Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

[Cal_Minian]

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers!


Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (KJV, Cf Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19)


Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE)
"And if, the Creator above all is confessed to be just, and the Lord to be the Son of the Creator; then the Lord is the Son of Him who is just. Wherefore also Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested; " and again, that you may better conceive of God, "even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ upon all that believe; for there is no difference." And, witnessing further to the truth, he adds after a little, "through the forbearance of God, in order to show that He is just, and that Jesus is the justifier of him who is of faith." And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good," using both names to denote the same power. But "no one is good," except His Father." ( hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR )

Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)
'They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , (hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS) who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners."'

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
"Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: `Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as `Good Master: '`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.' (Luke xviii. 18 f.)"

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE)
"AT break of day, when Peter went forth to discourse, Simon anticipated him, and said: "When I went away yesterday, I promised to you to return to-day, and in a discussion show that he who flamed the world is not the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown up to this time. At once, then, state to me whether you maintain that the framer of the world is the same as the lawgiver or not? If, then, he is the lawgiver, he is just; but if he is just, he is not good. But if he is not good, then it was another that Jesus proclaimed, when he said, `Do not call me good; for one is good, the Father who is in the heavens.'" (hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS)


What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)


Justin, Dial. 101.2 hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR MOU hO EN TOIS OURANOIS - "One is good, my Father in the heavens."

Taitian Diatessaron (c. 172 CE) , as per Ephrem Syrus, Comm. on the Diatessaron, XV,9 (Syr & Arm] "Unus est bonus, Pater, qui in caelo."

Irenaeus, haer. I.210.2 (pre-185 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Hippolytus, haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V.10.63 (c. 207 CE) "hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR"

the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) "hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Vetus Latina MS e (apud Matthew; V cent) "Unus est bonus, pater."

Vetus Latina MS d (apud Luke; V cent) "Nemo bonus misi unus Deus pater."

[Jaltus]

According to NA 27, the only text critical issue is that "father" appears in a single manuscript of the Matthean passage, namely Marcus as quoted by Irenaeus.

There is no dispute over the Lukan passage.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132575#post132575)
Jaltus:

According to NA 27, the only text critical issue is that "father" appears in a single manuscript of the Matthean passage, namely Marcus as quoted by Irenaeus.

There is no dispute over the Lukan passage.

Dear Jaltus,
I checked my NA27 and my Swanson but it was in the USB that I found Marcion, Clement, Ps-Clement and Juvencus.

Thanks for sharing that, I have marked my copies.

Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Thanks. NA 27 covers more with less depth, but UBS covers with more depth what it covers.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132495#post132495)
Cal_Minian:

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (KJV, Cf Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19)



Is this a serious post? Do you think you really posted anything which refutes anything I said? Then read on.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers!

Not no way! Not no how! I am not one bit impressed by blind cut and paste jobs or sloppy research and quotes out-of-context. You can take your pick as to which it is.

Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE) * * *

Posted quote does NOT appear in the work cited nor does it appear in Stromata IV or VI. Here's the link to V, prove me wrong.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-65.htm#P7190_2189438

Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)
'They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , (hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS) who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners."'

You have absolutely GOT to be kidding with this one. You either blindly copied it from some JW anti-Trinitarian site or just yanked this quote out of the work cited without bothering to read the context. As you have noted this is from Hippolytus' Against Heresies and in this particular quote Hippolytus is showing how a heretical group called "the Naassene" calls Osisis the Logos and misapplies Mk 10:7, Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19 to Osiris. Now is that what you want to prove? Give me a break! I have highlighted your out-of-context quote, below.
This, with them [the Naassene. OS], is the ineffable and mystical Logos. They assert, then, that the Egyptians, who after the Phrygians, it is established, are of greater antiquity than all mankind, and who confessedly were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods, as well as the species and energies (of things), have the sacred and august, and for those who are not initiated, unspeakable mysteries of Isis. These, however, are not anything else than what by her of the seven dresses and sable robe was sought and snatched away, namely, the pudendum of Osiris. And they say that Osiris is water. But the seven-robed nature, encircled and arrayed with seven mantles of ethereal texture-for so they call the planetary stars, allegorizing and denominating them ethereal robes,-is as it were the changeable generation, and is exhibited as the creature transformed by the ineffable and unportrayable, and inconceivable and figureless one. And this, (the Naassene) says, is what is declared in Scripture, "The just will fall seven times, and rise again." For these falls, he says, are the changes of the stars, moved by Him who puts all things in motion.

They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He [the Naassene. OS] says that this (one) [Osiris. OS] alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one) [Osiris. OS]: "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-09.htm#P912_239623

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
"Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: `Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as `Good Master: '`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.' (Luke xviii. 18 f.)"

At least this quote is accurate, as far as it goes. But let us get a bigger picture and read further in Justin. Need I say more?
Justin, Dialogue

For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all [hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them.

And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) * * *

"Pseudo" means false. I don't do false!


What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

And textual variants prove exactly what? Here are a few early church fathers you overlooked.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

For as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing39 spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign,40 and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV

But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am"162 ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226
And OBTW I did all my own ECF research AND I read the context lest I too look foolish.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132726#post132726)
OldShepherd:


Is this a serious post? Do you think you really posted anything which refutes anything I said? Then read on.



Not no way! Not no how! I am not one bit impressed by blind cut and paste jobs or sloppy research and quotes out-of-context. You can take your pick as to which it is.



Posted quote does NOT appear in the work cited nor does it appear in Stromata IV or VI. Here's the link to V, prove me wrong.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-65.htm#P7190_2189438



You have absolutely GOT to be kidding with this one. You either blindly copied it from some JW anti-Trinitarian site or just yanked this quote out of the work cited without bothering to read the context. As you have noted this is from Hippolytus' Against Heresies and in this particular quote Hippolytus is showing how a heretical group called "the Naassene" calls Osisis the Logos and misapplies Mk 10:7, Mt 19:17; Lu 18:19 to Osiris. Now is that what you want to prove? Give me a break! I have highlighted your out-of-context quote, below.
This, with them [the Naassene. OS], is the ineffable and mystical Logos. They assert, then, that the Egyptians, who after the Phrygians, it is established, are of greater antiquity than all mankind, and who confessedly were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods, as well as the species and energies (of things), have the sacred and august, and for those who are not initiated, unspeakable mysteries of Isis. These, however, are not anything else than what by her of the seven dresses and sable robe was sought and snatched away, namely, the pudendum of Osiris. And they say that Osiris is water. But the seven-robed nature, encircled and arrayed with seven mantles of ethereal texture-for so they call the planetary stars, allegorizing and denominating them ethereal robes,-is as it were the changeable generation, and is exhibited as the creature transformed by the ineffable and unportrayable, and inconceivable and figureless one. And this, (the Naassene) says, is what is declared in Scripture, "The just will fall seven times, and rise again." For these falls, he says, are the changes of the stars, moved by Him who puts all things in motion.

They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He [the Naassene. OS] says that this (one) [Osiris. OS] alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one) [Osiris. OS]: "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners." But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris, (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis; and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-09.htm#P912_239623



At least this quote is accurate, as far as it goes. But let us get a bigger picture and read further in Justin. Need I say more?
Justin, Dialogue

For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all [hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them.

And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325



"Pseudo" means false. I don't do false!
[/b]



And textual variants prove exactly what? Here are a few early church fathers you overlooked.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

For as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing39 spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign,40 and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV

But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am"162 ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226
And OBTW I did all my own ECF research AND I read the context lest I too look foolish.

Dear Carlos,
Thanks for your research. You might be interested in reading What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

One point of clarification. You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?

Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132753#post132753)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
Thanks for your research. You might be interested in reading What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)

One point of clarification. You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?

Regards,
Cal

Perhaps you could quote any pertinent parts of Aland and Delobel, relevant to this particular discussion?

"You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?" Are you serious? You quoted ONE (1) church father who does appear to say in ONE place that only God is good and in two other places, in the same work, that Christ is good. I have aleady posted my opinion of the others. One nonexistent, one junk!

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132760#post132760)
OldShepherd:



Perhaps you could quote any pertinent parts of Aland and Delobel, relevant to this particular discussion?

"You do agree that the Fathers I quoted indicated that the one who was good alone was the Father, don't you?" Are you serious? You quoted ONE (1) church father who does appear to say in ONE place that only God is good and in two other places, in the same work, that Christ is good. I have aleady posted my opinion of the others. One nonexistent, one junk!

Dear OldSheperd,
I found the chapter from that book which I photocopied a number of years ago. I think I will scan and OCR it so that I can quote it. I won't be able to do that for a week or so.

However I thought I remembered that William Peterson had participated in an email group I used to extensively read where he commented on this subject. It was back in 1996. Here is a link to the email. He is much less conservative in the email than in the book so it's a real fun read.

The url is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/769

He concludes with:

But of course, this is all old hat, for it is all pre-Christian, found in
Philo, in his discussion of Ex. 7.1 and elsewhere (try on Q. in Gen., II.62,
for size): "The oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in
the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but only in
that of the second God, who is His Logos."

It may not be the Christology of now, but I have a pretty good inkling that
it was the Christology of THEN, and that is what I am researching--NOT what
I may or may not subscribe to NOW.


--Petersen, Penn. State Univ.




Have fun,
Your good friend, Cal :smile:

[AVmetro]

I find this odd. Is Cal attempting to prove that the Fathers didn't believe Christ to be God? Cal needs to do more than simply cite the Fathers but interpret them correctly as well. Does Martyr intend to exclude the Son? No. Especially given his theology. The only other motive {of Cal} I see is to demonstrate that they are very astute when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Now that would certainly be a case of pick and choose. :shrug:

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132914#post132914)
IronMetro:

I find this odd. Is Cal attempting to prove that the Fathers didn't believe Christ to be God? Cal needs to do more than simply cite the Fathers but interpret them correctly as well. Does Martyr intend to exclude the Son? No. Especially given his theology. The only other motive {of Cal} I see is to demonstrate that they are very astute when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Now that would certainly be a case of pick and choose. :shrug:

Dear IronMetro,
The purpose of my post was to show how the verse "only God is good" was used by BDAG which is contrasting Jesus and others who are called QEOS in a representative sense with the Father who is called God in the monotheistic sense.

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

As for Justin, you might be interested in the following:


A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos [i.e., "not the God"]. J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."



Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 01:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132799#post132799)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldSheperd,
I found the chapter from that book which I photocopied a number of years ago. I think I will scan and OCR it so that I can quote it. I won't be able to do that for a week or so.

However I thought I remembered that William Peterson had participated in an email group I used to extensively read where he commented on this subject. It was back in 1996. Here is a link to the email. He is much less conservative in the email than in the book so it's a real fun read.

The url is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/769

He concludes with:

But of course, this is all old hat, for it is all pre-Christian, found in Philo, in his discussion of Ex. 7.1 and elsewhere (try on Q. in Gen., II.62, for size): "The oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe, but only in that of the second God, who is His Logos."

It may not be the Christology of now, but I have a pretty good inkling that it was the Christology of THEN, and that is what I am researching--NOT what I may or may not subscribe to NOW.

--Petersen, Penn. State Univ.

Have fun,
Your good friend, Cal :smile:

irrelevant! Philo was a Hellenized Jewish Philosopher and I doubt very seriously that he had any Christology at all.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133235#post133235)
Cal_Minian:

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

NO! It absolutely does NOT! You are consistently reading your presuppositions into what BDAG actually says!

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133235#post133235)
Cal_Minian:



Dear IronMetro,
The purpose of my post was to show how the verse "only God is good" was used by BDAG which is contrasting Jesus and others who are called QEOS in a representative sense with the Father who is called God in the monotheistic sense.

BDAG distinguishes beween QEOS of the Father in John 1:1a as being in the monotheistic sense and QEOS of the Word in John 1:1b as being in the sense that is not the monotheistic sense.

As for Justin, you might be interested in the following:

A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos . J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

I have done my own research in Justin and you might be interested in my conclusions. But then again probably not because they clearly refute this citation.
In his, ( Link to: Dialogue with Trypho) (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325), Justin wrote;
The Word is Not an Inanimate Power.

The Word is a Person.

The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.

He (Jesus) was God,

He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.

He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.

He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.

(Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.
Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. [I]The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.
Kindest Regards,
Carlos

[Reasonable]

OS,
thanks for your research. I have a book that claims Justin Martyr said the following:

"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce them...He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob,and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will."

Is this true and what does it mean? How can Jesus (assuming it is speaking of him) be another God other than the maker of all things? He seems to think Jesus is a God other than the Creator and is subject to that God. How was Jesus numerically distinct from the God who made all things. Was Martyr a Polytheist? Any comments on this?

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133802#post133802)
OldShepherd:



"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos . J[ustin] reserves the latter ["the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.
And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

I have done my own research in Justin and you might be interested in my conclusions. But then again probably not because they clearly refute this citation.
In his, ( Link to: Dialogue with Trypho) (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325), Justin wrote;
The Word is Not an Inanimate Power.

The Word is a Person.

The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.

He (Jesus) was God,

He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.

He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.

He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.

(Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.
Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. [I]The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.
Kindest Regards,
Carlos


Dear Carlos,
I see from your list you have not researched the specific quote I posted of:


"Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."


Could you tell me your take on this?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133723#post133723)
OldShepherd:



NO! It absolutely does NOT! You are consistently reading your presuppositions into what BDAG actually says!

Dear Carlos,
As I have shown in another post, according to BDAG QEOS is used with two senses in John 1:1, one for the Son as "a god" and another for the Father in the monotheistic sense.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134208#post134208)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
As I have shown in another post, according to BDAG QEOS is used with two senses in John 1:1, one for the Son as "a god" and another for the Father in the monotheistic sense.

Kind Regards,
Cal

You absolutely have NOT proved any such thing. You have repeatedly twisted the quote from BGAD to try to make it fit your presuppositions. You have ignored the context and abbreviations within the article which very clearly contradict your assumptions.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134657#post134657)
OldShepherd:



You absolutely have NOT proved any such thing. You have repeatedly twisted the quote from BGAD to try to make it fit your presuppositions. You have ignored the context and abbreviations within the article which very clearly contradict your assumptions.

Dear OldShepherd,
With all due respect you do not have a copy of BDAG. I have studied the entry on QEOS very carefully. Jaltus has a copy and he has not stated otherwise.

Aside from that, your only answer to the quote from Diognetus was to call him a Pagan, but I showed you that he was not a Pagan according to BDAG. I have also verified this work in my copies of Fisher's History of Christian Religion and other books in my library.

So let's get back to that, shall we? If you are correct, then why does BDAG illustrate how Jesus is QEOS by giving examples of other saviors which are called "a god."?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134671#post134671)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
With all due respect you do not have a copy of BDAG. I have studied the entry on QEOS very carefully. Jaltus has a copy and he has not stated otherwise.

Aside from that, your only answer to the quote from Diognetus was to call him a Pagan, but I showed you that he was not a Pagan according to BDAG. I have also verified this work in my copies of Fisher's History of Christian Religion and other books in my library.

So let's get back to that, shall we? If you are correct, then why does BDAG illustrate how Jesus is QEOS by giving examples of other saviors which are called "a god."?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Dear Cal, respectfully it doesn't matter how many times you ahve read the article, I have raised an issue several times about your interpetation of your quote from BDAG. You have never responded to it. Your response has been to post the same thing over and over.

My question concerns the inclusion of John 1:1a and 1:1b with the abbreviation "w." which means "with" and then it goes on to mention a problem being raised with the attribution. If the article is saying that theos in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b are used differently, as you claim, then why does the article join them with the word "with" and if "theos" in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b are used in different ways why would that raise a problem of such an attribution as the article says?

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134875#post134875)
OldShepherd:



Dear Cal, respectfully it doesn't matter how many times you ahve read the article, I have raised an issue several times about your interpetation of your quote from BDAG. You have never responded to it. Your response has been to post the same thing over and over.

My question concerns the inclusion of John 1:1a and 1:1b with the abbreviation "w." which means "with" and then it goes on to mention a problem being raised with the attribution. If the article is saying that theos in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b are used differently, as you claim, then why does the article join them with the word "with" and if "theos" in Jn 1:1a and 1:1b are used in different ways why would that raise a problem of such an attribution as the article says?



Dear Carlos,

The threads are confusing. I will post this again here. The reason why this might cause a probem is because of the very first statement in the section of QEOS for Christ. It is because QEOS is used of Christ "without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4;"

The significance of that is that they consider the God in Det 6:4 to be QEOS of the Father in the monotheistic sense.

When the speak about QEOS as the Father in John 1:1a the sense is that of the monotheistic sense but with respect to the Word at 1b it is not. That is what they clearly say in this section.

The monotheistic sense is DIFFERENT than that of one who is a representative of God like Moses at Exodus 7:1.


ALSO
Did you see the link for Diognetus in the Catholic Encylopadia? Dg stands for the letter TO Diognetus who was a Pagan, but the author of the words is a 2nd century Christian apologist.

This makes the quote secure for use as to how early Christians would have viewed "a god."



Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

06-27-2003 @ 09:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134178#post134178)
Reasonable:

OS,
thanks for your research. I have a book that claims Justin Martyr said the following:

"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce them...He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob,and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will."

Is this true and what does it mean? How can Jesus (assuming it is speaking of him) be another God other than the maker of all things? He seems to think Jesus is a God other than the Creator and is subject to that God. How was Jesus numerically distinct from the God who made all things. Was Martyr a Polytheist? Any comments on this?

Dear Reasonable,
I see that OldShepherd has not answered you on this. Have you ever had a reasonable Trinitarian response?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139688#post139688)
Cal_Minian:



Dear Reasonable,
I see that OldShepherd has not answered you on this. Have you ever had a reasonable Trinitarian response?

Kind Regards,
Cal

You can read the citation here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4499_940094). It appears that citing excerpts such as this from Justin in isolation is ignoring other pertinent statements by the same. From what I understand, it's actually rather easy to "proof-text'' from Justin if you're not familar with the whole of his theology.

When I had first read the quote from Martyr, I didn't see what the immediate problem was for Trinitarians. Perhaps it is that 'Reasonable' doesn't understand Justin's theology to such a degree as to discern what is and what is not problematic (?).

What Justin means to imply by "another God and LORD (YHWH)" is to demonstrate the distinction between Father and Son. If you read the dialogue linked above you can see this theme of "..you have thought it was the Father.." when all along it was the Son. Justin attributed essentially all theophanic occurences to Christ.

For example:
Chapter LIX.-God Distinct from the Father Conversed with Moses.

When I had spoken these words, I continued: "Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses." And after they said they would listen cheerfully, patiently, and eagerly, I went on: "These words are in the book which bears the title of Exodus: `And after many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned by reason of the works; and so on until, `Go and gather the elders of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared to me, saying, I am surely beholding you, and the things which have befallen you in Egypt.'" In addition to these words, I went on: "Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob? "
See also:
And I replied, "Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. For the Scripture says thus: `The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the bush; and he sees that the bush burns with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside and see this great sight, for the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he is turning aside to behold, the Lord called to him out of the bush.'217 In the same manner, therefore, in which the Scripture calls Him who appeared to Jacob in the dream an Angel, then [says] that the same Angel who appeared in the dream spoke to him,218 saying, `I am the God that appeared to thee when thou didst flee from the face of Esau thy brother; 'and [again] says that, in the judgment which befell Sodom in the days of Abraham, the Lord had inflicted the punishment219 of the Lord who [dwells] in the heavens;-even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other [God].

....

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,220 [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will;221 just as we see222 happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word223 [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

....

"And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out,226 that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: `Let Us make man after our image and likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth. And God created man: after the image of God did He create him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have power over it.'227 And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert,-either that God said to Himself, `Let Us make, 'just as we, when about to do something, oftentimes say to ourselves, `Let us make; 'or that God spoke to the elements, to wit, the earth and other similar substances of which we believe man was formed, `Let Us make, '-I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. These are the words: `And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.'228 In saying, therefore, `as one of us, '[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy229 which is said to be among you230 is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels.

....

But they admit that He will come to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God; and this opinion I shall in like manner show to be ridiculous and silly. But since I am pressed to answer first to what was said by you in jest, I shall make answer to it, and shall afterwards give replies to what follows.

[Dialogue with Trypho]

From his first apology:
Chapter VI.-Charge of Atheism Refuted.

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),9 and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Cf..Chapters 16 and 17 in regards to 'worship'.

Found here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3609_624621).

Dialogue:
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

Found here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3646_641284).
The above is simply some random pickings from a quick skim of Justin's writings to help convey the right idea for the time being, so forgive the sloppy nature of the post.

God bless

[OldShepherd]

06-28-2003 @ 03:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134206#post134206)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Carlos,
I see from your list you have not researched the specific quote I posted of:

"Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

Could you tell me your take on this?

Kind Regards,
Cal

I missed this because there is so much spam on this forum. I have a job and a life and unlike some I cannot spend 8-10 hours a day researching and posting on this forum. Some people evidently seem to have all the time in the world to be able to spend hours posting, researching, and starting half a dozen threads a day.

But I will be glad to give you my take on this just as soon as you tell me where specifically in Justin's works this can be found. I already know the answer but I want you to do the research not just regurgitate some WBTS dog puke and expect me to respond. I gave you the link above, get busy.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139688#post139688)
Cal_Minian:

06-27-2003 @ 09:53 AM post located here
Reasonable:

OS,
thanks for your research. I have a book that claims Justin Martyr said the following:

"I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wished to announce them...He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob,and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from him who made all things-numerically I mean, not in will."

Is this true and what does it mean? How can Jesus (assuming it is speaking of him) be another God other than the maker of all things? He seems to think Jesus is a God other than the Creator and is subject to that God. How was Jesus numerically distinct from the God who made all things. Was Martyr a Polytheist? Any comments on this?

Dear Reasonable,
I see that OldShepherd has not answered you on this. Have you ever had a reasonable Trinitarian response?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Same response as above. Someone thinks by spamming the board with dozens of posts they are proving their argument. I didn't see this post because of all the other spam.

Reasonable, first may I suggest you throw away whatever piece of WBTS dog puke writing you got this out of and go actually read the primary source, i.e. Justin's writings, not what your brainwashers want you to believe.

Here is the quote, in-context. You will note that Justin assured Trypho there is only one God, "the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." But Trypho keeps insisting that Justin is talking about another god. So Justin uses Trypho's own words to make his point. But as has been shown by Iron Metro above, Justin did not believe nor teach what you think your one puny out-of-context misquote shows.
Justin Dialogue with Trypho the Jew

Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

Chapter L.-It is Proved from Isaiah that John is the Precursor of Christ.

And Trypho said, "You seem to me to have come out of a great conflict with many persons about all the points we have been searching into, and therefore quite ready to return answers to all questions put to you. Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin."

Chapter LV.-Trypho Asks that Christ Be Proved God, But

Without Metaphor. Justin Promises to Do So.
And Trypho answered, "We shall remember this your exposition, if you strengthen [your solution of] this difficulty by other arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God besides the Maker of all things,

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them." And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mature, as the Scripture asserts? "

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325
Metro have you ever had anything other than this kind of misquoting, run around in circles, nonsense from a WBTS.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139866#post139866)


OldShepherd:
But I will be glad to give you my take on this just as soon as you tell me where specifically in Justin's works this can be found. I already know the answer but I want you to do the research not just regurgitate some WBTS dog puke and expect me to respond. I gave you the link above, get busy.

Dear OldShepherd,
I have been very patient and have attempted to overlook your ridicule. However, I regret to inform you that I will no longer read or respond to any of your posts.

I am going to take the advise of the inspired writer of the Proverb below:


Proverbs 9:7_ He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to himself dishonor , and he that is giving a reproof to someone wicked—a defect in him. 8_Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you. 9_Give to a wise person and he will become still wiser. Impart knowledge to someone righteous and he will increase in learning.


Best Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140276#post140276)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I have been very patient and have attempted to overlook your ridicule. However, I regret to inform you that I will no longer read or respond to any of your posts.

I am going to take the advise of the inspired writer of the Proverb below:

Best Regards,
Cal

Oh now I really feel bad. Him's wittle feelings is hurt he wants to insult Trinitarians by lumping them all together and talking down to them, "Have you ever had a reasonable Trinitarian response?" and now he's going to get all in a huff because I said something equally insulting about his WBTS teachings. Little man, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Do what you gotta do. I will still address your posts and point out how you misquote and misuse sources, e.g. BDAG.

[dizzle]

"Dog puke" was edited out as being gratuitous. Doctrinal disputes will always be contentious, let's try not to be more so than necessary. However, any complaint about not being able to strongly criticize another's "denomination" will not be entertained. We allow strong and frank criticism and defense of the essentials. Both the Trinitarians and Arians have been allowed this freedom, and we will not censor such. Thank you.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 09:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140821#post140821)
Dee Dee Warren:



Dear DeeDee,
Do you see a difference between attacking a particular group of people or a denomination (ie ad-hominem) and criticising a particular teaching or belief while offering Scriptural support?

I have NEVER made posts to the effect that Trinitarians are stupid fools or Calvinists are heretics or Baptists are Pagan.

I attempt to comport myself with dignity and to show respect to the persons to whom I communicate on this and all other forums.

If one abandons Christian principals in the interests of attacking those who one feels teach incorrect doctrine it is the height of hypocracy to continue to claim the title "Christian."


ASV 1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify in your hearts Christ as
Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that
asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you,
yet with meekness and fear:


Kind Regards,
Cal

[o2bwise]

Mr Bean is the non-Trinitarian, Francisco a Catholic Trinitarian.

From:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6893&perpage=15&pagenumber=31
Post #462

Character is the chief thing.


Mr. Bean,

That is a good point.

But, WHY do you need to be so critical? Francisco, I would guess, has a great fondness for his church. His feelings are genuine.

Was it REALLY "truth in season" to include "your church" in your observation?

When we are judged, it won't be so much what we know, but who we are.

Man, you are just such a nasty human being in here, so often.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Jaltus]

Well, I am sick, otherwise I would respond more fully.

In BDAG, John 1:1b is listed as talking about God. However, I see no listing of John 1:1c at all. I could just be missing it. If it is not there, then Cal is making the mistake of an argument from silence (just as he did by claiming that I have not refuted him so I must agree with him, when fankly I have been out of town and sick).

In addition, Cal obviously missed the header for definition 2 in BDAG, 450, where it says "Some writings in our lit{erature} use the word Q{EOS} w{ith} ref{erence} to Christ (without necessarily equating Chrisdt with the Father, and therefore in harmony w{ith} the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass{ages} is in debate."

[dizzle]

Oh Jaltus sorry to hear you are sick.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141469#post141469)
Jaltus:

Well, I am sick, otherwise I would respond more fully.

Cal:
Jaltus,
I am sorry you are sick. I just got over being sick for over a week. I hope you feel better soon.

Jaltus:
In BDAG, John 1:1b is listed as talking about God. However, I see no listing of John 1:1c at all. I could just be missing it.

Cal:
BDAG is referring to instances of QEOS in this article on QEOS. Since John 1:1 has two instances of QEOS, the first one is John 1:1a, or TON QEON of which BDAG says refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. John 1:1b in this section is the anarthrous QEOS in the phrase QEOS HN hO LOGOS. I can understand your confusion, though, because I gave it a double take the first time I read it. I too am accustomed to breaking up John 1:1 into three clauses, but since this article is about QEOS and it only occurs twice that would not make sense in this context.

In fact I have made my points merely by quoting BDAG without much interpretation. I have responded to questions about the BDAG entry from Trinitarians who apparently do not like what BDAG says, but what he does say is very clear.

He says that to equate Christ with the Father would not be in harmony with the Shema of Israel and to understand the problem raised by attributing QEOS to Christ at John 1:1b one should look at John 10:34 and compare Exodus 7:1 to that.


"Some writings in our lit{erature} use the word Q{EOS} w{ith} ref{erence} to Christ (without necessarily equating Chrisdt with the Father, and therefore in harmony w{ith} the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass{ages} is in debate."


Jaltus:
In addition, Cal obviously missed the header for definition 2 in BDAG, 450, where it says "Some writings in our lit{erature} use the word Q{EOS} w{ith} ref{erence} to Christ (without necessarily equating Chrisdt with the Father, and therefore in harmony w{ith} the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass{ages} is in debate."

Cal:
I do not understand what you mean by "miss the header" because I have quoted it numerous times in these discussions.

If you mean misinterpret the header, then I am very open to listening to your interpretation of what this means. I am particularly interested how equating Christ with the Father would violate the Shema of Israel according to BDAG.

I hope you feel better soon as I am very interested in your continuing our discussion on Rev 6:11, in particular why you feel this verse would be a counter example to Smart's rule which requires clauses which are free of Hebraisms and have the copulative KAI (not the epexegetical as described in the commentary that Bruce Metzger edited).

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141316#post141316)
o2bwise:

Mr Bean is the non-Trinitarian, Francisco a Catholic Trinitarian.

From:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6893&perpage=15&pagenumber=31
Post #462

Character is the chief thing.


Mr. Bean,

That is a good point.

But, WHY do you need to be so critical? Francisco, I would guess, has a great fondness for his church. His feelings are genuine.

Was it REALLY "truth in season" to include "your church" in your observation?

When we are judged, it won't be so much what we know, but who we are.

Man, you are just such a nasty human being in here, so often.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't argument by link a violation of the rules here?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140821#post140821)
Dee Dee Warren:



I had intended to come back and edit my own post making it less specific, because I violated one of my own rules.

Let me put my, seen as, offensive comment in perspective. In the N.T. Peter wrote,
2 Pet 2:22 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.
Therefore I regard any teaching which contradicts or deviates from the traditional teachings of New Testament, Evangelical, Trinitarian, Christianity as the primary substance in this verse. If it is NOT what the church has taught for 2000 years then, in my quaint country way, it is dog puke.

[Cal_Minian]

06-25-2003 @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132495#post132495)
Cal_Minian:

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers!



Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE)
"And if, the Creator above all is confessed to be just, and the Lord to be the Son of the Creator; then the Lord is the Son of Him who is just. Wherefore also Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested; " and again, that you may better conceive of God, "even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ upon all that believe; for there is no difference." And, witnessing further to the truth, he adds after a little, "through the forbearance of God, in order to show that He is just, and that Jesus is the justifier of him who is of faith." And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, "So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good," using both names to denote the same power. But "no one is good," except His Father." ( hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR )

Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)
'They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: "I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made." He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): "Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , (hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS) who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners."'

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
"Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: `Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as `Good Master: '`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.' (Luke xviii. 18 f.)"

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE)
"AT break of day, when Peter went forth to discourse, Simon anticipated him, and said: "When I went away yesterday, I promised to you to return to-day, and in a discussion show that he who flamed the world is not the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown up to this time. At once, then, state to me whether you maintain that the framer of the world is the same as the lawgiver or not? If, then, he is the lawgiver, he is just; but if he is just, he is not good. But if he is not good, then it was another that Jesus proclaimed, when he said, `Do not call me good; for one is good, the Father who is in the heavens.'" (hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS)


What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach? (William L. Peterson -- New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel)


Justin, Dial. 101.2 hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR MOU hO EN TOIS OURANOIS - "One is good, my Father in the heavens."

Taitian Diatessaron (c. 172 CE) , as per Ephrem Syrus, Comm. on the Diatessaron, XV,9 (Syr & Arm] "Unus est bonus, Pater, qui in caelo."

Irenaeus, haer. I.210.2 (pre-185 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Hippolytus, haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE) "hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V.10.63 (c. 207 CE) "hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR"

the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) "hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS"

Vetus Latina MS e (apud Matthew; V cent) "Unus est bonus, pater."

Vetus Latina MS d (apud Luke; V cent) "Nemo bonus misi unus Deus pater."

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142270#post142270)
Cal_Minian:

06-25-2003 @ 12:58 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers! • • •
2 Pet 2:22 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.
As I said in my first response to this, "Not NO way. Not NO how. There is a certain coarse barnyard phrase used to denote something false. The first word of which refers to the male bovine. That phrase is not acceptable on a Christian forum thus I prefer to use the more scriptural "dog puke." In view of that, I must ask, does reposting dog puke which has been proven to be blatantly false somehow make it true?

I responded to the above post almost 2 weeks ago. It consists of false quotes, phony quotes, quotes that do not exist in the works cited and of course the ever present out-of-context quote. For example, the supposed quote from Hippolytus, above, does NOT refer to Jesus but how a pagan cult misused the scriptures to refer to a pagan deity, "Osiris.'

06-26-2003 @ 10:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132726#post132726)
OldShepherd:

As I said in my previous response I researched every quote myself, unlike Cal_minion, I did not blindly cut and paste from some sectarian anti-Trintarian stuff. By reposting this nonsense CM is showing how truly bankrupt his religion is.

[OldShepherd]

In the above post our friend posted several quotes from the patristic fathers, and only from them, to support his argument. As I have proven before none of these alleged quotes support the argument, some are nonexistent, the rest are out-of-context. However, the identical post was reposted ignoring the proof of its falsehood.

06-25-2003 @ 12:58 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Patristic Quotations of "One is good, the Father"

Dear OldShepherd,
You had made a comment about this saying of Jesus and since you really enjoy the quotes of the Fathers I think you will get a real kick out of these from Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clementine and Irenaeus as well as some quotes from a book by William Peterson.

You may even change your mind about what you though of the Fathers! • • •

So not only are all the quotes irrelevant to the discussion but it gets better, here is the comment our friend made on another thread. This is known as eating your cake and having it too.

07-07-2003 @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141597#post141597)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro:
As you know, I have posted at length on the fact that our doctrine is that which was taught by the bible writers in context. I really believe this to be true ... this is supported by the fact that all the essential doctrines are taught in Scripture by bible writers in context.

An extension of this hermeneutic is that everything that we need to know to interpret what the bible writers teach us is in the bible .

I do not disagree that history can help us understand certain aspects of what is taught.

I do, though, strongly disagree with any attempt to make an argument where the strongest support is extra-biblical.

If one cannot support their belief by using the bible alone (sola scriptura) then I am not inclined to spend too much time either thinking about it or even attempting to refute it.

I hope that explains my feelings on this. I'm just a bible kind of guy.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Here our friend is blowing off information from a recognized authoritative source, the Jewish Encyclopedia, because it is not the Bible. As long as it is a non-JW posting non-Biblical sources they are rejected outright because, "everything that we need to know to interpret what the bible writers teach us is in the bible."

But note the phony post above, which was posted twice, is from the early church fathers NOT the Bible. Clearly a double standard, blatant blind following the blind hypocricy.

I might get my wrist slapped for this, but I wonder if WBTS stands for Woefully Theologically Blind Sect?