from a specific place like a book? I can't put my finger on it (the exact argument), but it brings back memories of debating CDs which means it may have come from Buzzard.

I am not sure I understand what corollaries you have in mind. These reasons for wanting Jesus out of the way come from all four gospels (I believe). It is more consistent than any other accusation.

“Did you get this argument from a specific place like a book?”

I don’t remember. It is one of those things which has floated around in my mind for so long it seems like it is my own. It may well be something Buzzard wrote. There are so few original ideas.

You wrote as if Anthony Buzzard is a Christadelphian. Remember, he isn’t.

Griffin,

You responded to Cal Minian,

Thirdly, I am troubled by the logical loophole that occurs in your final statement:
"... my focus is on why the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine considered essential ... when it is not taught by any bible writer in the same manner as all true essentail doctrines."
This begs the question and allows you to decide whih doctrines are worthy, true, and essential and which are tripe.

I don’t see a logical loophole. Belief in the trinity is required by many for salvation, but it is a doctrine which is not taught in the scriptures. The only question begged is why would one want to believe in a doctrine not taught in the scriptures? Are you saying the trinity should be believed even if it isn’t taught in the scriptures? Aren’t you deciding what is worthy, true, and essential without having any substantiation in the scriptures?

Ron

AVmetro

January 29th 2004, 12:17 AM

Hi, Ron,

I never received an email notification for this and only now took notice of it. Sorry for the delay.

You stated:

Ron Macy:

I believe the thing one must consider in verses 28 and 29 is the phrase, “My Father, who has given them to Me,…” If there is true equality, Jesus would not be receiving anything from the Father. Jesus would possess them on His own.

I don't see why this would be a problem under the Trinitarian model. Most anti-Trins treat the interelation between the Father and Son as if it's damaging to our position. Yet I fail to see this as problematic for "true equality" to be in place. Functional role does not necessarily reflect ontology. Husband and wife would be such an example. Yet in this context, we actually have an equality of role (see again, vss 28, 29). As to your last statement, see Col1:15-16 "..all things made through Him and _for_ Him." (Cf. Is 43:6-7). Given or not, this statment alone entails Christ's true deity.

Ron Macy cont.:

What one can see here is Jesus has the believers in His hands (control) and Jesus, Himself, is in His Father’s hands (control). Since God will not lose Jesus from His hands, Jesus will not lose believers from His hands.

I believe this interpretation takes more eisegesis than exegesis. I take vs 30 to imply otherwise from what you posit above.

Ron Macy stated:

They may have genuinely taken Jesus’ words as blasphemy. I doubt it, but it is possible. I believe Jesus ably defended His statement as non-blasphemous and in such a way it the accusation was never repeated. At least in relation this statement.

I suppose we'll simpy have to disagree, although, IMHO, the context seems to suggest none other than a genuine accusation. I certainly can't see why not given the reaction occured after His statement. As for your last statement on "repeated", see vs 38-39.

Ron Macy stated:

I am not sure I understand what corollaries you have in mind. These reasons for wanting Jesus out of the way come from all four gospels (I believe). It is more consistent than any other accusation.

I wouldn't see your view as exclusive and I don't think the context in this case supports that view, to be short and sweet about it.

Ron Macy stated:

“Did you get this argument from a specific place like a book?”

I don’t remember. It is one of those things which has floated around in my mind for so long it seems like it is my own. It may well be something Buzzard wrote. There are so few original ideas.

Okay, thanks.

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote as if Anthony Buzzard is a Christadelphian. Remember, he isn’t.

If it appeared that way, I didn't intend it to. Most of the CDs I've debated are heavily reliant upon his book.

God bless you--AV

Ron Macy

January 31st 2004, 09:05 PM

AVmetro,

Functional role does not necessarily reflect ontology.

Please provide the Bible passages which define the difference between this functional role and the ontological role. I would expect something like, “While the Father and Son are separate and equal persons inside the nature of God, they act in the relationship of a son who is subordinate to his father.”

It is my opinion the distinction between the so-called functional roles and ontological equality is a contrived distinction made because the language of the New Testament does not allow for a trinitarian understanding of God. The concept of a multi-person God is foreign to the scripture, but those who want to believe in a triune god must explain away the words of the scripture which make clear the distinction between Jesus and God. It is also part of the reason you must be ambigious in your use of the word, God. “Yes, it says 'God' here, but it must really mean…” because you must maintain your desire for the trinity to be true.

Yet in this context, we actually have an equality of role (see again, vss 28, 29).

No, you interpret it as an equality of role.

All that can be said is they exercise control over the same things. When Jesus said, “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all…” I believe He is defining his inequality with God. I believe the Jews understood this and in spite of their desire to kill Jesus in this situation, they knew Jesus never claimed to be equal to God and they knew Jesus never claimed to be God.

They wanted to kill Jesus because He was pointing out their sin in not accepting Him as the Messiah. He made the statement in verse 25, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.” He is speaking of the authority (authority He didn’t have on His own) to do the miracles He did.

He repeated the same thought in verses 37 and 38 when He said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Jesus is telling them His relationship to God is proven by the miracles He has done. They are angry because if they were to accept that relationship as real they would have to admit their own sin and repent of it. They are not about to do that.

They may have genuinely taken Jesus’ words as blasphemy. I doubt it, but it is possible. I believe Jesus ably defended His statement as non-blasphemous and in such a way it the accusation was never repeated. At least in relation this statement.

I suppose we'll simpy have to disagree, although, IMHO, the context seems to suggest none other than a genuine accusation. I certainly can't see why not given the reaction occured after His statement. As for your last statement on "repeated", see vs 38-39.

There is nothing in verses 38-39 which repeats the accusation of Jesus making Himself out to be God. See my comments above.

A Crucial Point

Let me bring out what I believe is a crucial point in what the Jews believed or didn’t believe about Jesus.

Study the presentations of the trial of Jesus before the Council in John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64; and Luke 22:66-71.

The point to consider is represented by Matthew 26:59 and Mark 14:55

Matthew 26:59
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.

Mark 14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.

If they really believed the accusation they made in John 10:33, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” and if they really believed the accusation they made in John 5:18, “…making Himself equal with God.” and if they really believed the accusation attributed to them associated with John 8:58 they would have had no reason to obtain false testimony in order to find a reason to put Jesus to death. All they would have had to do was repeat the accusations made in those instances and their case would be made.

In my opinion, there can only be two conclusions to be reached about the accusations they made.

1. They were only extending what Jesus said to an illogical conclusion in an attempt to convince the people Jesus should die and, in fact, did not really believe their own accusation.

2. They honestly made the accusation and Jesus successfully refuted the arguments both to their minds and the minds of the people.

I believe the lack of accusations of Jesus’ claiming equality with God or accusations Jesus claiming to be God at this trial is proof to me these leaders never believed Jesus claimed equality with God nor believed Jesus claimed to be God.

Ron

AVmetro

January 31st 2004, 10:39 PM

Hi, Ron,

Thanks for the reply. I'll provide my response at the same time I will the other within the same time span. Thanks.

God bless you--AV

AVmetro

February 18th 2004, 10:17 PM

Hello, Ron,

I'm having a hard time keeping track of where and what I've posted (!). Thanks for bearing with me.

You stated:

Ron Macy:

Please provide the Bible passages which define the difference between this functional role and the ontological role. I would expect something like, “While the Father and Son are separate and equal persons inside the nature of God, they act in the relationship of a son who is subordinate to his father.”

I did provide example along those lines in my last post, this thread. The example of husband and wife. Although they do not constitute "one being" per se, I think the example demonstrates why function does not reflect ontology. The point here is not "oneness of being" but whether or not function necessarily reflects ontology.

Ron, you need to remember that you are the one proposing arguments which you feel refute the Trinity. Hence the reason I am explaining why in regards to actual Trinitarian beliefs, they do no such thing. And I do so my expounding on my beliefs in order to reveal to you why you're in essence attacking a strawman or else your own idea of what God can or cannot be like. In these instances, I am pointing out the lack of need to refute your argument not proving _my_ position.

Lastly, I _can_ demonstrate what you request above. I have explained how in another thread and I'm certain here as well.

Ron Macy stated:

It is my opinion the distinction between the so-called functional roles and ontological equality is a contrived distinction made because the language of the New Testament does not allow for a trinitarian understanding of God.

Or could it perhaps be because the scriptures portray God as Triune with subordination within that Triune Godhead? Could it be that the Trinitarian _genuinely_ sees this as sound, substantiated scriptural teaching? Yes. I employ theological "shorthand" for sake of time not for lack of scriptural substantiation. I believe scripture accomodates the Trinitarian doctrine _perfectly_. If the Unitarian would cease attacking caricatures and arguing from "how they feel" God should be like (e.g. a unitarian a priori etc.), we wouldn't have this general, recurrent problem.

Ron Macy stated:

The concept of a multi-person God is foreign to the scripture,

Ron, don't you think this is asserting your case beforehand? Not I, or any other Trinitarian is simply going to take your word for it.

Ron Macy stated:

but those who want to believe in a triune god must explain away the words of the scripture which make clear the distinction between Jesus and God.

[quote]Ron Macy stated:

It is also part of the reason you must be ambigious in your use of the word, God. “Yes, it says 'God' here, but it must really mean…” because you must maintain your desire for the trinity to be true.

Rather, I simply allow for the word qeoV to apply to any one member of the Godhead or the Godhead in toto depending on context. I feel you have a theological bias for limiting it to the _Father_ and you feel the same in regards to my view. However, you need to see that your view isn't necessitated over mine. At least as far as I have seen the evidence go.

Believe me, if I didn't feel the Trinity was a biblical doctrine, I wouldn't believe it. To say that I do so merely to "maintain a desire" is tantamount to labeling myself and other Trinitarians as "dishonest." Far from the truth.

Ron Macy stated:

No, you interpret it as an equality of role.

All that can be said is they exercise control over the same things.

Yet let's note what these same things are. Christ has a point by stating that the Father is "greater than all" and how this relates to His ablility to keep safely those in His hand. What is this point? The Father's being "greater than all" is the _basis_ for the security of the believer. Christ then equates Himself with the Father in these regards by applying the same ability to Himself. This is the significance of vs 30 "I and the Father are one." How do these Jews respond to this equal ability? "Hey, you're making yourself God!" See the picture? This is precisely why the reaction of the Jews was so strong and so entirely _expected_.

Ron Macy stated:

When Jesus said, “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all…” I believe He is defining his inequality with God. I believe the Jews understood this and in spite of their desire to kill Jesus in this situation, they knew Jesus never claimed to be equal to God and they knew Jesus never claimed to be God.

Note that you say, "I _believe_ He is defining his inequality with God." The evidence you provide of such only presents what Trinitarians adhere to and teach as I explained above. More below..

Ron Macy stated:

They wanted to kill Jesus because He was pointing out their sin in not accepting Him as the Messiah. He made the statement in verse 25, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.” He is speaking of the authority (authority He didn’t have on His own) to do the miracles He did.

The miracles He worked validate who He claims to be. Therefore, if the Jews charged Him with being "X" then His appeal to His works would be a validation of "X" (hence your comment about "believing who He is only you say "Messiah"'). So this is actually precisely in line with what a Trinitarian would expect.

Ron Macy stated:

He repeated the same thought in verses 37 and 38 when He said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Jesus is telling them His relationship to God is proven by the miracles He has done. They are angry because if they were to accept that relationship as real they would have to admit their own sin and repent of it. They are not about to do that.

This I believe is eisegesis as it is nowhere indicated in the text that _this_ is the "real reason" why they wanted to take His life in this particular context. As to my view, it is clearly stated in vs 31. You simply reject it as a facade on their part.

Ron Macy stated:

There is nothing in verses 38-39 which repeats the accusation of Jesus making Himself out to be God. See my comments above.
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me." Do you not believe this statment is equatable with "I and the Father are one"? How else would you interpret that latter? Hence your argument that He didn't argue "in such a way [that] the accusation was ever repeated" is false unless the two statement imply entirely different ideas.

Ron Macy stated:

A Crucial Point

Let me bring out what I believe is a crucial point in what the Jews believed or didn’t believe about Jesus.

Study the presentations of the trial of Jesus before the Council in John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64; and Luke 22:66-71.

...8<...

If they really believed the accusation they made in John 10:33, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” and if they really believed the accusation they made in John 5:18, “…making Himself equal with God.” and if they really believed the accusation attributed to them associated with John 8:58 they would have had no reason to obtain false testimony in order to find a reason to put Jesus to death. All they would have had to do was repeat the accusations made in those instances and their case would be made.

In my opinion, there can only be two conclusions to be reached about the accusations they made.

1. They were only extending what Jesus said to an illogical conclusion in an attempt to convince the people Jesus should die and, in fact, did not really believe their own accusation.

2. They honestly made the accusation and Jesus successfully refuted the arguments both to their minds and the minds of the people.

I believe the lack of accusations of Jesus’ claiming equality with God or accusations Jesus claiming to be God at this trial is proof to me these leaders never believed Jesus claimed equality with God nor believed Jesus claimed to be God.

Yes, this is perhaps the third or fourth time this argument has been proposed to me from the Unitarian camp across several different forums. It's not a crucial point its an inconsistent one. I'll provide you the same response I provided them:

Are you telling me that they're being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior and yet are at the same time "dishonest" in needing to bring forth false witnesses? Don't you think this a little inconsistent?

Not all of Christ's actions were "miscontrued" whether they were claims to deity or not so according to your reasoning we should expect at least some of them to be brought to mention as evidence of His being a rebel, a madman, etc. Yet they are not.

Were all those present during the events of John 8:58 etc. present at the trial _in order to_ bring forth their charge?

Ron, whether or not they _genuinely believed_ that Christ was who He said He was or who they construed Him to say He was is irrelevant. As to your last statement, yes, John 10:31. This is _exactly_ the charge they made. Are you asserting that they were too "honest" to bring _this_ charge up at the trial?

The objection you pose is actually a question you need to answer as well. Yes, Ron, WHY didn't the Jews bring up _any_ of the charges previously made towards Christ? If you don't believe they attempted to stone Him at John 8:58 for staking a claim to deity, then _what_ do you believe they reacted so strongly to? Some say "mere preexistence." Let's use that example. Whatever the reason, why not bring _this_ particular charge up at the trial?

God bless--AV

Ron Macy

February 23rd 2004, 11:11 PM

AVmetro,

I [i]did[i] provide example along those lines in my last post, this thread. The example of husband and wife. Although they do not constitute "one being" per se, I think the example demonstrates why function does not reflect ontology. The point here is not "oneness of being" but whether or not function necessarily reflects ontology.

Ron, you need to remember that you are the one proposing arguments which you feel refute the Trinity. Hence the reason I am explaining why in regards to actual Trinitarian beliefs, they do no such thing. And I do so my expounding on my beliefs in order to reveal to you why you're in essence attacking a strawman or else your own idea of what God can or cannot be like. In these instances, I am pointing out the lack of need to refute your argument not proving _my_ position.

Lastly, I _can_ demonstrate what you request above. I have explained how in another thread and I'm certain here as well.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I fail to see how Colossians 1:15, 16 explains the deity of Jesus. Jesus is described as the image, eikon, of God. Jesus use this same word in Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 refering to the image of Caesar on a coin. An image is a representation of something else. Paul is clearly saying Jesus represents God and with this language makes it impossible for Jesus to be God.

The part of the passage you quoted, “…all things made through Him and _for_ Him” is not proof of Jesus being God. I believe Paul is speaking of the new creation similar to what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and not the original creation. The new creation was made possible because of the sacrifice Jesus made. Your reference to Isaiah 43:6-7 was not helpful in understanding you point.

Ron Macy stated:

A Crucial Point

Let me bring out what I believe is a crucial point in what the Jews believed or didn’t believe about Jesus.

Study the presentations of the trial of Jesus before the Council in John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64; and Luke 22:66-71.

...8<...

If they really believed the accusation they made in John 10:33, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” and if they really believed the accusation they made in John 5:18, “…making Himself equal with God.” and if they really believed the accusation attributed to them associated with John 8:58 they would have had no reason to obtain false testimony in order to find a reason to put Jesus to death. All they would have had to do was repeat the accusations made in those instances and their case would be made.

In my opinion, there can only be two conclusions to be reached about the accusations they made.

1. They were only extending what Jesus said to an illogical conclusion in an attempt to convince the people Jesus should die and, in fact, did not really believe their own accusation.

2. They honestly made the accusation and Jesus successfully refuted the arguments both to their minds and the minds of the people.

I believe the lack of accusations of Jesus’ claiming equality with God or accusations Jesus claiming to be God at this trial is proof to me these leaders never believed Jesus claimed equality with God nor believed Jesus claimed to be God.

Yes, this is perhaps the third or fourth time this argument has been proposed to me from the Unitarian camp across several different forums. It's not a crucial point its an inconsistent one. I'll provide you the same response I provided them:

Are you telling me that they're being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior and yet are at the same time "dishonest" in needing to bring forth false witnesses? Don't you think this a little inconsistent?

I am curious about where you have seen this presented before. Could you point me to the web sites where this was presented?

No, I don’t believe they were “being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior…” These men were not honest in any sense of the word. I am presenting what I believe they believed.

If they really believed the accusations they made in the passages listed, they would have held to those accusations at this critical point in time. When a prosecutor goes into court to convict someone of a crime, he brings his strongest evidence with him. If these men really believed Jesus was making Himself equal with God or portraying Himself as God, they would have brought that case to this trial. Instead, there were flimsy attempts to bring liars to accuse Jesus.

The total absence of the repetition of these accusations in the council session proves to me they truly didn’t believe their own accusations.

Let me remind you of their argument for killing Jesus presented in John 11:46-50. There was no discussion of how Jesus claimed to be God or equal to God. There was no discussion of Jesus blaspheming. There was only discussion of what they would lose if the common people continued to believe Jesus was the Messiah. Every argument they presented against Jesus in public was an attempt to discredit Jesus in the minds of the common people. They didn’t care if the accusation was true or false. Their only goal was to get rid of Jesus without the common people rising up and throwing them out.

In my opinion, trinitarians pick and choose what they want to accept from the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees based on what they want to believe and not on what the Bible acutally teaches. You reached the following conclusion about my presentation.

It is also part of the reason you must be ambigious in your use of the word, God. “Yes, it says 'God' here, but it must really mean…” because you must maintain your desire for the trinity to be true.

To say that I do so merely to "maintain a desire" is tantamount to labeling myself and other Trinitarians as "dishonest."

What would you call it when people accept as truth the accusations the Pharisees and Sadducees made in John 10:33; John 5:18; and their supposed accusation in John 8:58 and not also accept as truth the accusations they made in

Matthew 9:34 (“He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”);

Matthew 11:19 (“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'…”);

Matthew 12:24 (“But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."”);

Mark 3:22 (“The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."”);

Luke 7:34 (“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'”);

Luke 11:15 (“But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons."”);

John 7:20 (“The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?"”);

John 8:48 (“The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"”);

John 8:52 (“The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.'”)

John 10:20 (“He has a demon and is insane.”);

It is at the very least inconsistent. I would say it is better to reject all of their accusations as from an illegitimate and unreliable source. They simply cannot be trusted to accurately reflect what Jesus intended to teach.

To support this thought I again remind everyone of Jesus’ own words in Matthew 16:6 and 12.

And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus was very specific in warning against the things the Pharisees and Sadducees teach. I would label their accusations as teachings. They were trying to teach/convince the people Jesus was a worthless man who shouldn’t be followed.

It certainly seems to me there is no reason to accept anything the Jewish leaders said as “gospel.”

Not all of Christ's actions were "miscontrued" whether they were claims to deity or not so according to your reasoning we should expect at least some of them to be brought to mention as evidence of His being a rebel, a madman, etc. Yet they are not.

I believe the same logic applies to these accusations as well. They never really believed their own accusations. They were simply trying to convince the common people Jesus shouldn’t be followed.

Were all those present during the events of John 8:58 etc. present at the trial _in order to_ bring forth their charge?

I don’t have any way of knowing the answer to this question. As I said before, if a prosecuting attorney wants to convict someone of a crime, they present their best evidence, they make sure their most convincing witnesses are present. No one repeated the accusation made by the religious leaders during the trial.

Ron, whether or not they _genuinely believed_ that Christ was who He said He was or who they construed Him to say He was is irrelevant. As to your last statement, yes, John 10:31. This is _exactly_ the charge they made. Are you asserting that they were too "honest" to bring _this_ charge up at the trial?

I am not sure what you said makes sense.

You said it didn’t make any difference what these men believed or how they interpreted (construed) the words of Jesus. Yet, in the very next sentence you say their desire to stone Jesus can only mean they interpreted Jesus’s words as meaning He was God. You either believe their interpretation or you don’t believe their interpretation. You can’t have it both ways.

These men wanted to kill Jesus for the same reason the people in the synagogue in Capernaum wanted to kill Jesus in Luke 4:24-30. They were filled with rage. That rage had nothing to do with Jesus claiming to be God in Capernaum. It had to do with the evil in their hearts (John 3:19-21; 7:7).

The example of husband and wife. Although they do not constitute "one being" per se, I think the example demonstrates why function does not reflect ontology. The point here is not "oneness of being" but whether or not function necessarily reflects ontology.

I need you to explain this a little more. How can a husband and wife who are not “‘one being’ per se” clearly illustrate the difference between function and ontology. The only thing a man an woman can illustrate is unity and not oneness. It is unity with God which Jesus claimed and not oneness.

Ron

kofh2u

February 24th 2004, 12:55 AM

AVmetro,

Colossians 1
15 He is the image IAS IN THE ABSTRACT MIND) of the invisible God (FATHER NATURE), the firstborn (HOMOIOUSIAN REALIST) of all creation.
16 For by Him (THE EVOLVED HOMOIOUSIAN MIND) all things were created (TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SCHEME OF MENTAL UNDERSTANDING), both in the heavens (MENTAL WORLD WITHIN) and on earth (PHYSICAL REALITIES), visible (CONCRETE AND MATERIAL) and invisible (WORKINGS OF NATURAL LAWS), whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities( WHETHER SOCIOLOGICAL OR NATURAL)--all things have been created through Him (THINKING) and for Him (BY THE UNIVERSAL POWER).

HOW CAN ANUONE... fail to see how Colossians 1:15, 16 explains the deity of Jesus. Jesus is described as the image, eikon, of God.

The part of the passage you quoted, “…all things made through Him and _for_ Him” is not proof of Jesus being God. I believe Paul is speaking of the new creation similar to what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and not the original creation. The new creation was made possible because of the sacrifice Jesus made.

Ron

AVmetro,

Colossians 1
15 He is the image IAS IN THE ABSTRACT MIND) of the invisible God (FATHER NATURE), the firstborn (HOMOIOUSIAN REALIST) of all creation.
16 For by Him (THE EVOLVED HOMOIOUSIAN MIND) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I fail to see how Colossians 1:15, 16 explains the deity of Jesus. Jesus is described as the image, eikon, of God.

The part of the passage you quoted, “…all things made through Him and _for_ Him” is not proof of Jesus being God. I believe Paul is speaking of the new creation similar to what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and not the original creation. The new creation was made possible because of the sacrifice Jesus made.

Ron

I took the liberty of adding the translation from the Freudian Bible Translation in the verses you mentioned above.

Consider thus also:

Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let the Natural Laws make man's mind, a microcosmos, in our image, after our orderly organization: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female created he them.

FINALLY, I OFFER THIS 21st Century interpretation:

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy into this irrepressible idea emerging from the ancient scriptures, that thou mayest continue religious leadership; and revise the books of your misinterpretations, that thou mayest be protected from such shame as visited in Geocentricism; and apprise thine thinking with secularly acceptable scripture confirmations, that thou mayest realize the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities.

Rev. 3:19 As many Modern Homo Sapiens as I love, I evaluate their
adaptation and permit even their extinction: be reflectful therefore,
and learn.

Ron Macy

February 25th 2004, 10:15 PM

AVmetro,

I [i]did[i] provide example along those lines in my last post, this thread. The example of husband and wife. Although they do not constitute "one being" per se, I think the example demonstrates why function does not reflect ontology. The point here is not "oneness of being" but whether or not function necessarily reflects ontology.

Ron, you need to remember that you are the one proposing arguments which you feel refute the Trinity. Hence the reason I am explaining why in regards to actual Trinitarian beliefs, they do no such thing. And I do so my expounding on my beliefs in order to reveal to you why you're in essence attacking a strawman or else your own idea of what God can or cannot be like. In these instances, I am pointing out the lack of need to refute your argument not proving _my_ position.

Lastly, I _can_ demonstrate what you request above. I have explained how in another thread and I'm certain here as well.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I fail to see how Colossians 1:15, 16 explains the deity of Jesus. Jesus is described as the image, eikon, of God. Jesus use this same word in Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 refering to the image of Caesar on a coin. An image is a representation of something else. Paul is clearly saying Jesus represents God and with this language makes it impossible for Jesus to be God.

The part of the passage you quoted, “…all things made through Him and _for_ Him” is not proof of Jesus being God. I believe Paul is speaking of the new creation similar to what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and not the original creation. The new creation was made possible because of the sacrifice Jesus made. Your reference to Isaiah 43:6-7 was not helpful in understanding you point.

Ron Macy stated:

A Crucial Point

Let me bring out what I believe is a crucial point in what the Jews believed or didn’t believe about Jesus.

Study the presentations of the trial of Jesus before the Council in John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64; and Luke 22:66-71.

...8<...

If they really believed the accusation they made in John 10:33, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” and if they really believed the accusation they made in John 5:18, “…making Himself equal with God.” and if they really believed the accusation attributed to them associated with John 8:58 they would have had no reason to obtain false testimony in order to find a reason to put Jesus to death. All they would have had to do was repeat the accusations made in those instances and their case would be made.

In my opinion, there can only be two conclusions to be reached about the accusations they made.

1. They were only extending what Jesus said to an illogical conclusion in an attempt to convince the people Jesus should die and, in fact, did not really believe their own accusation.

2. They honestly made the accusation and Jesus successfully refuted the arguments both to their minds and the minds of the people.

I believe the lack of accusations of Jesus’ claiming equality with God or accusations Jesus claiming to be God at this trial is proof to me these leaders never believed Jesus claimed equality with God nor believed Jesus claimed to be God.

Yes, this is perhaps the third or fourth time this argument has been proposed to me from the Unitarian camp across several different forums. It's not a crucial point its an inconsistent one. I'll provide you the same response I provided them:

Are you telling me that they're being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior and yet are at the same time "dishonest" in needing to bring forth false witnesses? Don't you think this a little inconsistent?

I am curious about where you have see this presented before. Could you point me to the web sites where this was presented?

No, I don’t believe they were “being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior…” These men were not honest in any sense of the word. I am presenting what I believe they believed.

If they really believed the accusations they made in the passages listed, they would have held to those accusations at this critical point in time. When a prosecutor goes into court to convict someone of a crime, he brings his strongest evidence with him. If these men really believed Jesus was making Himself equal with God or portraying Himself as God, they would have brought that case to this trial. Instead, there were flimsy attempts to bring liars to accuse Jesus.

The total absence of the repetition of these accusations in the council session proves to me they truly didn’t believe their own accusations.

Let me remind you of their argument for killing Jesus presented in John 11:46-50. There was no discussion of how Jesus claimed to be God or equal to God. There was no discussion of Jesus blaspheming. There was only discussion of what they would lose if the common people continued to believe Jesus was the Messiah. Every argument they presented against Jesus in public was an attempt to discredit Jesus in the minds of the common people. They didn’t care if the accusation was true or false. Their only goal was to get rid of Jesus without the common people rising up and throwing them out.

In my opinion, trinitarians pick and choose what they want to accept from the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees based on what they want to believe and not on what the Bible acutally teaches. You reached the following conclusion about my presentation.

It is also part of the reason you must be ambigious in your use of the word, God. “Yes, it says 'God' here, but it must really mean…” because you must maintain your desire for the trinity to be true.

To say that I do so merely to "maintain a desire" is tantamount to labeling myself and other Trinitarians as "dishonest."

What would you call it when people accept as truth the accusations the Pharisees and Sadducees made in John 10:33; John 5:18; and their supposed accusation in John 8:58 and not also accept as truth the accusations they made in

Matthew 9:34 (“He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”);
Matthew 11:19 (“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'…”);
Matthew 12:24 (“But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."”);
Mark 3:22 (“The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."”);
Luke 7:34 (“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'”);
Luke 11:15 (“But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons."”);
John 7:20 (“The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?"”);
John 8:48 (“The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"”);
John 8:52 (“The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.'”)
John 10:20 (“He has a demon and is insane.”);

It is at the very least inconsistent. I would say it is better to reject all of their accusations as from an illegitimate and unreliable source. They simply cannot be trusted to accurately reflect what Jesus intended to teach.

To support this thought I again remind everyone of Jesus’ own words in Matthew 16:6 and 12.

And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus was very specific in warning against the things the Pharisees and Sadducees teach. I would label their accusations as teachings. They were trying to teach/convince the people Jesus was a worthless man who shouldn’t be followed.

It certainly seems to me there is no reason to accept anything the Jewish leaders said as “gospel.”

Not all of Christ's actions were "miscontrued" whether they were claims to deity or not so according to your reasoning we should expect at least some of them to be brought to mention as evidence of His being a rebel, a madman, etc. Yet they are not.

I believe the same logic applies to these accusations as well. They never really believed their own accusations. They were simply trying to convince the common people Jesus shouldn’t be followed.

Were all those present during the events of John 8:58 etc. present at the trial _in order to_ bring forth their charge?

I don’t have any way of knowing the answer to this question. As I said before, if a prosecuting attorney wants to convict someone of a crime, they present their best evidence, they make sure their most convincing witnesses are present. No one repeated the accusation made by the religious leaders during the trial.

Ron, whether or not they _genuinely believed_ that Christ was who He said He was or who they construed Him to say He was is irrelevant. As to your last statement, yes, John 10:31. This is _exactly_ the charge they made. Are you asserting that they were too "honest" to bring _this_ charge up at the trial?

I am not sure what you said makes sense.

You said it didn’t make any difference what these men believed or how they interpreted (construed) the words of Jesus. Yet, in the very next sentence you say their desire to stone Jesus can only mean they interpreted Jesus’s words as meaning He was God. You either believe their interpretation or you don’t believe their interpretation. You can’t have it both ways.

These men wanted to kill Jesus for the same reason the people in the synagogue in Capernaum wanted to kill Jesus in Luke 4:24-30. They were filled with rage. That rage had nothing to do with Jesus claiming to be God in Capernaum. It had to do with the evil in their hearts (John 3:19-21; 7:7).

The example of husband and wife. Although they do not constitute "one being" per se, I think the example demonstrates why function does not reflect ontology. The point here is not "oneness of being" but whether or not function necessarily reflects ontology.

I need you to explain this a little more. How can a husband and wife who are not “‘one being’ per se” clearly illustrate the difference between function and ontology. The only thing a man an woman can illustrate is unity and not oneness. It is unity with God which Jesus claimed and not oneness.

Ron

AVmetro

February 25th 2004, 11:13 PM

Hi, Ron,

I've been burning leaves for the past two days and have one of those smoke headaches. Bear with me :-)

Ron Macy stated:

I fail to see how Colossians 1:15, 16 explains the deity of Jesus. Jesus is described as the image, eikon, of God. Jesus use this same word in Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 refering to the image of Caesar on a coin. An image is a representation of something else. Paul is clearly saying Jesus represents God and with this language makes it impossible for Jesus to be God.Man is said to be in the 'eikon' of God. In Col 1:15, in order to exalt Christ, He is referred to as the 'eikon' of God. I don't believe 'eikon' is being used in the same sense in these two contexts. If all Paul meant to convey was the same as that which can be said of common man, I don't think he has much of a point, do you? I believe the qualifier, "..of the invisible God" is significant. I would be tempted to parallel this with the "charakter of God's *being*" in Heb 1:3.

Ron Macy stated:

The part of the passage you quoted, "…all things made through Him and _for_ Him" is not proof of Jesus being God. I believe Paul is speaking of the new creation similar to what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and not the original creation. The new creation was made possible because of the sacrifice Jesus made. Your reference to Isaiah 43:6-7 was not helpful in understanding you point.I would first point out the fact that the word, "new" does not modify "creation" in Colossians 1. Rather we have "_all_ creation" with Christ being "_before_ all things" in vs 17. We are speaking of things in heaven, things on earth, whether invisible or visible, even extending to all authorities (Cf. Rom 13:1) The creation spoken of here is all inclusive as it is in John 1:3 "without Him _not one thing_ was made that has been made." It is in Him "..all things consist." (Cf. Ac 17:28; Heb1:3)

As to your other point, the creation in this context was not merely "made possible" by Christ, but was created by Him (Cf. Rom11:36). It is also a past act of creation. Were there not "principalities" (presently in heaven _and_ on earth) etc. prior to the new creation? (See Col 2:15; Eph 1:21 etc.)

In any case, I don't see why a restriction to the "new" creation would be much different. All things made FOR (Cf. Heb 2:10) Jesus Christ. I cited Is 43:6-7 as a parallel and to demonstrate who creation was created _for_ (YHWH). (See also Is 43:21)

Ron Macy stated:

I am curious about where you have seen this presented before. Could you point me to the web sites where this was presented?It was proposed by a christadelphian opponent on a theology forum some time back. He/she proposed it when we were discussing John 8:58. I believe he/she cited it out of a book, but I can't recall the actual cite.

Ron Macy stated:

No, I don’t believe they were "being "honest" in _not_ pointing to those things for which they tried to stone Him prior…" These men were not honest in any sense of the word. I am presenting what I believe they believed.

If they really believed the accusations they made in the passages listed, they would have held to those accusations at this critical point in time. When a prosecutor goes into court to convict someone of a crime, he brings his strongest evidence with him. If these men really believed Jesus was making Himself equal with God or portraying Himself as God, they would have brought that case to this trial. Instead, there were flimsy attempts to bring liars to accuse Jesus.I see what you're getting across, but I still believe it is inconsistent. You are saying that the accusations made in, for example, John 10 were "made up" so to speak rather than a genuine conviction. Therefore, at the trial, they did not bring these charges up as they were not "genuine" charges. Yet, you rightly point out that they called for _false_ witnesses to bring forth charges i.e. charges that were _not genuine_.

If I'm seeing things correctly, you can understand how I don't see the point in not bringing up past false charges because they were not "genuine" in order to turn around and bring up new "false charges." See my confusion?

Ron Macy stated:

The total absence of the repetition of these accusations in the council session proves to me they truly didn’t believe their own accusations.Yet if their sole goal is to have Christ put to death, employing deceitful tactics, why _not_ mention these charges as well? My point being, if they can bring forth false witnessess to testify to those things which were _not true_ why would they have a problem with bringing forth _past_ false accusations? They wouldn't have to believe their own accusations, their accusations would simply have to _work_ in convicting Christ.

Ron Macy stated:

Let me remind you of their argument for killing Jesus presented in John 11:46-50. There was no discussion of how Jesus claimed to be God or equal to God. There was no discussion of Jesus blaspheming. There was only discussion of what they would lose if the common people continued to believe Jesus was the Messiah. Every argument they presented against Jesus in public was an attempt to discredit Jesus in the minds of the common people. They didn’t care if the accusation was true or false. Their only goal was to get rid of Jesus without the common people rising up and throwing them out.

In my opinion, trinitarians pick and choose what they want to accept from the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees based on what they want to believe and not on what the Bible acutally teaches. You reached the following conclusion about my presentation.I can see your point _here_ but I don't see how it works in the same argument as "why didn't the Jews bring these past charges up at the trial?" You seemed to be arguing "that if Jesus blasphemed in their eyes here then it should have w/o doubt been brought up at the trial, here." I think this argument is fallacious. If the members present at the trial have no qualms with using false witnesses to bring forth false charges, then they should have no qualms with bringing forth past false charges. You should ask this question to yourself and not simply ask me.

On your point above, I believe you are trying to say that the Jews never genuinely felt that Christ blasphemed. I don't believe we can reach this conclusion from one verse and then apply this to all verses where the charge of "blasphemy" is made. For example, in Mk 2:7-8 the text states that the scribes were "reasoning in their hearts" saying "this man speaks blasphemies." In John 5:16 and 18, the narrator, the apostle John interjects stating that the _reason_ for the Jews desiring to take Christ's life was because He "..did these things on the Sabbath" (vs 16) and because "He was calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God." Both of these reasons are _genuine_ as they are the inward thoughts of the Jews and both are for pious reasons. Looking at the context of John 10, I believe the same genuine nature of the charge applies there as well.

Ron Macy stated:

What would you call it when people accept as truth the accusations the Pharisees and Sadducees made in John 10:33; John 5:18; and their supposed accusation in John 8:58 and not also accept as truth the accusations they made inI would say context. Regarding John 5:18; 10:33, it is not that Christ is refuting the notion that He is "God" but is refuting the notion that He is "blaspheming" _by_ claiming such. In Matt9:34; Matt 12:24; Mk 3:22; Luk 11:15, Christ immediately refutes this notion with a detailed argument. As to Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34, the same applies, "..but wisdom is justified of her children." These are a different case than that of John 8:58 where we have no such refutation. Simply because the Jews made false accusations in some contexts does not necessitate that _all_ of their perceptions of what He means to imply are incorrect as well.

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

It certainly seems to me there is no reason to accept anything the Jewish leaders said as "gospel."I don't. I look at their reactions as indicators but I look at the whole picture in context as well. When the Jewish leaders proclaim "this man is a sinner because He healed on the Sabbath" ,although they were wrong about Him "blaspheming", were they wrong about Him "healing on the Sabbath."? No. Does this mean that because the Jews were in the wrong for wanting to take Christ's life in Jo 5:18 that they were wrong about Christ claiming God as "His own Father"?

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

You said it didn’t make any difference what these men believed or how they interpreted (construed) the words of Jesus. Yet, in the very next sentence you say their desire to stone Jesus can only mean they interpreted Jesus’s words as meaning He was God. You either believe their interpretation or you don’t believe their interpretation. You can’t have it both ways.Okay, I should have said "in regards to your trial argument." See above where I discussed that. *I* believe the charge in Jn10 was genuine. However, in regards to your argument, it would not matter if it was genuine or not in order for it to be elligable to be brought up at the trial.

See what I mean?

Ron Macy stated:

These men wanted to kill Jesus for the same reason the people in the synagogue in Capernaum wanted to kill Jesus in Luke 4:24-30. They were filled with rage. That rage had nothing to do with Jesus claiming to be God in Capernaum. It had to do with the evil in their hearts (John 3:19-21; 7:7).That is the motive of some, but I don't believe that the motive you cite above is applicable to all the Jews nor to the exclusion of also believing Christ to have made claims blasphemous.

Ron Macy stated:

I need you to explain this a little more. How can a husband and wife who are not "‘one being’ per se" clearly illustrate the difference between function and ontology. The only thing a man an woman can illustrate is unity and not oneness. It is unity with God which Jesus claimed and not oneness.Ron Macy had previously stated:

Please provide the Bible passages which define the difference between this functional role and the ontological role. I would expect something like, "While the Father and Son are separate and equal persons inside the nature of God, they act in the relationship of a son who is subordinate to his father."

Both a man and a woman are ontologically "human." Yet the husband is the head of His wife. Does this mean that the wife is "less human" than her husband on account of her being subordinate to him? Likewise, the Father and Son are both ontologically "God." The Son being subordinate to the Father.

God bless you--AV

Ron Macy

March 1st 2004, 10:50 PM

AVmetro,

I've been burning leaves for the past two days and have one of those smoke headaches. Bear with me :-)

I can see you don’t live in a city or near a city with regulations against leaf burning polution. I live in a country enough area I can get away with burning leaves, too. At least so far.

Man is said to be in the 'eikon' of God. In Col 1:15, in order to exalt Christ, He is referred to as the 'eikon' of God. I don't believe 'eikon' is being used in the same sense in these two contexts. If all Paul meant to convey was the same as that which can be said of common man, I don't think he has much of a point, do you? I believe the qualifier, "..of the invisible God" is significant. I would be tempted to parallel this with the "charakter of God's *being*" in Heb 1:3.

I believe we need to start first with the meaning of the word itself. Eikon is an image of the real and not the real itself. Charakter is much the same thing, the figure patterned after the mold. You need to explain what makes the context in Colossians 1:15 different enough from Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 to justify changing the meaning or intent of the words being used. Either word speaks of replication and not identity.

The qualifier of “the invisible God” simply isn’t enough (in my opinion) to justify claiming that makes Jesus God.

I see what you're getting across, but I still believe it is inconsistent. You are saying that the accusations made in, for example, John 10 were "made up" so to speak rather than a genuine conviction. Therefore, at the trial, they did not bring these charges up as they were not "genuine" charges. Yet, you rightly point out that they called for _false_ witnesses to bring forth charges i.e. charges that were _not genuine_.

If I'm seeing things correctly, you can understand how I don't see the point in not bringing up past false charges because they were not "genuine" in order to turn around and bring up new "false charges." See my confusion?

The point is trinitarians are depending upon the accuracy of these false accusations to bolster their belief in the trinity. Haven’t you said these men understood Jesus’ words correctly to prove Jesus is God or equal to God? Yet, their actions show they did not interpret Jesus words correctly in these places or in any other place. Their actual beliefs contradict trinitarian interpretation and leave trinitarians without foundation for their belief.

Yet if their sole goal is to have Christ put to death, employing deceitful tactics, why _not_ mention these charges as well? My point being, if they can bring forth false witnessess to testify to those things which were _not true_ why would they have a problem with bringing forth _past_ false accusations? They wouldn't have to believe their own accusations, their accusations would simply have to _work_ in convicting Christ.

Again, according to trinitarian interpretation, Jesus had blasphemed by making Himself equal to God or God. If they really believed there was blasphemy, they would have raised the accusation again. Since they didn’t repeat the accusation, I believe they are admitting the accusation is false.

Since their accusation of equality to God or being God is false, trinitarians have no foundation for believing trinity based on their accusations. There is no longer any support for Jesus being God in John 10:33. There is no longer any support for Jesus being equal to God in John 5:18.

For example, in Mk 2:7-8 the text states that the scribes were "reasoning in their hearts" saying "this man speaks blasphemies." In John 5:16 and 18, the narrator, the apostle John interjects stating that the _reason_ for the Jews desiring to take Christ's life was because He "..did these things on the Sabbath" (vs 16) and because "He was calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God." Both of these reasons are _genuine_ as they are the inward thoughts of the Jews and both are for pious reasons. Looking at the context of John 10, I believe the same genuine nature of the charge applies there as well.

Were they accurate in their reasoning? No. Jesus clearly denies the accusation of blasphemy and goes on to explain He does have the authority to forgive sins. What was explained in John was God gave Jesus the authority. Jesus didn’t have it on His own.

John 5:18 is John’s interpretation of the argument of the Jews. Their argument (and yours) fails because these same people claimed God as their Father in John 8:41 and no one suggested their equality with God, there. It is clear the accusation made in 5:18 is another attempt to persuade the common people Jesus shouldn’t be followed. Jesus goes to great lengths in the verses following John 5:18 to describe how He is not equal to the Father. He can only do what He sees the Father do (v. 19). The Father shows all things the Father is doing to the Son (v. 20). The Father gave to the Son to have life in Himself (v. 26). The Father gave authority to the Son to execute judgment (v. 27). These things are not things Jesus had on His own. Point by point, Jesus is showing the fallacy of their accusation. Jesus was not making Himself equal to God.

I am curious about where you have seen this presented before. Could you point me to the web sites where this was presented?

It was proposed by a christadelphian opponent on a theology forum some time back. He/she proposed it when we were discussing John 8:58. I believe he/she cited it out of a book, but I can't recall the actual cite.

I said before there are so few new ideas. Still, I have never seen what I am proposing anywhere in print that I can recall. I would have like to see their presentation.

What would you call it when people accept as truth the accusations the Pharisees and Sadducees made in John 10:33; John 5:18; and their supposed accusation in John 8:58 and not also accept as truth the accusations they made in
(List of passages omitted. See post 295.)

I would say context.

I think you need to do a little better than that. Remember in Matthew 16:6 and 12 Jesus warns His disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the context of what Jesus said, there is nothing the Pharisees and Sadducees ever claim which should be believed. Do you understand that? They cannot be trusted to teach or understand anything Jesus ever said correctly. With that in mind, you can safely discard any comments they made about Jesus being possessed by demons, being insane, casting demons out by the prince of demons, or any other claim they made. If you don’t cast it all out, you are left with picking and choosing based soley on what you want to believe. Isn’t that the definition of a priori?

Both a man and a woman are ontologically "human." Yet the husband is the head of His wife. Does this mean that the wife is "less human" than her husband on account of her being subordinate to him? Likewise, the Father and Son are both ontologically "God." The Son being subordinate to the Father.

Both the man and the woman are not ontologically the same being. Your comparison leads to the Father and Jesus being separate “God” beings. You need to provide scriptural support for Jesus and God being ontologically the same being. I don’t believe you have done that conclusively, yet.

Ron

AVmetro

March 13th 2004, 02:15 PM

Hi, Ron,

Ron Macy stated:

I believe we need to start first with the meaning of the word itself. Eikon is an image of the real and not the real itself. Charakter is much the same thing, the figure patterned after the mold. You need to explain what makes the context in Colossians 1:15 different enough from Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 to justify changing the meaning or intent of the words being used. Either word speaks of replication and not identity.

I'm not "changing the meaning or intent of the words being used." The use of the word in the context in which it is found leads me to a logical conclusion. As I stated before in regards to 'charakter'; Christ is the 'charakter' of what? God's "being," "nature," "substance." carakthr teV upostasewV This therefore implies what? If Christ is the exact replica of God's nature, then what must this logically lead us to? He's not the Father (as I take "God" here to denote), yet He has the very nature of God. Therefore, Christ is not the Father, but is ontologically "God." Cf. John 1:1c.

Ron Macy stated:

The qualifier of “the invisible God” simply isn’t enough (in my opinion) to justify claiming that makes Jesus God.

I think there is significance to be found here. Also, the juxtaposation of "invisible" with "image" seems to convey the idea that what we see of Christ is seeing God. Seeing Christ is seeing God. Cf. Heb1:3, "the effulgence of His [the Father's] glory." I think it's obvious that 'eikon' in this context denotes more than what it would as applied to 'mankind.'

In a passage which seeks to exalt Christ, what is the significance of this word's use if it in no way exalts Christ above all creation?

Ron Macy stated:

The point is trinitarians are depending upon the accuracy of these false accusations to bolster their belief in the trinity. Haven’t you said these men understood Jesus’ words correctly to prove Jesus is God or equal to God? Yet, their actions show they did not interpret Jesus words correctly in these places or in any other place. Their actual beliefs contradict trinitarian interpretation and leave trinitarians without foundation for their belief.

Yet I have stated how they have percieved things correctly and incorrectly. The claims Christ made incited a genuine perception that Christ blasphemed because, from their perceiption, Christ is merely "a man" (Jn10:33) *which if true* would in fact constitute "blasphemy." Your assumption is that these Jews did not perceive His claims as "blasphemous" but merely made the charge because they needed it, correct?

Jesus makes a divine claim. Either the Jews can 1.] believe Him or 2.] Not believe Him and therefore take the claim as one which He has no right to therefore charging Him with blasphemy.
You are overlooking the fact that the Trinitarian also looks to the claim/act made on the part of Jesus in addition to the reaction of the Jews in order to bolster the point.

The reason the Jews make the charges of blasphemy is, not because they "made them up", but because they don't believe the claims He makes.

Ron Macy stated:

Again, according to trinitarian interpretation, Jesus had blasphemed by making Himself equal to God or God. If they really believed there was blasphemy, they would have raised the accusation again. Since they didn’t repeat the accusation, I believe they are admitting the accusation is false. Since their accusation of equality to God or being God is false, trinitarians have no foundation for believing trinity based on their accusations. There is no longer any support for Jesus being God in John 10:33. There is no longer any support for Jesus being equal to God in John 5:18.

If they felt the accusation was false then why would they have a problem bringing THIS up YET bring up other false charges at the trial? Why do you think they would have a problem repeating a false accusation at the trial yet wouldn't have a problem bringing forth a "new" false charge?? The objection just doesn't make any sense.

I had stated:

For example, in Mk 2:7-8 the text states that the scribes were "reasoning in their hearts" saying "this man speaks blasphemies." In John 5:16 and 18, the narrator, the apostle John interjects stating that the _reason_ for the Jews desiring to take Christ's life was because He "..did these things on the Sabbath" (vs 16) and because "He was calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God." Both of these reasons are _genuine_ as they are the inward thoughts of the Jews and both are for pious reasons. Looking at the context of John 10, I believe the same genuine nature of the charge applies there as well.

Ron Macy replied:

Ron Macy stated:

Were they accurate in their reasoning? No.

If I recall correctly, we weren't discussing accuracy but whether or not the convictions of the Jews were genuine. Hence my above response.

Ron Macy cont.

Jesus clearly denies the accusation of blasphemy and goes on to explain He does have the authority to forgive sins.

Correct. The Jews were not incorrect in the ability to absolve sin being a divine perorogative, yet were incorrect that this claim on Christ's part constituted blasphemy.

Ron Macy stated:

What was explained in John was God gave Jesus the authority. Jesus didn’t have it on His own.
Sure (Phil2:6). But in this context, the above doesn't constitute part of a "refutation" on Christ's part. It's a thought of the crowd during the aftemath of the event. It's only works as a refutation because you assume it a priori.

Ron Macy stated:

John 5:18 is John’s interpretation of the argument of the Jews. Their argument (and yours) fails because these same people claimed God as their Father in John 8:41 and no one suggested their equality with God, there. It is clear the accusation made in 5:18 is another attempt to persuade the common people Jesus shouldn’t be followed.

? Ron, you need to allow for different meanings of the same word(s) in different contexts, uses, etc (e.g. "Son of Man" to some extent denotes "Messiah"). Notice also that the modifier, "own," is present ("..calling God His OWN Father,.." [LITV] ..cf.. Rom 8:32 "..His OWN Son.."). If the phrase "my Father", carries such insignificance as you assert that it does in this context, then how is this possibly going to work in "riling up" the common people who are teetering on accepting Him?
The only way in which this would send the crowd into a rage, would be for it to be genuinely blasphemous to come from the lips of Christ. See also Jn 19:7.

Ron Macy stated:

Jesus goes to great lengths in the verses following John 5:18 to describe how He is not equal to the Father.

Because your presuppositions on "giving" are at play, you miss the fact that the below statements are of equality.

Ron Macy stated:

He can only do what He sees the Father do (v. 19).

Which naturally entails that there is nothing the Father can do that the Son cannot. It's not a refutation of being God, it's a refutation of independance from God and blasphemy.

The Father shows all things the Father is doing to the Son (v. 20).

Again, which means the Son can do all that the Father does. This is equality!

The Father gave to the Son to have life in Himself (v. 26).

See the comment above on presuppositions. You miss the words "just as the Father has life in Himself" ..so does the Son. This is equality.

The Father gave authority to the Son to execute judgment (v. 27).

Whereas the Father judges no one! See Joel3:12.

These things are not things Jesus had on His own. Point by point, Jesus is showing the fallacy of their accusation. Jesus was not making Himself equal to God.

Reread this passage w/o the assumption that "giving" = inequality and then you will realize that Christ is defending His equality with God. Remember, the Jews do not believe that Christ is the Son of the Father (vs 18). Hence the refs. to "the Father shows me this", "the Father does this" etc.
You have also missed perhaps the most pertinent verse, 23.

"..that all should honor the Son _just as_ they honor the Father."

The word "timaw" (honor) means "to hold at value." We are to "value" the Son _just as_ we are to "hold at value" the Father. If Christ is a creature, this is patent idolatry. (Cf. Rev 5:13)

Ron Macy stated:

I think you need to do a little better than that. Remember in Matthew 16:6 and 12 Jesus warns His disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the context of what Jesus said, there is nothing the Pharisees and Sadducees ever claim which should be believed. Do you understand that? They cannot be trusted to teach or understand anything Jesus ever said correctly. With that in mind, you can safely discard any comments they made about Jesus being possessed by demons, being insane, casting demons out by the prince of demons, or any other claim they made. If you don’t cast it all out, you are left with picking and choosing based soley on what you want to believe. Isn’t that the definition of a priori?

Christ is addressing such as "praying to be seen by men," "traditions of elders" etc. I don't believe Christ's point in Matt16:12 ("doctrine") is entirely relevant to their perception of what does and what does not constitute blasphemy. Secondly, as I've explained before, 1.] it is their charge that He is "blaspheming" where they are mistaken and 2.] it is not just their perception but Christ's claim where we lay our basis.

Ron Macy stated:

Both the man and the woman are not ontologically the same being. Your comparison leads to the Father and Jesus being separate “God” beings. You need to provide scriptural support for Jesus and God being ontologically the same being. I don’t believe you have done that conclusively, yet.

IMHO, this is somewhat tangent from the point we were discussing. We were discussing ontology and subordination, not number of "beings." That is, "How can you be ontologically equal and yet be subordinate functionally?" What bearing on your objection does it make whether they are one being or two?

God bless--AV

Ron Macy

March 27th 2004, 10:33 AM

AVmetro,

I believe we need to start first with the meaning of the word itself. Eikon is an image of the real and not the real itself. Charakter is much the same thing, the figure patterned after the mold. You need to explain what makes the context in Colossians 1:15 different enough from Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; and Luke 20:24 to justify changing the meaning or intent of the words being used. Either word speaks of replication and not identity.

I'm not "changing the meaning or intent of the words being used." The use of the word in the context in which it is found leads me to a logical conclusion. As I stated before in regards to 'charakter'; Christ is the 'charakter' of what? God's "being," "nature," "substance." χαρακτηρ τες υποστασεως This therefore implies what? If Christ is the exact replica of God's nature, then what must this logically lead us to? He's not the Father (as I take "God" here to denote), yet He has the very nature of God. Therefore, Christ is not the Father, but is ontologically "God." Cf. John 1:1c.

You have no justification for reading “being,” “nature,” or “substance” into Colossians 1:15. Even if you these words were implied you are still in a dilemma. Jesus is still “just” a replica of the being of God, nature of God, or the substance of God. He isn’t “the very nature of God.” He is only a replica of the nature of God. Jesus is only a replica of the being of God. The word, in this context, simply will not allow Jesus to be God.

The second part of your statement dealing with your limiting God in this context to being only the Father is unjustified. It is an a priori conclusion.

The third part of your statement refers to John 1:1c. It does not support Jesus being “ontologically God.” We have gone over this before. You need to come up with a different foundation for claiming Jesus as ontologically God. John 1:1c simply does not do it. Remember, there is no reason to assume personality for logos before Jesus is born. 1c is a definition of the character of the plan of God in the same way Paul describes the character of the Law as being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12).

The qualifier of “the invisible God” simply isn’t enough (in my opinion) to justify claiming that makes Jesus God.

I think there is significance to be found here. Also, the juxtaposation of "invisible" with "image" seems to convey the idea that what we see of Christ is seeing God. Seeing Christ is seeing God. Cf. Heb1:3, "the effulgence of His [the Father's] glory." I think it's obvious that 'eikon' in this context denotes more than what it would as applied to 'mankind.'

In a passage which seeks to exalt Christ, what is the significance of this word's use if it in no way exalts Christ above all creation?

To reach the conclusion that seeing Christ is literally seeing God does create a change in the meaning of “image.” It changes the meaning from being a picture, a reflection, a representation, to being the exact thing. It doesn’t make any difference that image is juxtaposed next to invisible. Eikon simply will not allow the conclusion that Jesus is God. It will only allow that Jesus represents God.

As far as the exaltation of Christ, Jesus is exalted because He did perfectly represent the character (the holiness, righteousness, and goodness) of God. No one else has ever done that. Jesus is exalted by being the firstborn of all creation, which I believe refers to being the firstborn from the dead, the first of the new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus is exalted by being the head of the church. Pushing “image” into an unwarranted definition which makes Jesus God is only an artificial “exaltation.” It is not what the word means.

The point is trinitarians are depending upon the accuracy of these false accusations to bolster their belief in the trinity. Haven’t you said these men understood Jesus’ words correctly to prove Jesus is God or equal to God? Yet, their actions show they did not interpret Jesus words correctly in these places or in any other place. Their actual beliefs contradict trinitarian interpretation and leave trinitarians without foundation for their belief.

Yet I have stated how they have percieved things correctly and incorrectly. The claims Christ made incited a genuine perception that Christ blasphemed because, from their perceiption, Christ is merely "a man" (Jn10:33) *which if true* would in fact constitute "blasphemy." Your assumption is that these Jews did not perceive His claims as "blasphemous" but merely made the charge because they needed it, correct?

Jesus makes a divine claim. Either the Jews can 1.] believe Him or 2.] Not believe Him and therefore take the claim as one which He has no right to therefore charging Him with blasphemy.
You are overlooking the fact that the Trinitarian also looks to the claim/act made on the part of Jesus in addition to the reaction of the Jews in order to bolster the point.

The reason the Jews make the charges of blasphemy is, not because they "made them up", but because they don't believe the claims He makes.

I believe you are setting up a strawman. You are setting up your argument based on a false premise. You are saying, “Since Jesus made a claim to be God, they could either believe Him or not believe Him.” Jesus did not make a divine claim. Therefore, option number 3 is they applied hyperbole to Jesus’ statements forcing a meaning into Jesus’ words which Jesus never intended and which even they didn’t believe.

I believe you are missing the point of trinitarian argument. The only foundation trinitarians have to support the argument Jesus’ words are a claim Jesus is God is the false accusation of the Jews. Without the accusation of the Jews, trinitarians have no foundation for believing Jesus claimed to be God. Therefore, since the accusation of the Jews is false, there is not reason for trinitarians to claim Jesus’ words are proof He is God.

Jesus never claimed to be God.

Again, according to trinitarian interpretation, Jesus had blasphemed by making Himself equal to God or God. If they really believed there was blasphemy, they would have raised the accusation again. Since they didn’t repeat the accusation, I believe they are admitting the accusation is false. Since their accusation of equality to God or being God is false, trinitarians have no foundation for believing trinity based on their accusations. There is no longer any support for Jesus being God in John 10:33. There is no longer any support for Jesus being equal to God in John 5:18.

If they felt the accusation was false then why would they have a problem bringing THIS up YET bring up other false charges at the trial? Why do you think they would have a problem repeating a false accusation at the trial yet wouldn't have a problem bringing forth a "new" false charge?? The objection just doesn't make any sense.

My contention is their accusation was not true. The typical trinitarian stand is their accusation is true. Trinitarians build their case for Jesus being God based on the accusations of the Jews and not on what Jesus meant by His own words.

Further, I contend the lack of them repeating their accusation at Jesus’ trial is proof their accusation is false. The conclusion is, since the accusations of Jesus being God, made by the Jews is false, the conclusion made by trinitarians that Jesus is claiming to be God, based on the accusation of the Jews, is also false.

So you see, it is not a matter of the Jews not wanting to repeat a false charge. It is the fact the charge was not repeated which proves their charge was false. Since the charge is false trinitarians cannot use the accusations of the Jews to prove Jesus is God. Therefore, proof of Jesus being God cannot be built on these false accusations. Jesus did not claim to be God.

For example, in Mk 2:7-8 the text states that the scribes were "reasoning in their hearts" saying "this man speaks blasphemies." In John 5:16 and 18, the narrator, the apostle John interjects stating that the _reason_ for the Jews desiring to take Christ's life was because He "..did these things on the Sabbath" (vs 16) and because "He was calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God." Both of these reasons are _genuine_ as they are the inward thoughts of the Jews and both are for pious reasons. Looking at the context of John 10, I believe the same genuine nature of the charge applies there as well.

Were they accurate in their reasoning? No.

If I recall correctly, we weren't discussing accuracy but whether or not the convictions of the Jews were genuine. Hence my above response.

Does this mean the accuracy of their reasoning has no bearing on the situation? I think you are trying to split hairs with this. Of course it has a bearing on the situation. They may have genuinely reasoned “in their hearts” that only God can forgive sins, but Jesus explained their reasoning was false, because He has been given the authority to forgive sins.

Review the words of Jesus in John 5:17. Jesus did not use the word, ‘own,’ nor did He make a statement that he was equal to God in this verse. Jesus referred to God as His Father. John is quoting the thinking of the Jews in John 5:16 and 18. Were they accurate in their reasoning? No. It makes no difference if their thinking was genuine; their thinking was false. Jesus proceeded to correct their thinking in verses 19-47. Point after point in this passage shows Jesus He is NOT God and that He is NOT EQUAL to God.

Jesus clearly denies the accusation of blasphemy and goes on to explain He does have the authority to forgive sins.

Correct. The Jews were not incorrect in the ability to absolve sin being a divine perorogative, yet were incorrect that this claim on Christ's part constituted blasphemy.

This is true as long as one understands Jesus exercised this divine prerogative only because God gave Him the permission to do so.

What was explained in John was God gave Jesus the authority. Jesus didn’t have it on His own.

Sure (Phil2:6). But in this context, the above doesn't constitute part of a "refutation" on Christ's part. It's a thought of the crowd during the aftemath of the event. It's only works as a refutation because you assume it a priori.

I am not sure what you believe I have assumed a priori. Nor do I understand what Philippians 2:6 has to do with anything.

John 5:18 is John’s interpretation of the argument of the Jews. Their argument (and yours) fails because these same people claimed God as their Father in John 8:41 and no one suggested their equality with God, there. It is clear the accusation made in 5:18 is another attempt to persuade the common people Jesus shouldn’t be followed.

? Ron, you need to allow for different meanings of the same word(s) in different contexts, uses, etc (e.g. "Son of Man" to some extent denotes "Messiah"). Notice also that the modifier, "own," is present ("..calling God His OWN Father,.." [LITV] ..cf.. Rom 8:32 "..His OWN Son.."). If the phrase "my Father", carries such insignificance as you assert that it does in this context, then how is this possibly going to work in "riling up" the common people who are teetering on accepting Him?
The only way in which this would send the crowd into a rage, would be for it to be genuinely blasphemous to come from the lips of Christ. See also Jn 19:7.

See above where I pointed out Jesus never used the word, “own,” in verse 17 nor before it. The leaders were exaggerating the meaning of Jesus’ words.

I have mentioned before, but you (and others) have refused to accept is the “‘riling up’ of the common people” was being attempted by the Jewish leaders in order to kill Jesus not because of any genuine belief in blasphemy, but because they hated Jesus and all for which He stood. They were using hyperbole here and in other places to exaggerate their claims of Jesus’ offenses. There was nothing in their final plot about the blasphemes of which they accused Jesus. Those blasphemes were merely false accusations used to substantiate their desire to kill Jesus.

As for the accusation in John 19:7, to what law did these men refer? Where does the Laws of Moses condemn anyone for claiming to be the Son of God? I have never seen it. They were lying.

Reread this passage w/o the assumption that "giving" = inequality and then you will realize that Christ is defending His equality with God. Remember, the Jews do not believe that Christ is the Son of the Father (vs 18). Hence the refs. to "the Father shows me this", "the Father does this" etc.
You have also missed perhaps the most pertinent verse, 23.

Your logic is circular. You are asking me to assume equality in order to prove equality. All Jesus would have had to say after John 5:18 is, “Yes, you are correct, I am equal to God.” The entire remaining part of the chapter is proof of His inequality with God. There is absolutely no other reason for what Jesus had to say. You are asking me to suspend logic in order to believe what Jesus specifically, here, contradicted. I will not do it. Nor should anyone else.

I think you need to do a little better than that. Remember in Matthew 16:6 and 12 Jesus warns His disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the context of what Jesus said, there is nothing the Pharisees and Sadducees ever claim which should be believed. Do you understand that? They cannot be trusted to teach or understand anything Jesus ever said correctly. With that in mind, you can safely discard any comments they made about Jesus being possessed by demons, being insane, casting demons out by the prince of demons, or any other claim they made. If you don’t cast it all out, you are left with picking and choosing based soley on what you want to believe. Isn’t that the definition of a priori?

Christ is addressing such as "praying to be seen by men," "traditions of elders" etc. I don't believe Christ's point in Matt16:12 ("doctrine") is entirely relevant to their perception of what does and what does not constitute blasphemy. Secondly, as I've explained before, 1.] it is their charge that He is "blaspheming" where they are mistaken and 2.] it is not just their perception but Christ's claim where we lay our basis.

By what authority do you limit Jesus’ warning to just “‘praying to be seen by men,’ ‘traditions of elders’ etc?” The Jews were trying to teach things about Jesus which weren’t true in order to put Him to death. You are only accepting as true the teachings which fit your a priori belief Jesus is God. You don’t accept as true their accusation Jesus was demon possessed. You don’t accept as true their accusation Jesus was a Samaritan. Yet, you accept the accusations of Jesus being equal to God or being God. You would be better off not believing anything they have to say rather than to pick an choose according to your a priori beliefs.

Both the man and the woman are not ontologically the same being. Your comparison leads to the Father and Jesus being separate “God” beings. You need to provide scriptural support for Jesus and God being ontologically the same being. I don’t believe you have done that conclusively, yet.

IMHO, this is somewhat tangent from the point we were discussing. We were discussing ontology and subordination, not number of "beings." That is, "How can you be ontologically equal and yet be subordinate functionally?" What bearing on your objection does it make whether they are one being or two?

Please! You are trying to prove Jesus and God are one being. You brought ontology and subordination into the discussion as part of your proof system. You use the subordination of the woman to man, but their being ontologically (both) human. You are totally ingoring the concept that the man and woman are distinct beings while you are using the concepts applied to them to prove the single being of God as multiple persons. The number of beings is most definitely part of the discussion. Your illustration of the man and the woman is useless to support the idea of God and Jesus being one ontological being.

Ron

Jeannot

April 7th 2004, 11:54 AM

drmmjr

April 8th 2004, 10:22 AM

AVmetro

April 8th 2004, 05:00 PM

Regarding the topic of whether or not Paul taught a "physical resurrection," unless it bears a direct relevance to the topic of this thread, if a discussion on it is to proceed further, give it it's own thread in the appropriate area of the forum. Thanks.

Jeannot

April 10th 2004, 03:52 PM

I'll confine my point then to the claim that Paul does not evidence a doctrine of the Trinity.

kofh2u

April 12th 2004, 07:08 AM

Nowhere in Paul does there seem to be a doctrine of the Trinity, nor one of physical resurrection in the sense of reanimation of bodies.

As for "firstborn of creation," yes, that could refer to Jesus' resurrection (the centerpiece of Paul's doctrine), or to Proverbs 8:22ff.

The Win/win in this discussion seems only as far way as the recognition of semantical differences.

1) Everyone seems correct, but what they understand in the terminology is different.

I mean, indeed, Christ is in the image of God, as was Adam, mentally, (in the invisible powers of mind and thought), the material creator of the external universe.

Then, the reflection and/or abstraction within the mind of that, the external universe, is in fact and analogy mentally re-created within.

2) A new broom sweeps clean, as does a new way of thinking. If within,... in that invisible mental world within... a truly sane, correct way of thinking is created and imaged, duplicating a new sense of the external universe, ...
...when we are like Christ in our thinking,... only then are we changed and transformed from old ways of thinking to think as Christ has taught us. An the world external is also transformed in our own new perception of it.
He, Jesus, was the first born into this new form of Homo Sapien, "a new creature" in the universe of God. Better to call these new creatures in God, Homoiousians.

3) Here we see the mind of man, in Christ, a refined image of the creator (as we understand from Genesis 1:26-7). He we understand the creation by God of the invisible mind in man, a mind which canand does abstract the external world, the universe, the Almighty Power outside of itself, or us, that is.

4) As Ron says, this doesn't make Jesus God, the Father. God the Father is external, and He is to the external world as Christ is to the internan, spiritual and/or mental abstraction we creat inwardly, that is, the mental vision of the externa universel. God, the Creator, is to the external world what Christ is inside, the creator of all things internally perceived or, mental "created."

4) Here we see the Father as distinct, and yet not distinct, from the Son, since both are related to one another by the spirit or the mental analogy between them. The trinity seems to be exposed to us in this, and on this semantical level of understanding. But there is more to the trinity, or rather, different levels of trinity.

6) Another level if trinity, for there seems to be seven, is that of the mind itself.
In this invisible kingdom, the Homoiousian thinking creates the true reality external to itself. Christ, the first born with this capacity is the way we must all grow. And, in this mind, the Homoiousian mind, there is another sense of tinity in that, "we see darkly now," still part Conscious Mind and oart asleep.
The sleeping unconscious is compartmentalized into a Subconscious mind and a totally Unconscious mind. The trinity within ourself is Conscious, Subconscious, Unconscious.

7) This all seems semantically compatible with what everyone gas and is saying and also quite compatible, in a different semantical perception of meaning as found in the ancient language of scripture.
For instance, in the verse below, a slight change in a twinling of the semantics makes this point again complementary to scripture.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (in Conscience) himself shall descend (into our consciousness) from heaven (of our mind) with a shout (an awakening), with the voice of the archangel (the Conscience Archetype), and with the trump of God (the Unconscious Mind): and the dead (unconscious phylogenetic memory) in Christ (whose spirit in our awakened Conscience) shall rise (in our consciousness) first.

Jeannot

April 12th 2004, 11:22 AM

Sounds Gnostic to me! ;)

kofh2u

April 13th 2004, 12:53 AM

Sounds Gnostic to me! ;)
Yes, I see where you are coming from.

Gnosticism was suppressed in the first Century, and what we got past forward was the consecreted Roman view of Christianity. No one really can be sure just what those gnostic teaching actually meant, being disparaged and forced out of the mainstream.
Sure enough, we seem to have major misunderstandings and scriptural differences in interpretation ourselves. Even with a supposed continuity through the ages, look at the multiplicity of ideas..
Today we have seven Fundamentalist view points, which differ enough themselves, and of course twelve major mainstream Christian denominations as different as Mormonism and Roman Catholicism.

I think that the Freudian Bible take makes modern sense of a "spirit world," in a way which avoids superstition and external Animism.
That we expect "Him" to come soon, guickly, and that he tells us the following message, right up front, hints at earthquakes in our ancient doctrine:

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars (the sevenfold angels of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego): and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).

Jeannot

April 13th 2004, 06:25 AM

Altho I might not go all the way with your interpretation, yet I grant you that there might be less of a chasm between the canonical and non-canonical wriiting than we're taught.

kofh2u

April 14th 2004, 01:54 AM

Altho I might not go all the way with your interpretation, yet I grant you that there might be less of a chasm between the canonical and non-canonical wriiting than we're taught.

When I read Jude in particular, but the scriptures in general, I become convinced that the teaching they hold is hidden. That the powers which we are warned to expect, those who would misdirect the lesson we are to learn, have been around many centuries. Both time and reason is on their side, has been, that we might easily have long beendown the wrong garden path.

That the truth will out, truth make us free, truth be known is my hope in Jesus, the Truth in whom I have fauth.

So, when I read with common sense, I refuse to accept doctrine which insists that I put away duch good sense. I refuse to twist and turn and spin to understand. Anf, I always re-read Isaiah 32.

Is 32:1-4 (even stupid will open their eyes) "Look, a righteous king is coming, with honest princes!
Then at last the eyes of Israel will open wide to God, his people will listen to his voice. 4. Even the hot heads among them will be full of sense and understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.
5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes! Wealthy cheaters will not be spoken of as generous outstanding men. 6 Everyone will recognize an evil man when he sees him.

Gotit

April 23rd 2004, 02:41 PM

Dear Cal_Min:

I have no clue if you hold to historical Biblical Hermeneutics.

Before offering my attempt at a comprehensive definition of the Trinity, it is helpful to mention one of the interpretive principles that have guided my study, namely, the distinction between a word and concept. This distinction implies that a concept can be discussed in many different ways, using very different language. The absence of a word does not necessarily imply the absence of a concept.

For example, the word "church" is used only twice in all the gospels (Matthew 16:18; 18:17). But this doesn't imply that the gospels do not teach us about the Church. On the contrary, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Church. He just didn't use the word Church. Instead, He talked about His "little flock" (Luke 12:32; John 10:16), His "disciples" (Matthew 10:24-25; 14:26-27), and about the "branches" in Himself, the Vine (John 15:1-8). In these and many different ways, Jesus taught His disciples what it meant to be members of His community. All of these passages are relevant to the doctrine of the Church, though none uses the word Church.

A. The word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible.

1). It is a theological term not a biblical one.

a). By 'theological' we mean that is a term which best expresses what we
believe the Bible teaches.
b). By 'not biblical' we mean that the word itself is never used in
Scripture. However, it is of course pure biblical teaching!

B. We may want to ask, 'Is the Trinity the teaching of the Bible or is it the
teaching of the church?' In other words, is this a carefully expounded
teaching in the Bible, or is it merely the church’s way of explaining God?

2). The term trinitas (Latin) was first used by Tertullian (200 AD), who also

coined the term persona (Latin), to describe the manifestation of the Father, Son and Spirit.

3). Church history is the laboratory of theology.

a). Theology seeks to explain what the apostles wrote.

b). Debates and heresies on this doctrine called out the best and most
difficult thought of the early Church.

4). The three most common heresies in the First Century Church and Today.

a). Sabellian modalism is an idea based on God’s unity. Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are merely names that don’t correspond to real distinctions
in God.

b). Arianism is also also based on God’s unity, saying only the Father is
God; Jesus Christ is “a god,” a created being; and the Holy Spirit is
one of God’s attributes, merely His power.

c). Tri-theism says there are simply three separate, essentially
different Gods.

5). The Trinity is the teaching of the church; but, as we shall see, equally
the teaching of the Bible.

C. Biblical teaching on God the Father!

1). God: There are none beside Him (Deut. 4:35; 2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:10;
Isaiah 43:10; 44:8).

2). God: There are none like Him (1 Kings 8:23; Isaiah 40:18; 46:5; 46:9).

3). God: There are none with Him (Deut. 4:39-40; 32:39-40; Isaiah 45:6;45:22;
Hosea 13:4).

4). God: There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29).

D. Was Jesus God? YES!

1). He existed from the beginning (John 1:1; John 8:58).

2). He was creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16).

3). He was worshipped (Matt. 2:2; John 20:28).

4). He forgave sins (Matt. 9:2; Colossians 2:10, 13).

5). He was fully God (John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; 14:9-10; Phil. 2:6-7; Colossians
2:9; Isaiah 7:14 “with us is God").

E. Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

1). The Holy Spirit is never an ‘it’ but a ‘he’ (John 16:8, 12-14; Romans 8:26).

2). He has personality (Acts 5:32).

3). He has feelings (Ephesians 4:30).

4). He has a will (Acts 16:6-7).

5). He has a mind (John 3:8; Romans 8:27).

F. Is the Holy Spirit God? YES!

1). He is creator (Genesis 1:2).

2). He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14).

3). He is called God (1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Acts 5:3-4).

4). He gives life (John 6:63).

5). He intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27).

E. God is Triune!

1). The general term in the Old Testament for God is Elohim.

2). The Hebrew word is plural.

3). In Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, let us make man in our image, in our
likeness.”

F. The relationship of the persons of the Trinity regarding the salvation of
sinners can be summarized as:

1). The Father purposing redemption (Ephesians 1:9).

2). The Son is securing redemption (1 Corinthians 6:20).

3). The Holy Spirit is applying redemption (John 6:63).

G. Question and Answer

Question: This doctrine does not make sense at all. Even a child knows that
1+1+1 does not equal 1! If this is universally true, why is it so contrary
to mathematics, a universal language?

Answer: The truth of triunity makes perfect sense and is fundamentally
demonstrated in mathematics. The unity of the Godhead is not simple
unity but an interdependent unity. Expressed mathematically it would
never be 1+1+1=1, for independent unity never gives true equality; but
1x1x1=1, for independent unity gives us exact correspondence of
equality, and the omission of one part of such an interdependent unity
leads to the loss of the entire product (1x1x0=0).

I welcome your questions and seeking of God's truth and what the Bible teaches. Which heresy do you hold? I would gladly post "What is a Heresy" if you do not understand what the Bible teaches about heresy. Are you a Jehovah Witness?

In Christ's love,

Dr. Jerry E. McKeehan

Gotit

April 23rd 2004, 02:47 PM

Dear Cal_Min:

I have no clue if you hold to historical Biblical Hermeneutics.

Before offering my attempt at a comprehensive definition of the Trinity, it is helpful to mention one of the interpretive principles that have guided

my study, namely, the distinction between a word and concept. This distinction implies that a concept can be discussed in many different ways, using very different language. The absence of a word does not necessarily imply the absence of a concept.

For example, the word "church" is used only twice in all the gospels (Matthew 16:18; 18:17). But this doesn't imply that the gospels do not teach us about the Church. On the contrary, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Church. He just didn't use the word Church. Instead, He talked about His "little flock" (Luke 12:32; John 10:16), His "disciples" (Matthew 10:24-25; 14:26-27), and about the "branches" in Himself, the Vine (John 15:1-8). In these and many different ways, Jesus taught His disciples what it meant to be members of His community. All of these passages are relevant to the doctrine of the Church, though none uses the word Church.

A. The word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible.

1). It is a theological term not a biblical one.

a). By 'theological' we mean that is a term which best expresses what we
believe the Bible teaches.

b). By 'not biblical' we mean that the word itself is never used in
Scripture. However, it is of course pure biblical teaching!

B. We may want to ask, 'Is the Trinity the teaching of the Bible or is it the
teaching of the church?' In other words, is this a carefully expounded
teaching in the Bible, or is it merely the church’s way of explaining God?

2). The term trinitas (Latin) was first used by Tertullian (200 AD), who also
coined the term persona (Latin), to describe the manifestation of the
Father, Son and Spirit.

3). Church history is the laboratory of theology.
a). Theology seeks to explain what the apostles wrote.
b). Debates and heresies on this doctrine called out the best and most
difficult thought of the early Church.

4). The three most common heresies in the First Century Church and Today.

a). Sabellian modalism is an idea based on God’s unity. Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are merely names that don’t correspond to real distinctions
in God.

b). Arianism is also also based on God’s unity, saying only the Father is
God; Jesus Christ is “a god,” a created being; and the Holy Spirit is
one of God’s attributes, merely His power.

c). Tri-theism says there are simply three separate, essentially
different Gods.

5). The Trinity is the teaching of the church; but, as we shall see, equally
the teaching of the Bible.

C. Biblical teaching on God the Father!

1). God: There are none beside Him (Deut. 4:35; 2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm
86:10; Isaiah 43:10; 44:8).
2). God: There are none like Him (1 Kings 8:23; Isaiah 40:18; 46:5; 46:9).
3). God: There are none with Him (Deut. 4:39-40; 32:39-40; Isaiah 45:6;
45:22; Hosea 13:4).
4). God: There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29).

D. Was Jesus God? YES!

1). He existed from the beginning (John 1:1; John 8:58).
2). He was creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16).
3). He was worshipped (Matt. 2:2; John 20:28).
4). He forgave sins (Matt. 9:2; Colossians 2:10, 13).
5). He was fully God (John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; 14:9-10; Phil. 2:6-7;
Colossians 2:9; Isaiah 7:14 “with us is God").

E. Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

1). The Holy Spirit is never an ‘it’ but a ‘he’ (John 16:8, 12-14; Romans
8:26).
2). He has personality (Acts 5:32).
3). He has feelings (Ephesians 4:30).
4). He has a will (Acts 16:6-7).
5). He has a mind (John 3:8; Romans 8:27).

F. Is the Holy Spirit God? YES!

1). He is creator (Genesis 1:2).
2). He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14).
3). He is called God (1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Acts 5:3-4).
4). He gives life (John 6:63).
5). He intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27).

E. God is Triune!

1). The general term in the Old Testament for God is Elohim.
2). The Hebrew word is plural.
3). In Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, let us make man in our image, in our
likeness.”

F. The relationship of the persons of the Trinity regarding the salvation of
sinners can be summarized as:

1). The Father purposing redemption (Ephesians 1:9).
2). The Son is securing redemption (1 Corinthians 6:20).
3). The Holy Spirit is applying redemption (John 6:63).

G. Question and Answer

Question: This doctrine does not make sense at all. Even a child knows that
1+1+1 does not equal 1! If this is universally true, why is it so
contrary to mathematics, a universal language?

Answer: The truth of triunity makes perfect sense and is fundamentally
demonstrated in mathematics. The unity of the Godhead is not
simple unity but an interdependent unity. Expressed mathematically
it would never be 1+1+1=1, for independent unity never gives true
equality; but 1x1x1=1, for independent unity gives us exact
correspondence of equality, and the omission of one part of such an
interdependent unity leads to the loss of the entire product
(1x1x0=0).

I welcome your questions and seeking of God's truth and what the Bible teaches.

In Christ's love,

Dr. Jerry E. McKeehan

Ron Macy

April 24th 2004, 04:41 AM

Dr. Jerry E. McKeehan,

Before offering my attempt at a comprehensive definition of the Trinity, it is helpful to mention one of the interpretive principles that have guided

my study, namely, the distinction between a word and concept. This distinction implies that a concept can be discussed in many different ways, using very different language. The absence of a word does not necessarily imply the absence of a concept.

You presentation assumes one concept without proof. It assumes the existence of beings which are multi-person. A multi-person being is a construct of philosophy, but it is not something defined in the Bible. Until you provide explicit Biblical definitions of beings (in this case, God) being multi-person, your conclusion that such a being exists is faulty. Therefore, your conclusion God is a trinity is faulty.

Ron

MiracleJerry

April 30th 2004, 11:40 PM

Dear Ron:

Did you not read my post on the Trinity? The Bible clearly teaches there is only ONE God. Then the Bible say's Jesus is God. Then the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is God.

But we do not have 3 Gods! We clearly have only one God. Mathmatically: 1x1x1=1

Read my post on the Bible verses I outlined.

Jerry

Ron Macy

May 1st 2004, 11:14 AM

Jerry,

Did you not read my post on the Trinity? The Bible clearly teaches there is only ONE God. Then the Bible say's Jesus is God. Then the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is God.

But we do not have 3 Gods! We clearly have only one God. Mathmatically: 1x1x1=1

Read my post on the Bible verses I outlined.

I have read through your presentation. I repeat. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that God is a multi-person being.

None of the scriptures you presented provides explicit definition of God as a multi-person being.

John 1:1 and John 8:58 do not prove Jesus was a person in the beginning with God. They are misinterpreted to that end, but I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 do not prove Jesus was the creator. John 1:3 tells us the word, the plan of God, was what God used to create. Logos does not refer to a person until John 1:14.
Colossians 1:16 refers to the part Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of man had in the creation. God created from the beginning knowing Jesus would offer Himself for the sins of men and for the healing of creation. Jesus’ sacrifice is fulfillment of God’s plan. For that reason, alone, Jesus can be viewed as the means of creation. Jesus does not have to be God for this passage to be accurate.

John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; 14:9-10; Phil. 2:6-7; Colossians 2:9; and Isaiah 7:14 “with us is God" do not prove Jesus was fully God.

John 1:1 uses the word, logos, as ‘word.’ Logos speaks of the plan of God and not the person of Jesus. As God’s plan, it was in the beginning with God and had the character of God in the same way as the Laws of Moses had the character of God (Romans 7:12). The plan finally came to fruition when Jesus was born. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus was the focal point of God’s creation. God created everything with the eye to Jesus being born, dying, and being resurrected to eternal life. That is why Colossians 1 can speak of Jesus being the means by which God created. It isn’t that Jesus was present at the original creation, it was God had Jesus and His sacrifice in mind when the first words of creation were spoken.

The accusation of the Jews based on John 10:30 is countered by Jesus in the verses 34-36. Jesus stated He was not claiming to be God. The charge of the Jews was an exaggeration of Jesus’ words. They exaggerated the meaning of Jesus’ words in an attempt to justify killing Jesus, not because Jesus was claiming to be God, but just because they hated Him and His teachings.

John 14:9-10 does not prove Jesus is fully God any more than the same language in John 17:22-23 proves all believers are fully God. The language speaks of unity. Jesus is united with all believers and since Jesus is united with God all believers are united with God. Jesus is speaking of unity and not identity.

Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God. The passage does not say Jesus was equal to God, it says Jesus did not try “to steal” equality with God. I see in Paul’s words a comparison between Jesus and Adam (similar to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Adam did try to steal equality with God (Ge 3:6, “…and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,…”).

I might also ask when the “emptying” of verse 7 took place. There is nothing in the context which suggests a time. The time has to be supplied by the reader. Therefore, many times can be considered, but none of them can be guaranteed by the context. Ultimately, Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God.

Colossians 2:9 does not prove Jesus was fully God. Paul uses the same kind of language in Ephesians 3:19 in reference to the believers when he writes, “…that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” The fullness of deity is nothing more or less than the fullness of God. That is for all believers. It doesn’t make us God. It qualifies to live in God’s presence for eternity.

Isaiah 7:14. Please forgive me, but attempting to prove Jesus is God based on the definition of the name, Immanuel, is childish. There was a child born shortly after this prophecy who was named Immanuel. By your logic, that child was also God. It doesn’t work.

The Holy Spirit is never an ‘it’ but a ‘he’ (John 16:8, 12-14; Romans 8:26).

The fact that the pronoun ‘he’ is used in John 16 is based entirely on Comforter, paraklētos, being a masculine noun and not on the Holy Spirit being a person.

Romans 8:26 offers no proof of the Holy Spirit being a person, either. Pneuma is neuter. Applying ‘he’ is a translator’s option. The KJV has ‘itself’ in reference to the Spirit in this verse.

An attempt to prove the person of the Holy Spirit based on pronouns is pointless.

Consider 1 Corinthians 2:11.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

This verse parallels man’s thoughts with God’s thoughts (God’s mind) and man’s spirit with God’s Spirit. It is not describing multi-persons in God any more than it is describing multi-persons in man. The Spirit is part of God in the same way man’s spirit is part of man. When God thinks, His Spirit thinks, it is not a separate person, it is just God.

Until you (or anyone else) can provide explicit scripture which describes God as being more than one person, I have no reason to believe He is. Since I have no reason to believe God is multi-person, I have no reason to interpret questionable scriptures as pointing to multi-persons in God. I have no reason to believe the trinity is Biblical.

Again, I repeat, “a multi-person being is a construct of philosophy, but it is not something defined in the Bible. Until you provide explicit Biblical definitions of beings (in this case, God) being multi-person, your conclusion that such a being exists is faulty. Therefore, your conclusion God is a trinity is faulty.”

Mathematically: 1x1x1=1 speaks more of modalism than it does of trinity.

Ron

Jeannot

May 1st 2004, 12:09 PM

I agree. Note also that the Arians pointed to Proverbs 8:22ff as descritpive of Jesus, and in line with John 1:1-3.

kofh2u

May 1st 2004, 04:22 PM

Jerry,

I have read through your presentation. I repeat. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that God is a multi-person being.

None of the scriptures you presented provides explicit definition of God as a multi-person being.

John 1:1 and John 8:58 do not prove Jesus was a person in the beginning with God. They are misinterpreted to that end, but I believe the interpretation is incorrect.

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 do not prove Jesus was the creator. John 1:3 tells us the word, the plan of God, was what God used to create. Logos does not refer to a person until John 1:14.
Colossians 1:16 refers to the part Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of man had in the creation. God created from the beginning knowing Jesus would offer Himself for the sins of men and for the healing of creation. Jesus’ sacrifice is fulfillment of God’s plan. For that reason, alone, Jesus can be viewed as the means of creation. Jesus does not have to be God for this passage to be accurate.

John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; 14:9-10; Phil. 2:6-7; Colossians 2:9; and Isaiah 7:14 “with us is God" do not prove Jesus was fully God.

John 1:1 uses the word, logos, as ‘word.’ Logos speaks of the plan of God and not the person of Jesus. As God’s plan, it was in the beginning with God and had the character of God in the same way as the Laws of Moses had the character of God (Romans 7:12). The plan finally came to fruition when Jesus was born. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus was the focal point of God’s creation. God created everything with the eye to Jesus being born, dying, and being resurrected to eternal life. That is why Colossians 1 can speak of Jesus being the means by which God created. It isn’t that Jesus was present at the original creation, it was God had Jesus and His sacrifice in mind when the first words of creation were spoken.

The accusation of the Jews based on John 10:30 is countered by Jesus in the verses 34-36. Jesus stated He was not claiming to be God. The charge of the Jews was an exaggeration of Jesus’ words. They exaggerated the meaning of Jesus’ words in an attempt to justify killing Jesus, not because Jesus was claiming to be God, but just because they hated Him and His teachings.

John 14:9-10 does not prove Jesus is fully God any more than the same language in John 17:22-23 proves all believers are fully God. The language speaks of unity. Jesus is united with all believers and since Jesus is united with God all believers are united with God. Jesus is speaking of unity and not identity.

Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God. The passage does not say Jesus was equal to God, it says Jesus did not try “to steal” equality with God. I see in Paul’s words a comparison between Jesus and Adam (similar to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Adam did try to steal equality with God (Ge 3:6, “…and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,…”).

I might also ask when the “emptying” of verse 7 took place. There is nothing in the context which suggests a time. The time has to be supplied by the reader. Therefore, many times can be considered, but none of them can be guaranteed by the context. Ultimately, Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God.

Colossians 2:9 does not prove Jesus was fully God. Paul uses the same kind of language in Ephesians 3:19 in reference to the believers when he writes, “…that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” The fullness of deity is nothing more or less than the fullness of God. That is for all believers. It doesn’t make us God. It qualifies to live in God’s presence for eternity.

Isaiah 7:14. Please forgive me, but attempting to prove Jesus is God based on the definition of the name, Immanuel, is childish. There was a child born shortly after this prophecy who was named Immanuel. By your logic, that child was also God. It doesn’t work.

The fact that the pronoun ‘he’ is used in John 16 is based entirely on Comforter, parakle¯tos, being a masculine noun and not on the Holy Spirit being a person.

Romans 8:26 offers no proof of the Holy Spirit being a person, either. Pneuma is neuter. Applying ‘he’ is a translator’s option. The KJV has ‘itself’ in reference to the Spirit in this verse.

An attempt to prove the person of the Holy Spirit based on pronouns is pointless.

Consider 1 Corinthians 2:11.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

This verse parallels man’s thoughts with God’s thoughts (God’s mind) and man’s spirit with God’s Spirit. It is not describing multi-persons in God any more than it is describing multi-persons in man. The Spirit is part of God in the same way man’s spirit is part of man. When God thinks, His Spirit thinks, it is not a separate person, it is just God.

Until you (or anyone else) can provide explicit scripture which describes God as being more than one person, I have no reason to believe He is. Since I have no reason to believe God is multi-person, I have no reason to interpret questionable scriptures as pointing to multi-persons in God. I have no reason to believe the trinity is Biblical.

Again, I repeat, “a multi-person being is a construct of philosophy, but it is not something defined in the Bible. Until you provide explicit Biblical definitions of beings (in this case, God) being multi-person, your conclusion that such a being exists is faulty. Therefore, your conclusion God is a trinity is faulty.”

Mathematically: 1x1x1=1 speaks more of modalism than it does of trinity.

Ron

Ron,
You say:
"Again, I repeat, “a multi-person being" is a construct of philosophy, but it is not something defined in the Bible. Until you provide explicit Biblical definitions of beings being multi-person, your conclusion that such a being exists is faulty."

You ask for scriptural evidence of creatures of "multi-being" beings. Here is one:

Ezek. 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion: and they four had the face of an ox; they four also had the face of an eagle.

Ron Macy

May 2nd 2004, 12:18 AM

kofh2u,

You wrote,

You ask for scriptural evidence of creatures of "multi-being" beings. Here is one:

Ezek. 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion: and they four had the face of an ox; they four also had the face of an eagle.

This speaks of a being with four faces, but it says nothing about four persons in the being.

Good try, though.

Ron

kofh2u

May 16th 2004, 08:17 AM

kofh2u,

You wrote,

This speaks of a being with four faces, but it says nothing about four persons in the being.

Good try, though.

Ron

You got out of that one, ron, the "just give me one example of the bible writers describing two or more personalities in one being.

How do you see these creatures, and the Trinity concept in regard to Janus?

Roman god of doorways and archways, after whom the month of January is named. Often depicted as a double-faced head, he was a deity of beginnings. The worship of Janus dated back to the earliest years of Rome, and the city had many freestanding ceremonial gateways called jani.

Magdalenbrother

May 17th 2004, 04:10 AM

The reason is very simple:

The Christians were very pessimistic about human nature so they could not ascribe Jesus' miracles and other deeds to a "mere man". This is the eternal Jewish temptation in man. In the time of St Symeon the New Theologian, Christians had once again fallen into that rut, deriding the idea that God could have communion with human beings. Then came Symeon and his miracles and words restored the ancient faith that man and God can be one.

Another very powerful reason is that the Christians needed a hero that was as great as the pagan deities that are born from a virgin, die and resurrect. To stick with the very simple and plain theology of the Synoptic Gospels and Paul would have made Christianity into a substandard religion without a real God. and lacking in appeal for pagans, who did not care about the unity of God in the first place. So they made Jesus God.

See the huge diffeence between Ignatius who lived in Antioch in the secon century and kept calling Jesus "my God" and Paul who in Romans 1,8 says "I thank my God through Jesus Christ".

Magdalenbrother

May 17th 2004, 04:18 AM

There were and still are many powerful reasons for inventing and maintaining the "consubstantial trinity":

-Greek philosophy and language
-naive devotionalism
-the need to assert Christianity as a religion as good as the other mystery cults who had divine heroes as their main object of worship
-the need to make Christianity different from Judaism
-lack of knowledge of the Semitic background of the NT
-the rivalry between powerful and ambitious personalities (Athanasius vs Arius)
-the fear that, if one says that an ordinary human being could become divine, people would stop depending on the Church and its hierarchy

Magdalenbrother

May 17th 2004, 04:51 AM

Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God. The passage does not say Jesus was equal to God, it says Jesus did not try “to steal” equality with God. I see in Paul’s words a comparison between Jesus and Adam (similar to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Adam did try to steal equality with God (Ge 3:6, “…and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,…”).

I might also ask when the “emptying” of verse 7 took place. There is nothing in the context which suggests a time. The time has to be supplied by the reader. Therefore, many times can be considered, but none of them can be guaranteed by the context. Ultimately, Philippians 2:6-7 do not prove Jesus was fully God.

Phil 2,6 is in fact a very powerful passage against any idea of the pre-existence of the son in God.

The whole passage as you point out is reminiscent of Genesis and therefore Jesus here should be seen as the New Adam and not as God.

...subsisting (Greek up-archein) in the form (morphei) of God he deemed it not a thing to be grabbed to be (einai) equal to God...

This happens not before the incarnation of the son of God but in the days of his flesh
What it means "to be in the form of God" was seen at the Transfiguration. Jesus had the glory of Adam before the fall, he possessed the image and the likeness to a very high degree.

But although he was so far advanced in saintliness he did not try, like Adam and Satan, to grab equality with God. What this segment refers to among other things is the Temptation in the desert, where Satan tempted Jesus to become God out of God's scheme and will, for his own pleasure.

Another possibility that is rarely thought of is that the verb "subsisting" could in fact be translated as "beginning to be", which is the basic meaning of Greek "up-archein".
Jesus, who had begun to show the attributes of the New Adam, was tempted to overreach himself.

Think how odd it is for God to covet equality with God! This alone shows the absurdity of the usual interpretation of this verse. Greed is not something that God could feel, but a human being could.

Then we learn that he emptied himself. Here again we need to be aware of the aorist participles that accompany the main verb. Aorist participles most of the time refer to actions that are antecedent to the action of the main verb.

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The KJV translation above is simply incorrect or at least it is not the most plausible one. "took upon" and "was made" are aorist participles in Greek. And aorist participles almost always refer to actions that happened before the action of the main verb.

The most plausible translation therefore should be:

But having taken the form of a servant and having been made in the likeness of men, he emptied himself...

This translation shows clearly that the "emptying" did not happen at or before the moment of conception (=Incarnation) but afterwards.

Let me finally remind everyone that Romans 1,4 shows that for Paul Jesus became "son of God" at his resurrection and not at his birth. Paul knows nothing of the virginal birth. He describes Mary as a "woman", not a virgin.