More Anti-Trin "Argument" [Archive]

VFarris01

November 4th 2005, 01:05 PM

The same quotes prove Irenaeus was polytheistic... either you cannot read or your have a very strange idea of what constitutes the trinity... or both. If Irenaeus believed in the "trinity" why can you not find him saying, "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three "persons" yet one being?" Instead Irenaeus beats-around-the-bush as if all three are complete individuals.

You are casting the first stone I see... You, sinless? :lmbo:

No, you tried to "win." Thank you for proving me right... again. You are a pathetic, sad little man.And Farris, you are a heretic. You should thank Sparko for his attempt to correct you - but, in your case, I think we've reached the point of dusting those sandals off.Me, a heretic? You really have some nerve defending a polytheist like Sparky and Irenaeus. Since Sparky believes what Irenaeus says, and Irenaeus say there is a "supreme" God and there are "lesser" gods (by implication). Obviously, you are no better than them:lmbo:.

I am not saying Jesus is not "God." I am asking,

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God how does 1+1+1=3, 1÷3=1, and 3×1=1.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?

Matthew 4:7
Matthew 4:10
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:12
John 17:3
John 20:17
1 Corinthians 15:24
Ephesians 1:17
Hebrews 1:9
Hebrews 10:7
Revelation 1:6
Revelation 3:2
Revelation 3:12, 13

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?

Hebrews 2:17
Hebrews 4:14, 15
Hebrews 8:1
Hebrews 9:24, 25
Hebrews 10:11, 12
Hebrews 10:21

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?

Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Mark 14:36
John 4:34
John 5:19
John 5:30
John 6:38
John 7:28
John 8:28
John 8:29
John 8:42
John 14:31
Philippians 2:8
Hebrews 10:7

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

Matthew 11:25, 26
Luke 10:21
Matthew 14:23
Mark 6:46
Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Mark 14:39
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Mark 1:35
Luke 6:12
Luke 9:18
Luke 11:1
Luke 23:46
John 11:41, 42
John 12:27, 28
John 14:16
John 17:1-26
Hebrews 2:12
Hebrews 5:7

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?

Acts 2:24, 32
Acts 3:15
Acts 3:26
Acts 4:10
Acts 5:30
Acts 10:40
Acts 13:30
Acts 13:33
Acts 13:34
Acts 13:37
Acts 17:31
Romans 4:24
Romans 6:4
Romans 8:11
Romans 8:34
Romans 10:9
1 Corinthians 6:14
1 Corinthians 15:15
2 Corinthians 4:14
2 Corinthians 13:4
Galatians 1:1
Ephesians 1:20
Colossians 2:12
1 Thessalonians 1:10
Hebrews 13:20
1 Peter 1:3
1 Peter 1:21

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?

Matthew 24:36
Mark 13:32

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he make request to the Father for ruling authority?

Luke 19:12, 15

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father is the his "head?"

Corinthians 3:23
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 15:28

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does Jesus need to be exalted by God?

John 8:54
John 13:32
John 17:5
John 17:22
John 17:24
Acts 2:33
Acts 3:13
Philippians 2:9
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 5:5, 6
1 Peter 1:21
2 Peter 1:17

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"

John 3:34
John 5:19, 20
John 5:30
John 7:16
John 8:26-28
John 8:38
John 12:49
John 12:50
John 15:15
John 17:8

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?

Matthew 10:40
Matthew 15:24
Matthew 21:37
Mark 12:6
Luke 20:13
Mark 9:37
Luke 9:48
Luke 4:18, 21
Luke 4:43
Luke 10:16
John 3:17
John 3:34
John 4:34
John 5:23
John 5:24
John 5:30
John 5:36
John 5:37
John 5:38
John 6:29
John 6:38
John 6:39
John 6:44, 46
John 6:57
John 7:16-18
John 7:28
John 7:29
John 7:33
John 8:16
John 8:26
John 8:29
John 8:42
John 9:4
John 10:36
John 11:42
John 12:44
John 12:45
John 12:49
John 13:3
John 13:20
John 14:24
John 15:21
John 16:5
John 16:27
John 16:28
John 16:30
John 17:3
John 17:8
John 17:18
John 17:21
John 17:23
John 17:25
John 20:21
Acts 3:20
Acts 3:26
Romans 8:3
Galatians 4:4
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:10
1 John 4:14

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?

1 Timothy 2:5
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 8:6
Hebrews 9:15
Hebrews 12:24

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?

Matthew 3:17
Luke 3:22
Mark 1:11
Matthew 17:5
Mark 9:7
Luke 9:35
John 12:28
2 Peter 1:17, 18

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"

Matthew 7:21
Matthew 10:32, 33
Matthew 11:27
Luke 10:22
Matthew 12:50
Matthew 15:13
Matthew 16:17
Matthew 18:10, 14, 19, 35
Matthew 20:23
Matthew 25:34
Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Matthew 26:53
Luke 2:49
John 2:16
John 5:17, 18, 36
John 6:32, 40
John 8:19, 38, 49, 54
John 10:18, 25, 29, 37
John 14:2, 21, 23
John 15:1, 8, 23, 24
John 17:11, 24, 25
John 20:17
Revelation 2:27
Revelation 3:5

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why did God need to selected him as His servant?

Matthew 3:17
Mark 1:11
Luke 3:22
Matthew 12:18
Luke 2:29-32 , 40, 52
John 3:2
John 6:27
Acts 3:13, 22
Acts 4:27, 30
Acts 13:23
Romans 3:25
Romans 9:33
Colossians 1:19, 20
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 10:5
1 Peter 2:4, 6

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is there a distinctions made between Jesus and God?

Luke 9:26
Luke 24:19
John 5:17, 45
John 8:19
John 10:15
John 14:1, 8, 23, 28
John 15:1, 2, 16
John 16:3, 23
John 19:11
Acts 1:4
1 Corinthians 8:6
1 Corinthians 15:24, 28
Ephesians 2:20-22
Ephesians 5:5
Ephesians 6:23
1 Thessalonians 3:11
2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2, 12
2 Thessalonians 2:16
1 Timothy 1:1, 2
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 6:13
2 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 4:1
Titus 1:4
Philemon 1:3
Hebrews 1:6
James 1:1
2 Peter 1:1, 2
1 John 2:1, 22-24
2 John 1:9
Revelation 1:2, 4, 5
Revelation 5:9, 10, 13
Revelation 6:16, 17
Revelation 11:15
Revelation 12:10
Revelation 14:1, 4
Revelation 20:4, 6
Revelation 21:22, 23
Revelation 22:1, 3

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he do the work assigned by the Father?

John 5:36
John 10:25, 29, 32, 37, 38
John 17:4

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why can God not be seen at any time?

John 5:37
John 6:46

Why should I continue to believe what is obviously a lie about the "nature" of God?

Oh, and the correct body part is "feet" (you should read and understand "scripture" before you misquote it).

You need to cite material obtained from other sources.

VFarris01

November 4th 2005, 02:19 PM

First, you came in here with a chip on your shoulder and started with the trash talk against me after I had tried to mend things with you in that other thread.Perhaps. I made/make valid points you continually ignore... post 279 comes to mind...

If you start kicking me I will kick back (I still have problems with the turn the other cheek thing, I am working on it but I am not perfect) I am not sure that Christ meant we should let people walk all over us and say "thank you may I have some more?"

I am only responding in the same tone YOU are using. If you don't like that, then STOP doing it yourself, you started it when you came into this thread and haven't stopped yet. I am still willing to let bygones be bygones and be civil to you if you will do the same with me.I do not believe I started the name calling... "pathetic" (post 206) and "clueless" (post 224) are adjectives ... "dimwit" is a noun (post 227).

Your apology is accepted...

And thank you for answering my questions in your "Pick my brain" thread.You are welcome.

Now, about post 279...

Sparko

November 4th 2005, 03:38 PM

Perhaps. I made/make valid points you continually ignore... post 279 comes to mind...

I do not believe I started the name calling... "pathetic" (post 206) and "clueless" (post 224) are adjectives ... "dimwit" is a noun (post 227).

Your apology is accepted...

You are welcome.

Now, about post 279...

OK. I will be civil as long as you are! :thumb:

Well there is no really good way to go through such a long laundry list of proof-texts in one post, without just posting another set of proof-texts, VFarris. But I can say that many of the questions themselves show a lack of understanding of the trinity.

I will go through a some of them, but if you want to really pursue that whole post, you might want to start a new thread and keep it down to a few points at a time. Laundry list threads are not well recieved by other posters and the decorum says to keep discussion pionts to two or three at a time.

In fact, if you want to discuss this in depth, let me know and I will split 279 and this post into a separate thread, otherwise, just take this as an simplified answer to your post and lets go back to the topic of this thread.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God how does 1+1+1=3, 1÷3=1, and 3×1=1.

How about 1x1x1=1? There are not three Gods that add up to one. But ONE God revealed in three persons. Jesus is the very God that the Father is, and the very God that the Holy Spirit is.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father is the his "head?"

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?

The NT authors used "God" (theos) to not only refer to Jesus but to the FATHER. Many times they would call the Father "God" instead of the Father. Jesus was not only fully God, he was fully MAN. and in his humanity, the Father served as his God. Jesus lowered himself as a man and subjected his will to the Father's will. As a man he had a divine will and a human will. When the bible speaks of the Father as Jesus' God, it is speaking of position (as in submission) not in power or diety or substance. If you work for someone, that person has a higher position than you do but he is not a better being than you are. He is human just like you. Jesus is God, the same as the Father. But in the case of God, there is only one. So the Father and the Son are the SAME God.

.. if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?

Because and fully God and fully man, only he has a foot in both worlds and can be the perfect mediator between the Father and mankind. Only he can make the offering needed for our salvation.

.. if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

He prays to the Father, who is God. That doesn't mean that Jesus is not God too. One God, three persons.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?

The bible also says Jesus raised himself:

John 2:19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

John 10: 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

Also it says the holy spirit raised him back to life:

2 Peter 3:188For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

So if the Father raised him, and the Holy Spririt raised him, and the Son raised himself, then that would make them the SAME GOD. They are obviously different persons, as they speak to each other (thereby not modalistic) but the bible says all three raised Jesus from the dead. Three persons, one God.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"

Because the Trinity says THREE persons in ONE God. The Father is NOT the Son. But both are God.

and there is no other God, so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the "supreme" God. Neither is some higher God than the others, they are the SAME entitiy, the same God.

VFarris01

November 4th 2005, 04:37 PM

Sparko

November 4th 2005, 08:57 PM

Hi Sparko,

How can someone like you ever be accused of using logic , being that you believe 1+1+1 = 1 ? Give me a break.

what's 1 x 1 x 1?

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Irenaeus believed God the Father to be the only true God. The son insofar as he's called God is God like Moses a la Ex. 7:1. Read this:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/02-ag-he.htm (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/02-ag-he.htm)

"4. For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but whom ye style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words,-- when ye style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as being ignorant of those things which are above Him, with the various other allegations which you make regarding Him,--consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God."

:rofl: you can't even read.

The rest of that paragraph says that Jesus IS God and to claim that he is the "fruit of defect" or the "offspring of ignorance" etc you are guilty of what? BLASPHEMY. Against who? Him who truly is GOD. Jesus.

If you continue reading the very next paragraph you see:

5. But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself.

He says that GOD is all mind and all Logos (Jesus)

Jesus is simply God's instrument :

"Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it" (AH2, II.3).

again, read the whole paragraph it is talking about Angels and the son is NOT mentioned. Stop trying to drag this back into the discussion, I showed you over and over that you misquoted the whole thing and that the paragraph was not speaking about the Son at all but about Angels who create using existing material. Jesus created out of nothing.

"He [the Father] commanded, and they were created", Irenaeus asks "Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom the heavens were established" (AH3, VIII.3).

Not even going to check that one out. That simply says that the Word created because the Father commanded him to. Who created? the Son. Back to Isaiah 44:24. God says he did it alone. If Jesus is not God, then God didn't do it alone did he?

(A) Did you call Irrenaeus a heretic? Yes or No?
(B) Did you call Irenaeus a modalist? Yes or No?

You can't seem to make up your mind.

Did you use a forged quote from Irenaeus, then try to cover it up?
Did you bring up Irenaeus to try to support your side?
Did you turn around and call him a heretic as soon as I showed he called Jesus "God?"

:lmbo:

I am tired of repeating myself. Go back and read:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1257272&postcount=245

Pythagoras

November 4th 2005, 11:20 PM

Hi Sparkey,

what's 1 x 1 x 1?

Modalism.

you can't even read.
The rest of that paragraph says that Jesus IS God and to claim that he is the "fruit of defect" or the "offspring of ignorance" etc you are guilty of what? BLASPHEMY. Against who? Him who truly is GOD. Jesus.
If you continue reading the very next paragraph you see:
5. But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself.
He says that GOD is all mind and all Logos (Jesus)

How foolish. That's why Irenaeus defined his terms in the paragraph immediately preceding this one, genius, so people won't misunderstand him.

Read this again, Einstein:

"4. For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but whom ye style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words,-- "

Infact if what you're attributing to Irenaeus in v. 5 is correct,then he's guilty of Modalism and not Trinitarianism , the very concept he is actually condemning in the paragraph immediately preceding (which I quote above) . And read the follow-up to it: "when ye style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as being ignorant of those things which are above Him, with the various other allegations which you make regarding Him,--consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God."

again, read the whole paragraph it is talking about Angels and the son is NOT mentioned. Stop trying to drag this back into the discussion, I showed you over and over that you misquoted the whole thing and that the paragraph was not speaking about the Son at all but about Angels who create using existing material. Jesus created out of nothing.

He does speak of other than angels :

"Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God."

There was only one other present apart from the Angels at the creation of the world , and that was the Son of God.









Sparkey's helpless meter. The more powerless he feels, the more inflamed his language.





best wishes anyways,

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 09:33 AM

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father his "head?"

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?The NT authors used "God" (theos) to not only refer to Jesus but to the FATHER. Many times they would call the Father "God" instead of the Father.You are guessing the intent of the writers are you not?

Jesus was not only fully God, he was fully MAN. and in his humanity, the Father served as his God. Jesus lowered himself as a man and subjected his will to the Father's will. As a man he had a divine will and a human will. When the bible speaks of the Father as Jesus' God, it is speaking of position (as in submission) not in power or diety or substance. If you work for someone, that person has a higher position than you do but he is not a better being than you are. He is human just like you. Jesus is God, the same as the Father. But in the case of God, there is only one. So the Father and the Son are the SAME God.This is all very questionable analysis... The Bible is just as vague on this as you are... (I hope vagueness is not contageous; only you and I need suffer.)

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?Because and fully God and fully man, only he has a foot in both worlds and can be the perfect mediator between the Father and mankind. Only he can make the offering needed for our salvation.Again, questionable and ignores the "facts."

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?He prays to the Father, who is God. That doesn't mean that Jesus is not God too. One God, three persons.If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?The bible also says Jesus raised himself:

John 2:19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

John 10: 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

Also it says the holy spirit raised him back to life:

2 Peter 3:188For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

So if the Father raised him, and the Holy Spririt raised him, and the Son raised himself, then that would make them the SAME GOD. They are obviously different persons, as they speak to each other (thereby not modalistic) but the bible says all three raised Jesus from the dead. Three persons, one God.You are a bit contradictory here... first you say Jesus "raised himself" then tell us he needed help (from the Spirit)... which is it going to be?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"Because the Trinity says THREE persons in ONE God. The Father is NOT the Son. But both are God.

and there is no other God, so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the "supreme" God. Neither is some higher God than the others, they are the SAME entitiy, the same God.Welcome back to "square one." Your logic (if it can indeed be called "logic") is circular. Would you like to try again? Or is this your "final answer?"

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 09:37 AM

Caution: Heretical brain cells are posting on TWEBUnless you have something constructive to say, crawl back under the rock that spawned you :lol:.

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 09:51 AM

Let us cover these "points."

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

Matthew 11:25, 26
Luke 10:21
Matthew 14:23
Mark 6:46
Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Mark 14:39
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Mark 1:35
Luke 6:12
Luke 9:18
Luke 11:1
Luke 23:46
John 11:41, 42
John 12:27, 28
John 14:16
John 17:1-26
Hebrews 2:12
Hebrews 5:7

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?

Matthew 24:36
Mark 13:32

This one really bothers me...

(35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. (36) But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father. (37) But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. (38) For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the ark. (39) And they did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man. (40) Then two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (41) Two shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (42) Therefore watch; for you do not know what hour your Lord comes.

(31) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. (32) But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but (only, VF) the Father (knows, VF).

If the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are "the same being" how can only the Father know and not the other two?

John from Ebla

November 5th 2005, 10:03 AM

You are a bit contradictory here... first you say Jesus "raised himself" then tell us he needed help (from the Spirit)... which is it going to be?

No he is not back to square one. John 2:19 states Jesus saying that, and it's up to you to tell us why anyone should believe what you say and not what Jesus say's?

If Jesus was the Fullness of God, ( we only have a little portion, but it is still his spirit/God) then why would it not be as John 2:19 states.

Yes, men can be called gods because we have his spirit (a little portion)- but what do you call the Word that became flesh, that made Jesus have the fullness of his Spirit? God ? that is what John 11-3,14 say's and that is what John 20:28 say's ' My LORD MY GOD " And it was the eternal spirit ( Heb 9:14)

The word was God and the word became Flesh (John 1;1-3,14)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 10:59 AM

You are a bit contradictory here... first you say Jesus "raised himself" then tell us he needed help (from the Spirit)... which is it going to be?No he is not back to square one. John 2:19 states Jesus saying that, and it's up to you to tell us why anyone should believe what you say and not what Jesus say's?I did that... John 2:19 and 1 Peter 3:18 clearly contradict each other (Sparky needs to get his scripture cites correct before he casts the first stone... again) Welcome back to "square one."

If Jesus was the Fullness of God, ( we only have a little portion, but it is still his spirit/God) then why would it not be as John 2:19 states.No, as already shown.

Yes, men can be called gods because we have his spirit (a little portion)- but what do you call the Word that became flesh, that made Jesus have the fullness of his Spirit? God ? that is what John 11-3,14 say's and that is what John 20:28 say's ' My LORD MY GOD " And it was the eternal spirit ( Heb 9:14)Scripture mining does not assist your cause.

The word was God and the word became Flesh (John 1;1-3,14)If you think that is what it says... faith is a wonderous commodity...

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 11:59 AM

Hi Sparkey,

Modalism.

Take a math class.

How foolish. That's why Irenaeus defined his terms in the paragraph immediately preceding this one, genius, so people won't misunderstand him.

Read this again, Einstein:

"4. For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but whom ye style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words,-- "

You are suffering from the same scripture twisting affliction you have when reading the bible. You hone in one one verse and use it as a proof text to the exclusion of any other. You have to take EVERYTHING some author says and it must harmonize. Unless the author is as twisted as you, we must assume that he will not say two contradictory things and believe both of them.

Irenaeus DID say the Father is God, but he went on to say that the Logos was God too. They are the SAME God. Both statements are what Irenaeus believed. And there is no indication that he was a modalist. A modalist would make statements like the Father BECAME the son. Irenaeus never says that. I just read all of his works because I was tired of you cherry picking verses out of context.

Further proof that Irenaeus beleived that Jesus was God:

Irenaeus Book V XVII.3

3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 12:10 PM

You are guessing the intent of the writers are you not?

This is all very questionable analysis... The Bible is just as vague on this as you are... (I hope vagueness is not contageous; only you and I need suffer.)

First, if you look back I told you I was going to be giving a simple summary. I was giving you the trinitarian perspective regarding those verses, I was not attempting to prove that the trinitarian perspective was the truth at that point. Only that the "questions" were not a problem for trinitarians.

Second, I am truly trying to honor our 'agreement' and remain civil, but you seem to be trying to slide in some insults here and there. please stop.

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away.

The trinity states they are the same GOD, not the same person. God is a being that consists of three persons, all who are fully God, yet God is not fully each of them. So the Father can talk to the Son and vice versa.

You are a bit contradictory here... first you say Jesus "raised himself" then tell us he needed help (from the Spirit)... which is it going to be?

I am not being contradictory. I never said he needed help from the Holy Spirit. I said that the bible says that each of the persons in the Godhead raised Jesus from the dead. The Father raised him, Jesus raised himself, and the Holy Spirit raised him. If they were not the SAME God, then it would be contradictory. They ARE the same God so there is no contradiction.

Welcome back to "square one." Your logic (if it can indeed be called "logic") is circular. Would you like to try again? Or is this your "final answer?"

Again you are getting sarcastic and insulting. If you wish me to remain civil please do so yourself.

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 12:10 PM

Further proof that Irenaeus beleived that Jesus was God:

Irenaeus Book V XVII.3

3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.I can forgive sins too (go ahead, tell me I cannot, I dare you, LOL)... I must be God...

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 12:23 PM

You are guessing the intent of the writers are you not?

This is all very questionable analysis... The Bible is just as vague on this as you are... (I hope vagueness is not contageous; only you and I need suffer.)First, if you look back I told you I was going to be giving a simple summary. I was giving you the trinitarian perspective regarding those verses, I was not attempting to prove that the trinitarian perspective was the truth at that point. Only that the "questions" were not a problem for trinitarians.If you think so.

Second, I am truly trying to honor our 'agreement' and remain civil, but you seem to be trying to slide in some insults here and there. please stop.Sarcasm is not an element of communication you are unfamiliar with... get over it... professional help with your anger management problem could be in your future if you cannot.

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away.The trinity states they are the same GOD, not the same person.The "trinity states?" What about what the Bible states... The "trinity" is not a doctrine of the Bible, it is a doctrine of men.

God is a being that consists of three persons, all who are fully God, yet God is not fully each of them. So the Father can talk to the Son and vice versa.If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again.

You are a bit contradictory here... first you say Jesus "raised himself" then tell us he needed help (from the Spirit)... which is it going to be?I am not being contradictory. I never said he needed help from the Holy Spirit.If not then why 1 Peter 3:18?

I said that the bible says that each of the persons in the Godhead raised Jesus from the dead. The Father raised him, Jesus raised himself, and the Holy Spirit raised him. If they were not the SAME God, then it would be contradictory. They ARE the same God so there is no contradiction.Oh, so it is a contradiction without being a contradiction; I see.

Welcome back to "square one." Your logic (if it can indeed be called "logic") is circular. Would you like to try again? Or is this your "final answer?"Again you are getting sarcastic and insulting. If you wish me to remain civil please do so yourself.The kitchen can be an uncomfortable place if you cannot take some criticism.

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 12:39 PM

Let us cover these "points."

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?

Well actually both of these questions can be answered by one explanation

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Christ voluntarily limited himself in his human body in order to be a humble servant and to truly be human. He cooperated with the limitations of being a human being. He prayed to the Father because he was being obedient and humble as a servant and man. He prayed to the Father because he wanted to talk to the Father. The Father served as his God. Jesus took on a human form and submitted himself to shame for OUR sake. As a man he prayed to the Father.

Jesus might have voluntarily limited his own knowledge regarding his second coming, but that was only while he was on earth. He does know when he is coming back now, just read Revelation. It doesn't give us a date but it does show that Christ knows everything about his return.

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 12:46 PM

Let us cover these "points."

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?Well actually both of these questions can be answered by one explanation

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Christ voluntarily limited himself in his human body in order to be a humble servant and to truly be human. He cooperated with the limitations of being a human being. He prayed to the Father because he was being obedient and humble as a servant and man. He prayed to the Father because he wanted to talk to the Father. The Father served as his God. Jesus took on a human form and submitted himself to shame for OUR sake. As a man he prayed to the Father.

Jesus might have voluntarily limited his own knowledge regarding his second coming, but that was only while he was on earth. He does know when he is coming back now, just read Revelation. It doesn't give us a date but it does show that Christ knows everything about his return.Might have? Do not give me, "Might have;" give me, "Did."

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again... and... again...

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus not know the future concerning himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again...

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 12:54 PM

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 12:55 PM

Might have? Do not give me, "Might have;" give me, "Did."

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again... and... again...

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus not know the future concerning himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again...

Alright, it is clear you don't really want a discussion. I am having these posts moved to another thread.

Topherlee

November 5th 2005, 01:25 PM

[/i]I can't help it if you can't grasp the concept of the trinity. They are not the same persons. They are the SAME GOD. There are THREE PERSONS in the Trinity. Each has different functions. Each is fully God, but none are each other.

Jesus is God, the Holy Spririt is God, and the Father is God.
Jesus is NOT the Father and Not the Holy Spririt.
The Father is NOT Jesus and NOT the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father and NOT the Son.

ALL are GOD.

The reason why VF cannot see it is because it is contradictory. You say that Jesus is God, but he is not the Father. I see what you are trying to say, that God works in all three, right? Then, if this is so, then you are still saying that Jesus is God and that the same Spirit that works in the Father is God. Which would mean that Jesus is the Father also. Do you not see the confusion. What a tangled web we weave when men create doctrine.
How many spirit God's are there? Last I read in scripture is that God is a spirit, those that worship him must worship him in spirit. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit of God is another God?
I did not mean to intercept here, but you will not fully understand until you see through your confusion.

- peace be with

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 02:18 PM

The reason why VF cannot see it is because it is contradictory. You say that Jesus is God, but he is not the Father. I see what you are trying to say, that God works in all three, right? Then, if this is so, then you are still saying that Jesus is God and that the same Spirit that works in the Father is God. Which would mean that Jesus is the Father also. Do you not see the confusion. What a tangled web we weave when men create doctrine.
How many spirit God's are there? Last I read in scripture is that God is a spirit, those that worship him must worship him in spirit. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit of God is another God?
I did not mean to intercept here, but you will not fully understand until you see through your confusion.

- peace be with

Sorry for your confusion Topherlee, but you really don't understand the trinity.

It is not a man made doctrine. It is completely from the scriptures.

The bible says that there is but ONE God

It also calls the Father God, Jesus God, and the Holy Spirit God.

That is clear.

So you have three persons who are named "GOD" and yet there is only ONE God.

Your only choices at this point is trinitarianism or modalism. Modalism says that the Father became the Son and played a role, then became the Father again and Acts as the Holy Spirit in another Role. But we know that Modalism isn't true because the scripture shows the Father talking at the same time Jesus is being baptized and on the mount of tranfiguration.

So you are left with the trinity. Unless you want to twist scripture and turn Jesus into a "lesser" God like Alam and Pythagoras seem to be doing. Then you make YHWH a liar when he says there is no other God besides him and you end up with polytheism.

Pythagoras

November 5th 2005, 02:43 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Take a math class.

I hate to break it to you genius, but you're a modalist if you think God is 1 cubed . 1x1x1 means the same person thrice. Trinitairanism is 1+1+1 = 1, or three persons in One , or as Gregory Nyssa would put it, Peter + Kostas + John = 1 man, which doesn't add up.

Your comments regarding Irenaeus proofs you have modalist tendencies:

Irenaeus DID say the Father is God, but he went on to say that the Logos was God too. They are the SAME God. Both statements are what Irenaeus believed. And there is no indication that he was a modalist. A modalist would make statements like the Father BECAME the son. Irenaeus never says that. I just read all of his works because I was tired of you cherry picking verses out of context.

Irenaeus believed the Father to be the Only True God, you attribute to Irenaeus the claim that the Logos is also the Only True God (something he never suggests) , you therefore expose yourself a modalist. If it walks like a duck...

I think vfarris already suspects you of modalism.

best wishes,

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 02:45 PM

If you think so.

Sarcasm is not an element of communication you are unfamiliar with... get over it... professional help with your anger management problem could be in your future if you cannot.

The "trinity states?" What about what the Bible states... The "trinity" is not a doctrine of the Bible, it is a doctrine of men.

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again.

I can't help it if you can't grasp the concept of the trinity.I "grasp" the "trinity;" you cannot grasp that it is not true.

At the very least we are all God...

Only God can forgive sin.
I can forgive sin.
Therefore, I am God.

They are not the same persons. They are the SAME GOD. There are THREE PERSONS in the Trinity. Each has different functions. Each is fully God, but none are each other.

Jesus is God, the Holy Spririt is God, and the Father is God.

Jesus is NOT the Father and Not the Holy Spririt.

The Father is NOT Jesus and NOT the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father and NOT the Son.

ALL are GOD.Same song... same dance... ignore what you cannot refute.

If not then why 1 Peter 3:18?Again, 1 peter 3:18 says the Spirit Raised him. The bible also says the Father raised him and it says Jesus raised himself.

Either the bible is so mixed up that we can't believe anything it says, or all three statements are true. I happen to believe the bible is true and is not full of errors. So the only conclusion that works for me is that all three statements is true. The only way they can all be true is if the trinity is true. One God revealed in three persons.If this is what you choose to believe... fine with me...

The kitchen can be an uncomfortable place if you cannot take some criticism.I guess its obvious that you really don't want a civil discussion and you don't want to read what I write.I have tried...

It also seems when you don't have an answer you just resort to sarcasm and mocking.

Nice Job. <---- that was sarcasm.I have nothing to defend... you do... remember the list? (By some miracle (?) it is now post 280.)

If you really want a discussion, then please discuss.
Don't just respond with sarcastic comments mocking my view.
Give me a counter view and explanation.
Show me how I can't be right.
All you do is respond with the same question and make mocking comments.Sentence by sentence...

I have, I am, and I will.
I did not; that you cannot adequately defend you belief is not my concern.
I did.
I did this too.
I do so only because you have yet to refute even one of them.

If that is the extent of your "discussion" then I am done. Take it to another thread. I will be happy to have these posts moved there for you so you can continue on your own.Does this mean I win? LOL... How about we call it a draw?

Might have? Do not give me, "Might have;" give me, "Did."

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again... and... again...

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus not know the future concerning himself. You have not explained this... you have attempted to explain this away... again...Alright, it is clear you don't really want a discussion. I am having these posts moved to another thread.I have been trying to discuss this with you. Seems when your argument cannot be adequately supported in light of contradictory Bible statements you resort to this tactic...

<insert dancing chicken here>

If I offended you I am sorry. I have not, did not, and will not attack you personally... I attacked your argument (show me otherwise)... which is lame at best.

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 03:38 PM

Hi Sparkey,

I hate to break it to you genius, but you're a modalist if you think God is 1 cubed . 1x1x1 means the same person thrice. Trinitairanism is 1+1+1 = 1, or three persons in One , or as Gregory Nyssa would put it, Peter + Kostas + John = 1 man, which doesn't add up.

Your comments regarding Irenaeus proofs you have modalist tendencies:

Irenaeus believed the Father to be the Only True God, you attribute to Irenaeus the claim that the Logos is also the Only True God (something he never suggests) , you therefore expose yourself a modalist. If it walks like a duck...

I think vfarris already suspects you of modalism.

best wishes,

Uh for someone who likes to claim others are attacking strawmen and constantly misunderstanding YOUR statement, you are doing an excellent job at burning straw here.

:strawburn: :strawburn: :strawburn: :strawburn:

I thought you were against me because I am a trinitarian? Now you are claiming me to be a modalist?

Keep burning that straw...

:lmbo:

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 03:44 PM

I "grasp" the "trinity;" you cannot grasp that it is not true.

At the very least we are all God...

Only God can forgive sin.
I can forgive sin.
Therefore, I am God.

Same song... same dance... ignore what you cannot refute.

If this is what you choose to believe... fine with me...

I have tried...

I have nothing to defend... you do... remember the list? (By some miracle (?) it is now post 280.)

Sentence by sentence...

I have, I am, and I will.
I did not; that you cannot adequately defend you belief is not my concern.
I did.
I did this too.
I do so only because you have yet to refute even one of them.

Does this mean I win? LOL... How about we call it a draw?

I have been trying to discuss this with you. Seems when your argument cannot be adequately supported in light of contradictory Bible statements you resort to this tactic...

<insert dancing chicken here>

If I offended you I am sorry. I have not, did not, and will not attack you personally... I attacked your argument (show me otherwise)... which is lame at best.

I tried to give you a chance VFarris but for some reason you can't help being rude and mocking. You don't like it when I do it to you, so why do you keep doing it to me? Golden rule and all that.

I am still having this moved to a separate thread.

I don't have to PROVE anything to you, dude. You posted some "gotchas" that you said prove the trinity is not true. I merely showed you that the "gotchas" do not prove anything and they are not a problem for trinitarians. Whether you agree with my explanation is beside the point. I was never trying to CONVINCE you of my viewpoint, just showing you that your objections were easily resolved under trinitarianism.

I thought we were just having a discussion? where you share your viewpoint and I show you mine? I guess you just want to "win"

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 04:19 PM

I tried to give you a chance VFarris but for some reason you can't help being rude and mocking. You don't like it when I do it to you, so why do you keep doing it to me? Golden rule and all that.I have not been consciously rude nor mocking; even after reviewing them (my past few posts) to see, I still do not think I was. I did not mind you being a bit "sharp;" what annoyed(s) me was (is) your name-calling and other ad hominem remarks.

I am still having this moved to a separate thread.You had better talk it over with the thread starter first. If it should be moved, why? ... and where to? This thread and all comments within it belong right here imo.

I don't have to PROVE anything to you, dude.Yes, you did/do... dude...

You did "prove" the "trinity" is Christian theology derived from Pagan philosophy... congratulations!

You posted some "gotchas" that you said prove the trinity is not true. I merely showed you that the "gotchas" do not prove anything and they are not a problem for trinitarians. Whether you agree with my explanation is beside the point.I did not intend for the questions to be "gotchas" (post 280). I felt they were valid questions and worth you giving an answer to them; that you did/do not is beside the point...

I was never trying to CONVINCE you of my viewpoint, just showing you that your objections were easily resolved under trinitarianism.I never expected you to convince me (I cannot recall ever using that word). Your "explanations" are simple, "unconvincing" double-talk.

I thought we were just having a discussion?We still can... if you will.

... where you share your viewpoint and I show you mine? I guess you just want to "win"Poor baby. <sarcasm for the sarcastically impared>

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 04:37 PM

Pythagoras

November 5th 2005, 04:39 PM

Hi Sparkey,

Uh for someone who likes to claim others are attacking strawmen and constantly misunderstanding YOUR statement, you are doing an excellent job at burning straw here.

:strawburn: :strawburn: :strawburn: :strawburn:

I thought you were against me because I am a trinitarian? Now you are claiming me to be a modalist?

Keep burning that straw...

:lmbo:

You claim to be a trinitarian but don't know the first thing about your belief system. You're a modalist, Genius , because you think God is 1X1X1, or the same person thrice.

Who made you a moderator ? ....Now take a hike before I humiliate you further .

Sparko

November 5th 2005, 04:43 PM

Hi Sparkey,

You claim to be a trinitarian but don't not the first thing about your belief system. You're a modalist, Genius , because you think God is 1X1X1, or 1 cubed.

Who made you a moderator ? ....Now take a hike before I humiliate you further .

****BURP*****

well if you think I am a modalist when I am really a trinitarian, then no wonder you think Irenaeus was too. You can't read.

If you think burning straw men will somehow win you this thread you are making a bigger jackass out of yourself than you already are.

You are pretty much humiliating YOURSELF with no help from me.

Nice.

:lmbo:

Topherlee

November 5th 2005, 05:28 PM

Sorry for your confusion Topherlee, but you really don't understand the trinity.

It is not a man made doctrine. It is completely from the scriptures.
The bible says that there is but ONE God
It also calls the Father God, Jesus God, and the Holy Spirit God.
That is clear.

So you have three persons who are named "GOD" and yet there is only ONE God.

Your only choices at this point is trinitarianism or modalism. Modalism says that the Father became the Son and played a role, then became the Father again and Acts as the Holy Spirit in another Role. But we know that Modalism isn't true because the scripture shows the Father talking at the same time Jesus is being baptized and on the mount of tranfiguration.

So you are left with the trinity. Unless you want to twist scripture and turn Jesus into a "lesser" God like Alam and Pythagoras seem to be doing. Then you make YHWH a liar when he says there is no other God besides him and you end up with polytheism.

The Trinity is not biblical. The Trinity exists because it's an interpretation of scripture. The word does not exist in the bible, hence, it is interpretation. An intepretation of who? Man. God says he is one, not three in one. How many is one to you? And don't hold up three fingers:)
There are no three persons named "God". God is not a name, it is a title. When God says he is one, it is YHWH that is saying he is one; Hear O' Israel; Our God YHWH is one YHWH.
When God speaks to Jesus, it is God speaking to our Lord, not God speaking to God (Psalms 110:1).
It is you who turn Jesus into a "lesser" god, there is only one God. YHWH God is the Father;
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
Col 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? YHWH.
Notice how scripture refers to Jesus as our Lord? How then can you say he is God? Any questions you have can be rationally explained. Feel free to ask. But you need to listen and question and listen and understand.

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love werewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What is God's name that Jesus is speaking of? YHWH. Jesus knows his Father's (God's) name. He declared it to many.

- peace be with

Pythagoras

November 5th 2005, 06:13 PM

Sparkey,

****BURP*****

well if you think I am a modalist when I am really a trinitarian, then no wonder you think Irenaeus was too. You can't read.

If you think burning straw men will somehow win you this thread you are making a bigger jackass out of yourself than you already are.

You are pretty much humiliating YOURSELF with no help from me.

Nice.

:lmbo:

You said 1X1X1=1 is a conception of the trinity. I pointed out to you that it is actually a conception of modalism, i.e. 1 person three times. How is this a strawman? Infact not addressing this issue is a strawman on your part.

Admit you're mistaken , or I'm going to keep taunting you about it Einstein..

Rayado

November 5th 2005, 08:12 PM

The Trinity is not biblical. The Trinity exists because it's an interpretation of scripture. The word does not exist in the bible, hence, it is interpretation. An intepretation of who? Man. God says he is one, not three in one. How many is one to you? And don't hold up three fingers:)
Saying that the Trinity isn't Biblical is by no means a valid argument against it; the word "monothism" isn't in the Bible, so the whole doctrine's not worth keeping, right?

Right?

See how easy that was?

There are no three persons named "God". God is not a name, it is a title. When God says he is one, it is YHWH that is saying he is one; Hear O' Israel; Our God YHWH is one YHWH.

When God speaks to Jesus, it is God speaking to our Lord, not God speaking to God (Psalms 110:1).There's a problem with that, though.

First and foremost, Jesus is clearly called God in John 1:1--and much hay has been made over that whether he is Fully God or some lesser god, but for this particular argument it actually doesn't matter. He is clearly called God in Titus 2:13 as well, which rules out the idea that Jesus is not called God.

I quote 1 Corinthians 8:6:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

"Wait, don't you see that it says right there that there's one God, the Father?"

Look again: it's a rephrase of the Shema, which you cited above. It echoes John 1:3 as well:
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

It also recalls another OT passage, Proverbs 8:22-30, in which Wisdom claims to be present and active at the Creation.

You seem to have left out an important point: Why is Jesus called Lord? By what authority does he achieve that title?

It is you who turn Jesus into a "lesser" god, there is only one God. YHWH God is the Father;If Jesus wasn't God why (and how) did the Father create everything through him? Hebrews eloquently states that he wasn't an Angel, and that he is above the Angels. And there were certainly no humans around at the Creation. So...where does that leave us?

And why do non-trinitarians even call God the Father if his Son is not of the same essence as He? What meaning is there in the word Father if the word Son is robbed of its full meaning?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
Col 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? YHWH.Are you familiar with the doctrine of functional subordinationism?

Notice how scripture refers to Jesus as our Lord? How then can you say he is God?How can you say that there's an ontological difference between them on that basis alone?

Any questions you have can be rationally explained. Feel free to ask. But you need to listen and question and listen and understand.I hope you will extend me the same courtesy.

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love werewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What is God's name that Jesus is speaking of? YHWH. Jesus knows his Father's (God's) name. He declared it to many.Again; I will ask if you are familiar with functional subordinationism.

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 09:16 PM

I have not been consciously rude nor mocking; even after reviewing them (my past few posts) to see, I still do not think I was. I did not mind you being a bit "sharp;" what annoyed(s) me was (is) your name-calling and other ad hominem remarks.Er I haven't done so in conjuntion with this particular discussion, other than to point out your uncivility.No? Perhaps you should check again.

But I am done with trying to be civil in regards to the tone of your posts. Again, I can give as well as you can.Doubtful... you are way out of your league... trust me.

You had better talk it over with the thread starter first. If it should be moved, why? ... and where to? This thread and all comments within it belong right here imo.Its not up to the thread starter. especially since he is no longer posting here at tweb.I see you "convinced" one of your fellows to move this discussion anyway... pity...

I understand you are quite adept at moving or getting moved threads and posts you feel do not belong.

You did "prove" the "trinity" is Christian theology derived from Pagan philosophy... congratulations!Eh? I don't recall either of us talking about pagan philosophy.What was the topic of the other thread?... "Is the Trinity Christian Theology or Pagan Philosophy? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=37496)" As I recall we were discussing the "Christian Theology" postion of the thread title. Reading comprehension... what a concept... see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64538).

I did not intend for the questions to be "gotchas" (post 280). I felt they were valid questions and worth you giving an answer to them; that you did/do not is beside the point...

I never expected you to convince me (I cannot recall ever using that word). Your "explanations" are simple, "unconvincing" double-talk.And your replies were just like that, a simple dismissal, with no reasoning or discussion.I gave your "explanations" ten-times the effort they deserved.

I hereby hand wave your dismissals away as the ingorant frustration of someone who does not understand the trinity.Fine with me... Unlike you, I would not suppose to tell you (or anyone) what you (they) should believe... that is up to you (them) to decide.

We still can... if you will.I think I know how this will go. You will wait while I spend hours trying to give comprehensive answers to your "gotcha's" just so you can say "gee what a lame attempt at explanation" or some other act of dismissal.I have already been through your "comprehensive answers" in study of my own... I know your excuses are lame before you give them.

Poor baby. <sarcasm for the sarcastically impared>
So why don't you go have a nice discussion with yourself in the mirror? That way you can speak to someone who agrees with everything you say. (that was sarcasm too).Oddly, this is exactly the same advice I considered offering to you (that was sarcasm three).

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 09:27 PM

Who made you a moderator?After coming in contact with Sparky I am wondering if they should give psychological testing before conferring "moderatorship." The fellow has a vicious anger management problem and extremely low self-esteem witnessed by the way he (almost continually) abuses others with ad hominems... He is a real pillar of the "Christian" community, he is.

Pythagoras

November 5th 2005, 09:48 PM

Hi VFarris01,

Not to mention he's not the brightest crayon in the pack.

Peace in Christ,

VFarris01

November 5th 2005, 10:01 PM

Hi VFarris01Hi P.

Not to mention he's not the brightest crayon in the pack.He gives thoughtful replies when he is not angry... let us hope he never turns green... :lol:

His worst problem is his attitude and perchance for name-calling... other than that I enjoy corresponding with him...

Peace in ChristDitto.

Pythagoras

November 5th 2005, 11:22 PM

Hi VFarris,

Hi P.

He gives thoughtful replies when he is not angry... let us hope he never turns green... :lol:

Ditto.

Yes I agree. When he's not in his psychotic phase, he does give exceedingly thoughtful arguments in defense of modalism.

God bless,

alam

November 5th 2005, 11:50 PM

I am not saying Jesus is not "God." I am asking,

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God how does 1+1+1=3, 1÷3=1, and 3×1=1.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?

Matthew 4:7
Matthew 4:10
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:12
John 17:3
John 20:17
1 Corinthians 15:24
Ephesians 1:17
Hebrews 1:9
Hebrews 10:7
Revelation 1:6
Revelation 3:2
Revelation 3:12, 13

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?

Hebrews 2:17
Hebrews 4:14, 15
Hebrews 8:1
Hebrews 9:24, 25
Hebrews 10:11, 12
Hebrews 10:21

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?

Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Mark 14:36
John 4:34
John 5:19
John 5:30
John 6:38
John 7:28
John 8:28
John 8:29
John 8:42
John 14:31
Philippians 2:8
Hebrews 10:7

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?

Matthew 11:25, 26
Luke 10:21
Matthew 14:23
Mark 6:46
Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Mark 14:39
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Mark 1:35
Luke 6:12
Luke 9:18
Luke 11:1
Luke 23:46
John 11:41, 42
John 12:27, 28
John 14:16
John 17:1-26
Hebrews 2:12
Hebrews 5:7

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?

Acts 2:24, 32
Acts 3:15
Acts 3:26
Acts 4:10
Acts 5:30
Acts 10:40
Acts 13:30
Acts 13:33
Acts 13:34
Acts 13:37
Acts 17:31
Romans 4:24
Romans 6:4
Romans 8:11
Romans 8:34
Romans 10:9
1 Corinthians 6:14
1 Corinthians 15:15
2 Corinthians 4:14
2 Corinthians 13:4
Galatians 1:1
Ephesians 1:20
Colossians 2:12
1 Thessalonians 1:10
Hebrews 13:20
1 Peter 1:3
1 Peter 1:21

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?

Matthew 24:36
Mark 13:32

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he make request to the Father for ruling authority?

Luke 19:12, 15

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father is the his "head?"

Corinthians 3:23
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 15:28

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does Jesus need to be exalted by God?

John 8:54
John 13:32
John 17:5
John 17:22
John 17:24
Acts 2:33
Acts 3:13
Philippians 2:9
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 5:5, 6
1 Peter 1:21
2 Peter 1:17

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"

John 3:34
John 5:19, 20
John 5:30
John 7:16
John 8:26-28
John 8:38
John 12:49
John 12:50
John 15:15
John 17:8

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?

Matthew 10:40
Matthew 15:24
Matthew 21:37
Mark 12:6
Luke 20:13
Mark 9:37
Luke 9:48
Luke 4:18, 21
Luke 4:43
Luke 10:16
John 3:17
John 3:34
John 4:34
John 5:23
John 5:24
John 5:30
John 5:36
John 5:37
John 5:38
John 6:29
John 6:38
John 6:39
John 6:44, 46
John 6:57
John 7:16-18
John 7:28
John 7:29
John 7:33
John 8:16
John 8:26
John 8:29
John 8:42
John 9:4
John 10:36
John 11:42
John 12:44
John 12:45
John 12:49
John 13:3
John 13:20
John 14:24
John 15:21
John 16:5
John 16:27
John 16:28
John 16:30
John 17:3
John 17:8
John 17:18
John 17:21
John 17:23
John 17:25
John 20:21
Acts 3:20
Acts 3:26
Romans 8:3
Galatians 4:4
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:10
1 John 4:14

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?

1 Timothy 2:5
Romans 8:34
Hebrews 8:6
Hebrews 9:15
Hebrews 12:24

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?

Matthew 3:17
Luke 3:22
Mark 1:11
Matthew 17:5
Mark 9:7
Luke 9:35
John 12:28
2 Peter 1:17, 18

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"

Matthew 7:21
Matthew 10:32, 33
Matthew 11:27
Luke 10:22
Matthew 12:50
Matthew 15:13
Matthew 16:17
Matthew 18:10, 14, 19, 35
Matthew 20:23
Matthew 25:34
Matthew 26:39
Mark 14:35, 36
Luke 22:41-44
Matthew 26:42
Matthew 26:53
Luke 2:49
John 2:16
John 5:17, 18, 36
John 6:32, 40
John 8:19, 38, 49, 54
John 10:18, 25, 29, 37
John 14:2, 21, 23
John 15:1, 8, 23, 24
John 17:11, 24, 25
John 20:17
Revelation 2:27
Revelation 3:5

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why did God need to selected him as His servant?

Matthew 3:17
Mark 1:11
Luke 3:22
Matthew 12:18
Luke 2:29-32 , 40, 52
John 3:2
John 6:27
Acts 3:13, 22
Acts 4:27, 30
Acts 13:23
Romans 3:25
Romans 9:33
Colossians 1:19, 20
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 10:5
1 Peter 2:4, 6

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is there a distinctions made between Jesus and God?

Luke 9:26
Luke 24:19
John 5:17, 45
John 8:19
John 10:15
John 14:1, 8, 23, 28
John 15:1, 2, 16
John 16:3, 23
John 19:11
Acts 1:4
1 Corinthians 8:6
1 Corinthians 15:24, 28
Ephesians 2:20-22
Ephesians 5:5
Ephesians 6:23
1 Thessalonians 3:11
2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2, 12
2 Thessalonians 2:16
1 Timothy 1:1, 2
1 Timothy 5:21
1 Timothy 6:13
2 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 4:1
Titus 1:4
Philemon 1:3
Hebrews 1:6
James 1:1
2 Peter 1:1, 2
1 John 2:1, 22-24
2 John 1:9
Revelation 1:2, 4, 5
Revelation 5:9, 10, 13
Revelation 6:16, 17
Revelation 11:15
Revelation 12:10
Revelation 14:1, 4
Revelation 20:4, 6
Revelation 21:22, 23
Revelation 22:1, 3

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he do the work assigned by the Father?

John 5:36
John 10:25, 29, 32, 37, 38
John 17:4

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why can God not be seen at any time?

John 5:37
John 6:46

Why should I continue to believe what is obviously a lie about the "nature" of God?

Oh, and the correct body part is "feet" (you should read and understand "scripture" before you misquote it).

Excellent questions VFarris. God bless!

alam

November 6th 2005, 12:29 AM

A key verse of scripture, which appears in my signature in Wulfila's Gothic, is John 17:3:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The One who sent Christ is the only true God. In the immediate context and throughout John as a whole, the identity of this One is given as the Father and not Christ ("neither came I of myself, but he sent me," John 8:42; 5:36,37; 6:38,57; 17:1-3 etc). The Father is the only true God.

On the meaning of "true" in the verse:

John carefully distinguishes between the Greek words alethinos and alethes. Most English translations do not; they render them both with "true." In several cases this is fine; however, in certain contexts the translation "true" for alethinos can lead to a false or misleading connotation.

Alethinos (used at Jn. 1:9; 4:23,37; 6:32; 7:28; 8:16; 15:1; 17:3; 19:35) basically means "genuine" or "primary," whereas alethes means "true" in contrast to "false." John's use of alethinos in John 1:9 emphasizes that John the Baptizer is a secondary light, one who receives illumination from Jesus the primary Light. It is important to note that John the Gospel writer uses alethinos, not alethes, since he does not wish to leave the impression that John the Baptizer's message was false while Jesus' message was true.....Alethinos is also found at Luke 16:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 8:2; 9:24; 10:22; 1 John 2:8; 5:20; Revelation 3:7,14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 19:2,9,11; 21:5; 22:6.

When Christ address his Father as the only true God, he is saying that the Father is the only "genuine" or "primary" God.

Are there any gods who, while not the primary God, are not false gods? The Son is not the Father, and the Son is called a God (as a common noun, monogenhs qeos, NA 27 main text):

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (NASB).

The distinction between the Father and the Son that arises from a plain read (1) of John is the distinction between only true (meaning, primary) God and only begotten God.

The elect (as the church fathers explained the passage: Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 3.6.1; Clement Alex. Exhortation to the Greeks 94; Hippolytus Ref. Haer. 10.30) are also called gods:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

1: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2: How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3: Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4: Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5: They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the most High.
7: But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8: Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The angels are gods and sons of God:

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (Hebrew= gods), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Moses, a type of Christ in the NT (2 Cor. 3:13-4:6; Heb. 3:1-6) and a type of the Logos for Philo (2) was made into a god:

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

The judges of Israel were gods:

For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (Hebrew= God/gods); and whom the judges (Hebrew= gods, with 'yarshi`un' a plural verb) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

All of these beings were gods, and they were not false gods. So it is possible for a being to be a 'god' without being a false god. The question I would put to Trinitarians and Modalists is why, if Jesus is admitted to be (a) God, he must be either the one true God or a false god.

_________________________

(1) "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) does not mean that the Father and the Son are the same being -- Christ likens the unity of his disciples to his unity with the Father:

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

This reference enabled the orthodox father Hippolytus to refute the mishandling of John 10:30 by Noetus, a modalist:

If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me." What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance (ousia!), or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition.

(2) Some might question citing Philo. The reason Philo is important is that his writings concerning the Logos so closely resemble the concepts in the New Testament that there can be no doubt of a connection--even if that connection is only common origin. His doctrine of the Logos is corroborative testimony of high order for understanding the NT doctrine of the Logos in a first century context.

Extract from "The sentiments of Philo Judeaus, concerning the LOGOS, or WORD of GOD, Svo. Cambridge, 1797":

Philo Judaeus speaks at large in many places, of the word of God, the second person, which he mentions as (deuteros Qeos) the second divinity, {literally Second God} the great cause of all things, and styles him, as Plato, as well as the Jews, had done before, the LOGOS. Of the divine Logos or Word, he speaks in many places, and maintains at large the divinity of the second person, and describes his attributes in a very precise and copious manner, styling him ton deuteron Qeon os estin ekeinou (Qeou prwtou) Logos, the second Deity, who is the word of the supreme God; Prwtogonon uion, his first-begotten Son ; Eikwn Qeou, the image of God : and Poimhn ths iexas agelhs, the Shepherd of his holy flock.

...

A LIST OF SOME OF THE PARTICULAR TERMS AND DOCTRINES FOUND IN PHILO, with parallel passages from the New Testament.

1. The Logos is the Son of God--uios Qeou. De Agric. vol. i. p. 308. De Profug. ib. p. 562. compare Mark i. 1. Luke iv. 41. John i. 34. Acts viii. 37.

2. The second divinity--deuteros Qeos Logos. Fragm. vol. ii. p. 625. comp. John i. 1. Cor. i. 24.

3. The first-begotten of God--Logos prwtogonos. De Somniis, vol. i. p. 653. comp. Heb i. 6. Coloss. i. 15.

4. The image of God--eikwn tou Qeou. De Mundi Opific. vol. i. p. g. 414, 419, 656. comp. Col. i. 15. Heb. i. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 4.

5. Superior to angels--uperanw pantwn (aggellwn) Logos Qeios. De Profugis. vol. i. p. 561. comp. Heb. i. 4, 6.

6. Superior to all the world--'O Logos--uperanw pantos esti. De Leg. Allegor. vol. i. p. 121. comp. Heb. ii. 8.

7. By whom the world was created--ton Qeion Logon ton tauta diakosmesanta. De Mund. Opif. vol. i. p. 4. comp. John 1. 3. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Heb. i. 2, 10.

8. The great substitute of God--uparxos tou Qeou. De Agricult. vol. i. p. 308. comp. John i. 3 and xvii. 4. Eph. iii. 9. Phil. ii. 7.

9. The light of the world--phos kosmou. and intellectual sun--'hlios noetos. De Somniis, vol. i. p. 6. 414, 632, 633. comp. John 1. 4, 9. and viii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 9.

10. Who only can see God--'w monw ton Qeon exesti kathoran. De Confus. Linguar. vol. i. p. 418. comp. John 1:18. and vi. 46.

11. Who resides in God--en autw monw katoikhsai. De Profug. vol. i. p. 561. comp. John i. 18. and xiv. 11.

12. The most ancient of God's works, and before all things--presbutatos twn 'osa gegone. De Confus. Linguar. vol. i. p. 427. De Leg. Allegor. ib. p. 121. comp. John i. 2. and xvii. 5, 24, 2 Tim. i. 9. Heb. i. 2.

It goes on in this way for a couple columns. Philo, like Justin Martyr, Origen and other of the early fathers, did conceive of the Logos as a deuteros theos or "second(ary) God" and deliberately used anarthrous 'theos' of the Logos to distinguish him from the God.

Philo knew the distinction between interior and exterior logos and could apply it in an orthodox Stoic fashion (De vita Mos. ii, 137), and it was perhaps this distinction, together with the Jewish scriptural tradition about the "Word of God," that led to his new treatment of logos. In the first instance logos is the Divine Reason that embraces the archetypal complex of eide that will serve as the models of creation (De opif. 5, 20). Next, this logos that is God's mind is externalized in the form of the kosmos noetos (q.v.), the universe apprehensible only to the intelligence (ibid. 7, 29). It is transcendent (Leg. all. iii, 175-177), and it is God, although not the God (De somn. i, 227-229), but rather the "elder Son of God" (Quod Deus 6, 31). With the creation of the visible world (kosmos aisthetos) the logos begins to play an immanent role as the "seal" of creation (De fuga 2, 12), the Stoic "bond of the universe" (De plant. 2, 8-9) and heimarmene (q.v.; De mut. 23, 135). Philo differs from the Stoics in denying that this immanent logos is God (De migre. Abr. 32, 179-181); for the providential role of Philo's logos, see pronoia. Philo gives his logos a distinct role in creation: it is the instrumental cause (De cher. 35, 126-127); it is also an archetypal light (ibid. 28, 97), this latter image reappearing in Plotinus, Enn. iii, 2, 16. But there is a difference between the two thinkers; what was in Philo both logos and nous is divided in Plotinus who uses the logos concept in a fashion akin to the Stoic logoi spermatikoi (q.v.); see Enn. iii, 2, 16 where nous and logos are distinguished.

The early church fathers made these distinctions with clarity.

Tertullian:

But since they (the Sabellian heretics) will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word (i.e. Logos Prophorikos) from the beginning, but He had Reason (i.e. Logos Endiathetos) even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance.

In eternity God was alone, possessing Reason (Logos) as an attribute of Himself, not as an external being (cf. also Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10). Logos as His Son, an external being, dates from the creation:

For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.

The generation of the Son, following Prov. 8:22 and Sirach 1:4, is called creation:

Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning,--I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God it began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works,--how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word?

I cite Tertullian not because he is extraordinary, but because what he writes here is typical of the Logos theology of the ECFs and express it well. He also says,

Yet "two gods" or " two lords" we never let issue from our mouth: not but that both the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and each several one <of them> is God; but that of old time two were preached as Gods and two as Lords (sed quoniam retro et duo dii et duo domini praedicabantur), so that when Christ came he should both be recognised as God and have the name of Lord, because he is the son of <him who is> God and Lord. For if there were found in the scriptures one Person both of God and of the Lord, rightly would Christ not have been admitted to the name of God and Lord (because none other besides one God and one Lord was preached), and it would have come about that the Father himself would have seemed to have come down from heaven> (because we were reading of one God and one Lord), and darkness would have fallen upon his whole economy which was designed and administered for material of faith.

[http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm]

Origen on the Son as subordinate God, and the use of the article in John 1:1:

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God............Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

More Origen:

Origen: Is it then true that the Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, was God, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

Heracl[ides].: What you say is evident. But our affirmation is this: the almighty, God without beginning and without end, containing all things, and not contained by anything, he is God; and his Word is Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man in as much as he was born of Mary.

Origen: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?

Heracl.: Assuredly.

Origen: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Origen: While being distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Origen: Then the unity is a unity of two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes.

Origen: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl. Yes. The power is one.

Justin Martyr (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm):

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.

[http://newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm]

God bless,

Zxcv Bnm

November 6th 2005, 12:34 AM

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God how does 1+1+1=3, 1÷3=1, and 3×1=1.The equations presume 3 gods in 1 god, or 3 persons in 1 person, which as you have said, is contradictory. Trinity, however, is 3 persons in 1 god, and is no more contradictory than 3 tacos in 1 platter.

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he make request to the Father for ruling authority?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father is the his "head?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does Jesus need to be exalted by God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why did God need to selected him as His servant?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is there a distinctions made between Jesus and God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he do the work assigned by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why can God not be seen at any time?
I think somebody has already mentioned the verse that answers all of these: Philippians 2:5-11. That one person of the godhead would humble himself in order to take the nature of a servant, may be a wonder, but not contradictory to the concept of trinity.

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 01:10 AM

Sparkey,

You said 1X1X1=1 is a conception of the trinity. I pointed out to you that it is actually a conception of modalism, i.e. 1 person three times. How is this a strawman? Infact not addressing this issue is a strawman on your part.

Admit you're mistaken , or I'm going to keep taunting you about it Einstein..

I am so sorry that you don't understand the trinity, or it appears modalism. Modalism would be 1Father=1Son=1Holy Spirit.

The Father becomes the Son, who becomes the Holy Spirit. They change roles.

Triniarianism maintains that there are three persons all existing at the same time who ar all God. One God.

So I guess that explains why you don't understand the scripture or the writings of any early church father. You are blinded by your satanic doctrine of Arianism. The devil has his hands on your reigns and it shows in your ignorant posting and your pathetic attempts to distract from any cogent discussion on any matter.

So, taunt all you want, pythagoras. If you don't know how to count, then I sure can't help you. Rather than having any real argument you just try to distract by building strawmen and tossing insults. If that's all you have, then you are a sorry excuse for an Arian apologist. I have received several PM's from people who are reading this thread and a constant theme is thanking me for attempting to show the truth to you and vfarris even though you guys are about as dense as a lead brick. So I guess you are helping trinitarianism with every strawman you build and every ignorant statement you make. Thanks bro.

Since you are helping trinitarianism so much, I guess that means you are a trinitarian. Being a "modalist," I can tell. :lmbo:

Pythagoras is a Trinitarian!!! :woohoo:

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 01:38 AM

More Origen:

Origen: Is it then true that the Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, was God, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

Heracl[ides].: What you say is evident. But our affirmation is this: the almighty, God without beginning and without end, containing all things, and not contained by anything, he is God; and his Word is Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man in as much as he was born of Mary.

Origen: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?

Heracl.: Assuredly.

Origen: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Origen: While being distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Origen: Then the unity is a unity of two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes.

Origen: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl. Yes. The power is one.

I didn't check the rest of your quotes but I do know what you have posted above is a dishonest chopping up of what Origen said. The dialogue is actually an AFFIRMATION of the trinity, not a denial or an argument for Arianism or polytheism. This kind of misquoting needs to cease.

Here is a more complete quote without any words being chopped out or changed:

(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1966), 68-69, citing the "Dialogue with Heraclides."

Since the bishops present had raised questions about the faith of the bishop Heraclides, so that in the presence of all he might acknowledge his faith, and each of them had made remarks and had raised the question, the bishop Heraclides said: "And I too believe exactly what the divine scriptures say: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and nothing came into existence apart from him.' So we agree in the faith and, furthermore, we believe that the Christ assumed flesh, that he was born, that he ascended into the heavens with the flesh in which he arose, and that he is seated at the right hand of the Father, whence he is going to come and judge the living and the dead, being God and man."

Origen said: "Since a debate is now beginning and one may speak on the subject of the debate, I will speak. The whole church is here to listen. One church should not differ from another in knowledge, since you are not the false community. I ask you, Father Heraclides. God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme one who made all things. Do you agree?"

Heraclides said: "I agree; for thus I too believe."

Origen said: "Christ Jesus, who exists in the form of God, though he is distinct from God in the form in which he existed, was he God before he entered a body or not?"

Heraclides said: "He was God before."

Origen said: "He was God before he entered a body, or not?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."

Origen said: "God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?"

Heraclides said: "Obviously distinct from any other, since he is in the form of that one who created everything."

Origen said: "Was there not a God, Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the first-born of all creation, and do we not devoutly say that in one sense there are two Gods and, in another, one God?"

Heraclides said: "What you say is clear; but we say that there is God, the almighty, without beginning and without end, containing all things but not contained, and there is his Word, Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things came into existence, God in relation to the Spirit and man in that he was born of Mary."

Origen said: "You do not seem to have answered my question. Make it clear; perhaps I did not follow you. Is the Father God?"

Heraclides said: "Certainly."

Origen said: "Is the Son distinct from the Father?"

Heraclides said: "How can he be Son if he is also Father?"

Origen said: "While distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?"

Heraclides said: "He himself is also God."

Origen said: "And the two Gods become one?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."

Origen said: "Do we acknowledge two Gods?"

Heraclides said: "Yes; the power is one."

Origen said: "But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the subject must be examined with care in order to show in what respect they are two and in what respect the two are one God." [Ibid., 69-70.]

alam

November 6th 2005, 02:51 AM

I didn't check the rest of your quotes but I do know what you have posted above is a dishonest chopping up of what Origen said.

There was no chopping or dishonesty -- it was a continuous quote. Origen could call the Father and the Son two Gods, and for him the Son is God in its sense as a common noun. This is the point I was making. According to Origen, they are two Gods in respect to particulars, but one as respects their Godhead. None of that goes against the Son's derived Deity, which Origen very plainly articulated in Commentary on John 2.2 cited above.

The dialogue is actually an AFFIRMATION of the trinity, not a denial or an argument for Arianism or polytheism.

Only if you would agree with Origen that the Trinity are in a certain sense three Gods. Otherwise you are not talking about the same thing as Origen at all. Following the disputed quote :

Well then, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: 'For the two shall be one flesh' [Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5]. Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: 'For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit' [1 Cor. 6:17]. But is it not the case that the man is of a subordinate or low and inferior nature, while Christ is of a more divine, glorious and blessed nature? In that case are they no longer two? Well, the man and his wife are 'no longer two but on flesh' [Matt. 19:6]; the righteous man and Christ are 'one spirit'. Similarly our Saviour and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God.

Origen is taking "God" as a collective common noun, just as "flesh" is used in the Bible and the word "Adam." Even I could agree that Christ and God are one God in that sense.

This kind of misquoting needs to cease.

When you find something near a quote that sounds like something in Trinitarianism (including the word "trinity," which I accept in the same sense that the ECFs did) it does not automatically make it a misquote. The ECFs often used similar terms but meant different things.

Here is a more complete quote without any words being chopped out or changed:

The translation I've got is a different one (H. Chadwick). No words were changed from the translation as given.

Piebald

November 6th 2005, 03:25 AM

If Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all the same individual why does Jesus need to pray to himself.

A single computer exists. On that computer, sharing the same hard drive, the same resources, etc. are three persons. Three distinct A.I.s

One Person (AI #1) speaks to another Person (AI #2); the Computer speaks to the Computer. One Computer, 2 distinct persons that are the same computer speaking to eachother.

In this scenario, does it make sense to say "If AI#1 is the same Computer as AI#2, why does AI#1 talk to AI#2?" Of course not. That would pre-suppose that only one AI can exist on the same computer which is not true.

In other words, by asking the question "If Jesus and the Father are both God, why does Jesus pray to God?" you are begging the question. In a tripersonal paradigm God can talk to God, since "God" entails three persons.

l why does Jesus not know the future concerning himself.

Jesus does not recall the future concerning himself because He willingly moved divine foreknowledge into his subconscious. We know everything in our subconscious, it is simply beyond our ability to recall. In Jesus' case he voluntarily moved this knowledge into his subconscious and did not choose to bring it forward into his immediate memory.

The word does not exist in the bible, hence, it is interpretation. An intepretation of who? Man. God says he is one, not three in one---

"God says he is one, not three in one--" does not exist in the bible, hence it is an interpretation. An interpretation of who? Topherlee.

Cited Verse: " I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"

This assumes that God can only be one person. If Trinitarianism is correct then God (Jesus) can acknowledge that God (The Father) is His God.

In other words, you have to pre-suppose unitarianism in order to take unitarianism from this verse, which is begging the question.

Verse Cited: to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

We have One Lord - Yahweh
We have One God - Yahweh

Trinitarians worship Yahweh. Unitarians have two gods -- Yahweh and Jesus.

Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus want a King to rule over them for eternity, a King who is not Yahweh.

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

So instead of the restored people of God being ruled directly by God, Unitarians want their human king to reign over them for all eternity. God explicitly calls this a rejection of him.

Not only that, but, in true pagan fashion, they want their demigod king to have supernatural powers and they want to call him savior.

Trinitarians are in line with what the Gospel writers intended (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html). The Wisdom of God (a'la Proverbs 8, Jewish writings, etc.) came to dwell with men in human flesh.

Rayado

November 6th 2005, 04:36 AM

Alam, in your Origen quote:

Similarly our Saviour and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God.

How in the world can you derive Tritheism from that?

apostoli

November 6th 2005, 09:33 AM

Hi Sparko,

You said 1X1X1=1 is a conception of the trinity. I pointed out to you that it is actually a conception of modalism, i.e. 1 person three times. How is this a strawman? Infact not addressing this issue is a strawman on your part.I am so sorry that you don't understand the trinity, or it appears modalism. Modalism would be 1Father=1Son=1Holy Spirit. The Father becomes the Son, who becomes the Holy Spirit. They change roles. Triniarianism maintains that there are three persons all existing at the same time who ar all God. One God.With due respect Sparko, I suspect you yourself do not understand the teaching of the agreed creeds on the trinity. All begin "I believe in one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ...God from God...and the Holy Spirit. In the agreed creeds only God the Father is nominated as absolutly God, with the Son and Spirit subsisting in him. The important point being: that only the Father is self existant. In the trinity accordng to the accepted creeds there is not one God being, but three personnas united in being, each having the same substantia.

On another thread George Blaisdell makes the idea a little clearer
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64304&page=3

I remember Fr. Thomas Hopko surprising me when He said that we Orthodox Christians do NOT worship the Trinity! We do not pray to the Trinity as if the Trinity were a Person... We pray to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, and to all three, but not to God the Trinity...And when I was writhing in my drool on that idea, he explained the part of the Creed that says, in the beginning: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible... And he went on to say that the one Christian God is God the Father. The Son and the Holy Spirit are from Him, but He is the One God, and the Trinity is one in essence, but not in Hypostases... That in Hpostases, it is Three... And those Three are One, and that One is God the Father.

Where I might clarify George's understanding of what he heard is in the way we are taught to worship God: We worship God the Father, through his Son and by/in the Holy Spirit. (Eph 3:14-15; Eph 5:18-21; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:6)

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 09:56 AM

... if jesus is the "supreme" God how does 1+1+1=3, 1÷3=1, and 3×1=1.The equations presume 3 gods in 1 god, or 3 persons in 1 person, which as you have said, is contradictory. Trinity, however, is 3 persons in 1 god, and is no more contradictory than 3 tacos in 1 platter.There is no reason not to presume three gods... In the Bible, the Father is called god... the Son is called god... the HS is not called god, that I know of, but let us assume "He" is called god...

The only one (of the three) actually said to be God is the Father. By the reasoning of the "trinity" doctrine, all three are gods in one God.

Three tacos on one platter do not represent a trinity... they represent lunch... is anyone else hungry?

...if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he not do his own will but God's will?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he pray to God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he need resurrected by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he limited in knowledge?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he make request to the Father for ruling authority?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is the Father is the his "head?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does Jesus need to be exalted by God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he taught by the Father and does the Father's "will?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why was he sent by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is he the mediator between God and men?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does the Father talked to him from Heaven?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he say, "My Father?"
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why did God need to selected him as His servant?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why is there a distinctions made between Jesus and God?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he do the work assigned by the Father?
... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why can God not be seen at any time?I think somebody has already mentioned the verse that answers all of these: Philippians 2:5-11. That one person of the godhead would humble himself in order to take the nature of a servant, may be a wonder, but not contradictory to the concept of trinity.

(5) For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, (6) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, (7) but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. (8) And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (9) Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth; (11) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Being "in the form of God" makes you God; "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26 MKJV). (Do not try to make a big deal out of the word "our;" all monarchs talk this way.)

Why is there a separation of identities in v11? If Jesus was God should the verse not read, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is God, to the glory of the Father?" Why is there a distinction between "lord" and "god?"

In your belief system, Philippians 2:5-11 "answers all of these." In reality Phillippians 2:5-11 creates more questions.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 10:06 AM

I am so sorry that you don't understand the trinity, or it appears modalism. Modalism would be 1Father=1Son=1Holy Spirit.Jesus implies 1 Father = 1 Son... "I and the Father are one!" (John 10:30 MKJV).

Triniarianism maintains that there are three persons all existing at the same time who ar all God. One God.The "trinity" is the only thing that has three individuals who are one thing. While three tacos on one platter are one thing... lunch... One (or two) taco(s) could be lunch... but it depends on how hungry you are :lol:.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 10:15 AM

John from Ebla

November 6th 2005, 10:36 AM

God is not a computer.

Sorry, Jesus praying to the Father begs the question, "If Jesus and the Father are both God, why does Jesus pray to God?" not the other way around.

Nice assumption... Your opinion (belief) is noted; thanks.

If you and your son are both humans then of course your son is not you the Father.

In the case of Jesus He can be God by virtue of the spirit in Him (Heb 9:6)- the Word that was God John 1:1 and became flesh John 1:14

Do come back saying it does not say that. IT DOES

Kind regards
John From Ebla

N4LIFE2006

November 6th 2005, 10:52 AM

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. Most of you don't even know me. So, The Bible does not use the word "Trinity." Yet, it is applied by Paul very often. As for a description of the Trinity I turn to a football team. There are 40 guys (i think) that consist of the team. Not any one of them is the team (unless your T.O.). But each is an individual. The QB, RB, WR etc. But they make-up the team. Well, headed to church pe@ce

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 10:55 AM

God is not a computer.

Sorry, Jesus praying to the Father begs the question, "If Jesus and the Father are both God, why does Jesus pray to God?" not the other way around.

Nice assumption... Your opinion (belief) is noted; thanks.If you and your son are both humans then of course your son is not you the Father.Jesus says he is the Father (John 10:30)... Why does Jesus need to pray to himself?

In the case of Jesus He can be God by virtue of the spirit in Him (Heb 9:6)- the Word that was God John 1:1 and became flesh John 1:14

Do come back saying it does not say that. IT DOESCheck your verse... Hebrews 9:6?

If Jesus is God because the spirit of God is in him, then we are all God within whomever the Spirit of God dwells (1 John 4:13).

John from Ebla

November 6th 2005, 11:35 AM

Jesus says he is the Father (John 10:30)... Why does Jesus need to pray to himself?

Check your verse... Hebrews 9:6?

If Jesus is God because the spirit of God is in him, then we are all God within whomever the Spirit of God dwells (1 John 4:13).

Get real.

Fullness and a protion of what His spirit is, is not the same- You have not refuted anything.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 11:39 AM

Jesus says he is the Father (John 10:30)... Why does Jesus need to pray to himself?

Check your verse... Hebrews 9:6?

If Jesus is God because the spirit of God is in him, then we are all God within whomever the Spirit of God dwells (1 John 4:13).Get real.

Fullness and a protion of what His spirit is, is not the same- You have not refuted anything.I do not have to refute anything... the "trinity" refutes itself.

John from Ebla

November 6th 2005, 11:45 AM

I do not have to refute anything... the "trinity" refutes itself.

You are just saying Bla bla bla

You have not refuted Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
(John 1:1-3,14) became flesh- that is how it dwells in the body of Christ

Kind regards
john from Ebla

{Tim}

November 6th 2005, 12:14 PM

You are just saying Bla bla bla

You have not refuted Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
(John 1:1-3,14) became flesh- that is how it dwells in the body of Christ

Kind regards
john from Ebla
:smile:

Keep it up, both Johns... :wink:

Piebald

November 6th 2005, 12:39 PM

God is not a computer

Ahahahahaha. Nice rebuttal, guy.

"Mat 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me. "

"Hey Jesus, you are not a chicken."

"Oh."

Sorry, Jesus praying to the Father begs the question----

You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 02:16 PM

I do not have to refute anything... the "trinity" refutes itself.You are just saying Bla bla blaThat sucking sound you hear is you.

You have not refuted Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
(John 1:1-3,14) became flesh- that is how it dwells in the body of Christ(9) For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

(9) For in him the whole fullness of God lives in bodily form.

What is there to refute? God dwells in all who believe in him.

(16) And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

(13) By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 02:21 PM

God is not a computerAhahahahaha. Nice rebuttal, guy.

"Mat 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me. "

"Hey Jesus, you are not a chicken."

"Oh."Ahahahahaha. Nice strawman, guy.

Sorry, Jesus praying to the Father begs the question----You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you.Clearly, I do and clearly, you do not... and...

clearly, reasonable discussion is not in your mental makeup and the ad hominem is the only other argument you know.

Grow up.

Rayado

November 6th 2005, 03:50 PM

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 03:50 PM

Ahahahahaha. Nice rebuttal, guy.

"Mat 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me. "

"Hey Jesus, you are not a chicken."

"Oh."

You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you.

I have been dealing with this childishness for a few weeks now. Neither Pythagoras nor topherlee or VFarris01 can seem to actaually grasp what we trinitarians actually believe so they make up false 'strawman' versions of the trinity, then they torch them with even lousier theology and think they somehow proved us wrong. I think Alam is a bit better, but he likes to try to misquote trinitarian sources to make them say the trinity is false, like he did with Origen, and like pythagoras did with Irenaeus. Taking quotes out of context seems to be a common strategy.

They will not listen to any argument we give or correction to what we actually believe. Whenever I have tried to tell them what we really believe, they have the audacity to tell me I am wrong and they know what I really believe. :lmbo:

But they do make themselves look bad so it actually help show that the truth is that God is a trinity.

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 03:59 PM

There was no chopping or dishonesty -- it was a continuous quote. Origen could call the Father and the Son two Gods, and for him the Son is God in its sense as a common noun. This is the point I was making. According to Origen, they are two Gods in respect to particulars, but one as respects their Godhead. None of that goes against the Son's derived Deity, which Origen very plainly articulated in Commentary on John 2.2 cited above.

When you take a text of a church father that actually supports trinitarianism and try to misuse it to support arianism, yes that is dishonest. Origen was not an Arian.

You cut out the part where he says that Jesus was God and the same God, and that there was only one God.

Only if you would agree with Origen that the Trinity are in a certain sense three Gods. Otherwise you are not talking about the same thing as Origen at all. Following the disputed quote :

Well then, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: 'For the two shall be one flesh' [Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5]. Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: 'For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit' [1 Cor. 6:17]. But is it not the case that the man is of a subordinate or low and inferior nature, while Christ is of a more divine, glorious and blessed nature? In that case are they no longer two? Well, the man and his wife are 'no longer two but on flesh' [Matt. 19:6]; the righteous man and Christ are 'one spirit'. Similarly our Saviour and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God.

Do you even READ what you quote?????

what is his conclusion??????

THEY ARE ONE GOD.

Origen earlier says "In one sense we can say there are two Gods..."

He is saying that since they are distinct persons it looks like we have two Gods, but in fact we only have ONE God.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 05:20 PM

Clearly, I do and clearly, you do not... and...

clearly, reasonable discussion is not in your mental makeup and the ad hominem is the only other argument you know.

Grow up.And Hamster was perfectly accurate when he called your dodges 'artless.' Is this the only thing you can do in response to his posts, is call him mentally unable to respond? :no: Since his response lacked substance and was purely an attempt at ridicule... I was right on target.

You, sir, owe Hamster a serious apology and an explanation that he has asked for.He asked for an apology... from me? I owe the little rat nothing... least of all an apology, especially after a comment like, "You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you (from post 57). This certainly looks like an "Ad hominem Abusive" to me.

Why is his comment about Jesus and the chicken a strawman? Leaving it at calling it a strawman is tasteless and shallow.Read post 75... it is obvious to even the simplest of minds.

And what does it take for a guy to get a response to his posts in this thread... :rant: You have your response... now, do not go away mad, just go away.

Why not contribute to the discussion instead of chastising me. Perhaps you might have some constructive imput...

alam

November 6th 2005, 05:28 PM

When you take a text of a church father that actually supports trinitarianism and try to misuse it to support arianism, yes that is dishonest. Origen was not an Arian.

You cut out the part where he says that Jesus was God and the same God, and that there was only one God.

Do you even READ what you quote?????

what is his conclusion??????

THEY ARE ONE GOD.

Origen earlier says "In one sense we can say there are two Gods..."

He is saying that since they are distinct persons it looks like we have two Gods, but in fact we only have ONE God.

It was not dishonest. Read earlier half of the cite again. Origen is not saying that they only 'seem' to be two Gods but are 'really' just one God. That is a complete distortion of his point. Remember that for Origen, only the Father is Autotheos and ho Theos (see Commentary on John 2.2 above). In Dial. Heracl. he is saying that they are two Gods, and are one in a similar manner as Adam and Eve were one 'flesh,' and Jesus and his elect are one 'spirit.' Christ and his elect being "one spirit" does not prevent them from being two spirits in concrete terms. You are one spirit and Christ is another spirit. This is Origen's point. In concrete terms, Christ and the Father are two Gods; however, taking 'God' as a collective or common noun in the same way as 'flesh' and 'spirit', you can say they are one God. He goes out of his way to show that being 'one' in this sense does not preclude a distinction of natures: "But is it not the case that the man is of a subordinate or low and inferior nature, while Christ is of a more divine, glorious and blessed nature? In that case are they no longer two?" (as you know, Origen himself said the Father and the Son are Heteroousios, of differing substance).

This is a good description of Origen's doctrine of the trinity:

Origen begins his treatise On First Principles by establishing, in typical Platonic fashion, a divine hierarchical triad; but instead of calling these principles by typical Platonic terms like monad, dyad, and world-soul, he calls them "Father," "Christ," and "Holy Spirit," though he does describe these principles using Platonic language. The first of these principles, the Father, is a perfect unity, complete unto Himself, and without body - a purely spiritual mind. Since God the Father is, for Origen, "personal and active," it follows that there existed with Him, always, an entity upon which to exercise His intellectual activity. This entity is Christ the Son, the Logos, or Wisdom (Sophia), of God, the first emanation of the Father, corresponding to Numenius' "second god," as we have seen above (section 2). The third and last principle of the divine triad is the Holy Spirit, who "proceeds from the Son and is related to Him as the Son is related to the Father" (A. Tripolitis 1978, p. 94). Here is Origen explaining the status of the Holy Spirit, in a passage preserved in the original Greek:

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).

This graded hierarchy reveals an allotment of power to the second and third members of the Trinity: the Father's power is universal, but the Son's corresponds only to rational creatures, while the Spirit's power corresponds strictly to the "saints" or those who have achieved salvation. Such a structure of divine influence on the created realm is found much later in the system of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (see J. Dillon, in G. Vesey, ed. 1989).

[http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm]

If you are ready to say the Trinity is what Origen had in mind, then guess I do too, and am a trinitarian. :woohoo:

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 05:41 PM

Rayado

November 6th 2005, 05:47 PM

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 06:11 PM

It was not dishonest. Read earlier half of the cite again. Origen is not saying that they only 'seem' to be two Gods but are 'really' just one God. That is a complete distortion of his point. Remember that for Origen, only the Father is Autotheos and ho Theos (see Commentary on John 2.2 above). In Dial. Heracl. he is saying that they are two Gods, and are one in a similar manner as Adam and Eve were one 'flesh,' and Jesus and his elect are one 'spirit.' Christ and his elect being "one spirit" does not prevent them from being two spirits in concrete terms. You are one spirit and Christ is another spirit. This is Origen's point. In concrete terms, Christ and the Father are two Gods; however, taking 'God' as a collective or common noun in the same way as 'flesh' and 'spirit', you can say they are one God. He goes out of his way to show that being 'one' in this sense does not preclude a distinction of natures: "But is it not the case that the man is of a subordinate or low and inferior nature, while Christ is of a more divine, glorious and blessed nature? In that case are they no longer two?" (as you know, Origen himself said the Father and the Son are Heteroousios, of differing substance).

This is a good description of Origen's doctrine of the trinity:

Origen begins his treatise On First Principles by establishing, in typical Platonic fashion, a divine hierarchical triad; but instead of calling these principles by typical Platonic terms like monad, dyad, and world-soul, he calls them "Father," "Christ," and "Holy Spirit," though he does describe these principles using Platonic language. The first of these principles, the Father, is a perfect unity, complete unto Himself, and without body - a purely spiritual mind. Since God the Father is, for Origen, "personal and active," it follows that there existed with Him, always, an entity upon which to exercise His intellectual activity. This entity is Christ the Son, the Logos, or Wisdom (Sophia), of God, the first emanation of the Father, corresponding to Numenius' "second god," as we have seen above (section 2). The third and last principle of the divine triad is the Holy Spirit, who "proceeds from the Son and is related to Him as the Son is related to the Father" (A. Tripolitis 1978, p. 94). Here is Origen explaining the status of the Holy Spirit, in a passage preserved in the original Greek:The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote). This graded hierarchy reveals an allotment of power to the second and third members of the Trinity: the Father's power is universal, but the Son's corresponds only to rational creatures, while the Spirit's power corresponds strictly to the "saints" or those who have achieved salvation. Such a structure of divine influence on the created realm is found much later in the system of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (see J. Dillon, in G. Vesey, ed. 1989).

[http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm]

If you are ready to say the Trinity is what Origen had in mind, then guess I do too, and am a trinitarian. :woohoo:

Uh I dont think a secular web site is a good source for telling us the theology of Origen.

You have clearly left out several passages in your first quote where Origen states that Jesus IS God, and there is ONLY ONE God.

Now you can try to explain all that away and wiggle out of it all you want but anyone reading the passages can see that he clearly thought JESUS was the SAME God as the Father, and yet a distinct person. That sure sounds like the trinity to me. You can't have two persons in the SAME God made of a different substance.

Let's go over the text again...
Origen said: "Since a debate is now beginning and one may speak on the subject of the debate, I will speak. The whole church is here to listen. One church should not differ from another in knowledge, since you are not the false community. I ask you, Father Heraclides. God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme one who made all things. Do you agree?"
Thus he DEFINES what he means by "GOD." He means the uncreated being who made all things. The almighty. He is NOT using "god" as a common noun as you try to say.

Heraclides said: "I agree; for thus I too believe."

Origen said: "Christ Jesus, who exists in the form of God, though he is distinct from God in the form in which he existed, was he God before he entered a body or not?"

Heraclides said: "He was God before."

He is saying that Christ IS God. He existed as God before he entered a body and he is disctinct from God in the form he existed on earth. Speaking of him having a Body, making him a disctinct person. He is not saying anything about any subordinate God. We know that he has said that God is the Almighty creator of the universe who is uncreated himself. Thus we know that Jesus is uncreated and is GOD.

Origen said: "He was God before he entered a body, or not?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."

Origen said: "God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?"

Heraclides said: "Obviously distinct from any other, since he is in the form of that one who created everything."

Repeating the same thing in different ways to make it clearer. He was God before he entered a body and God after he entered a body, and he created everything.

Origen said: "Was there not a God, Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the first-born of all creation, and do we not devoutly say that in one sense there are two Gods and, in another, one God?"

Here we have the statement that you misconstrue. As we have seen above he already has said that Jesus is GOD and that God is the uncreated creator of the universe. He is simply stating that we now have two persons who are God. The Father and the Son. In once sense they are two Gods, but in another they are ONE God. If you look at them as persons, you see two persons who are distinct but both are God. But there is only ONE God so they are both that ONE God.

This is clarified below:
Heraclides said: "What you say is clear; but we say that there is God, the almighty, without beginning and without end, containing all things but not contained, and there is his Word, Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things came into existence, God in relation to the Spirit and man in that he was born of Mary."

This is about one of the clearest declarations of the trinity I have ever read. To deny it is to have blinders on!!!

It even explains the hypostatic union of the Son being both Man and God.

Origen said: "You do not seem to have answered my question. Make it clear; perhaps I did not follow you. Is the Father God?"

Heraclides said: "Certainly."

Origen said: "Is the Son distinct from the Father?"

Heraclides said: "How can he be Son if he is also Father?"

Origen said: "While distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?"

Heraclides said: "He himself is also God."

Jesus is God and the Father is God, and they are disctinct from each other, but they are the same GOD. He is not using God as a common noun here, he is using it as he defined above as THE God almighty, uncreated creator of heaven and earth.

Origen said: "And the two Gods become one?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."
This is a statement that is saying the two persons who are both GOD are in reality ONE God. Two persons One God.

Origen said: "Do we acknowledge two Gods?"

Heraclides said: "Yes; the power is one."

He stated it this way as hyperbole to give himself the chance to explain further. He says so right below:
Origen said: "But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the subject must be examined with care in order to show in what respect they are two and in what respect the two are one God."
He knows that saying "two Gods" was shocking to the brethren since they believed in only one God, so he goes on to say that he was speaking for effect and that the two 'apparent' Gods (since the Father and the Son are both God) are in reality the SAME God. ...Similarly our Saviour and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God.

He gave some examples of how various things (husband, wife, etc) can be both two and one in the flesh, or spirit, but he then goes on to say that the Father and Son are more than that kind of unity. They are ONE God. The SAME God. That means the same substrate and essence. Same entity.

If you agree with that, then you ARE a trinitarian (well at least a binitarian since the holy spirit was not discussed)

But you don't agree with that do you? You seem to be a polytheist who thinks Jesus is a lesser diety.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 07:03 PM

He asked for an apology... from me? I owe the little rat nothing... least of all an apology, especially after a comment like, "You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you (from post 57). This certainly looks like an "Ad hominem Abusive" to me.Well, you don't understand the question you're begging. He wasn't attacking you personally, but your inability to make a cogent and logical rebuttal."You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you" (from post 57).

This must be a form of the elusive non-ad hominem no one seems to see much of any more.

And then you respond by...calling him 'mentally unable' to respond, and calling him a little rat.Read my statement ray, "clearly, reasonable discussion is not in your mental makeup and the ad hominem is the only other argument you know" (post 59); the "shoe" fits.

To call Ham a "rat" fits with his online persona; nothing more should be implied unless you wish to look a bit foolish.

So apparently, you can dish it out, but can't even remotely take it back. Funny how the rules work that way.I take more abuse than almost anyone... except maybe J3b, so, yes, I can take it. Funny how the main one complaining of personal attacks is one of the "experts" at doing it, Sparko.

Read post 75... it is obvious to even the simplest of minds.Oh, it's quite obvious to even the simplest of minds that your only method of response is verbal dysentery to those you cannot defeat.Verbal? It was a strawman; there was nothing of substance to defeat.

You have your response... now, do not go away mad, just go away.I think not. I haven't gotten a response from Whats-his-face, and I won't leave this thread until then.You are new to the world of "figures of speech;" yes?

Why not contribute to the discussion instead of chastising me. Perhaps you might have some constructive imput...Perhaps, if you hadn't been more concerned with being revolting in your responses than actually reading the thread, you would see on page 2 that I did.You have knowledge of multisylable words; so?

John 1:1 - "The word was God." Certainly God and His word existed together.

John 1:14 - "The word became flesh." Was this not Jesus' function to spread the "word" of God. This does not make Jesus God. In other words, Jesus was Gods instrument for the transference of His word to man... does anyone remember the carpenter - hammer analogy?

Rather than use a 50¢ word (functional subordinationism) to describe a 2¢ concept why not go with the easiest explanation (ever hear of "Ockham's Razor?)

"Facts" not in dispute:

There is only one God.

There can be only one God.

The Father is God.

3 ≠ 1

Facts in dispute:

God exists as three "persons" each equally God.

The Son (Jesus) is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Now, I am no "rocket scientist" but if:

"There is only one God" and "There can be only one God" are true statements,

and if:

the "Father" is God,

then,

the "Son" cannot also be God.

The only way around this problem is to say:

The Father is God = The Son (Jesus) is God = The Holy Spirit is God.

If Jesus prayed to the Father he was also praying to himself.

VFarris01

November 6th 2005, 07:29 PM

Since his response lacked substance and was purely an attempt at ridicule... I was right on target.

He asked for an apology... from me? I owe the little rat nothing... least of all an apology, especially after a comment like, "You clearly don't understand what "begging the question means." You can join Pythagoras at the Christology Kiddy Table now. Just stop bothering the adults. Artless dodges like this is why no one should be bothering with you (from post 57). This certainly looks like an "Ad hominem Abusive" to me.

Read post 75... it is obvious to even the simplest of minds.

You have your response... now, do not go away mad, just go away.

Why not contribute to the discussion instead of chastising me. Perhaps you might have some constructive imput...You are the one acting exactly as you 'accuse' others of acting, Vfarris. You accuse everyone of strawmen and ad homs, when since that is all you post, that is all you get in response.Please, by all means, point out my strawmen and ad hominems. I have not called anyone names as has someone else well known to this thread.

Hamster contributed to this conversation with meat and all you did was respond with virtriol and mockery.That would have been Ham's post 44, to which I responded with post 49 with substantially more effort than it deserved. Ham's response was then post 57 which to which I responded in-kind with post 59 (again with more effort than it deserved).

So that is all you got back from him and then you have the audacity to say that he is the one who is not contributing to the thread?Learn to read Sparky, that was rayado (who has provided < 5 posts to this thread).

You do the same thing over and over. You make a silly post like your laundry list that completely misrepresents the trinity. When someone bothers to explain your error to you, you do not even try to discuss the issue, you just blithly handwave it all away in a mocking tone. Then when you starte getting back what you dish out, you whine and cry about being attacked.Who is crying now Sparky? Who is crying now?

You and Pythagoras are twins separated at birth. All you can do is cut and paste arguments from other people. Neither of you can respond when someone points out your misconceptions and scripture twisting, When someone does respond and blow your cuts and pastes away, you don't know how to respond so you just act like a baby and start acting dismissive and mocking. We can all see it is because you HAVE no response.And the ad hominems keep coming and coming... We see these because you have no other response.

Oh, and show me what I have cut-and-pasted asside from Scripture.

Oh, and show me where you have refuted even one of my arguments... without hand-waving.

The only way to squeeze the trinity out of Scripture is by twisting it.

Do you think if you repeat your nonsense enough times people will think you are right? If you accuse others of what you are doing that they will not see what you are doing?Do you think if you repeat your nonsense enough times people will think you are right? If you accuse others of what you are doing that they will not see what you are doing?

You folks spend more time attacking me than you do my arguments, therefore, I spend more time defending myself than I do attacking your arguments... excellent strategy... See what you can do with post 58 and 68... oh, do not forget about post #1 either.

alam

November 6th 2005, 07:45 PM

Uh I dont think a secular web site is a good source for telling us the theology of Origen.

You have clearly left out several passages in your first quote where Origen states that Jesus IS God, and there is ONLY ONE God.

Now you can try to explain all that away and wiggle out of it all you want but anyone reading the passages can see that he clearly thought JESUS was the SAME God as the Father, and yet a distinct person. That sure sounds like the trinity to me. You can't have two persons in the SAME God made of a different substance.

Let's go over the text again...
Origen said: "Since a debate is now beginning and one may speak on the subject of the debate, I will speak. The whole church is here to listen. One church should not differ from another in knowledge, since you are not the false community. I ask you, Father Heraclides. God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme one who made all things. Do you agree?"
Thus he DEFINES what he means by "GOD." He means the uncreated being who made all things. The almighty. He is NOT using "god" as a common noun as you try to say.

Heraclides said: "I agree; for thus I too believe."

Origen said: "Christ Jesus, who exists in the form of God, though he is distinct from God in the form in which he existed, was he God before he entered a body or not?"

Heraclides said: "He was God before."

He is saying that Christ IS God. He existed as God before he entered a body and he is disctinct from God in the form he existed on earth. Speaking of him having a Body, making him a disctinct person. He is not saying anything about any subordinate God. We know that he has said that God is the Almighty creator of the universe who is uncreated himself. Thus we know that Jesus is uncreated and is GOD.

Origen said: "He was God before he entered a body, or not?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."

Origen said: "God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?"

Heraclides said: "Obviously distinct from any other, since he is in the form of that one who created everything."

Repeating the same thing in different ways to make it clearer. He was God before he entered a body and God after he entered a body, and he created everything.

Origen said: "Was there not a God, Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the first-born of all creation, and do we not devoutly say that in one sense there are two Gods and, in another, one God?"

Here we have the statement that you misconstrue. As we have seen above he already has said that Jesus is GOD and that God is the uncreated creator of the universe. He is simply stating that we now have two persons who are God. The Father and the Son. In once sense they are two Gods, but in another they are ONE God. If you look at them as persons, you see two persons who are distinct but both are God. But there is only ONE God so they are both that ONE God.

This is clarified below:
Heraclides said: "What you say is clear; but we say that there is God, the almighty, without beginning and without end, containing all things but not contained, and there is his Word, Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things came into existence, God in relation to the Spirit and man in that he was born of Mary."

This is about one of the clearest declarations of the trinity I have ever read. To deny it is to have blinders on!!!

It even explains the hypostatic union of the Son being both Man and God.

Origen said: "You do not seem to have answered my question. Make it clear; perhaps I did not follow you. Is the Father God?"

Heraclides said: "Certainly."

Origen said: "Is the Son distinct from the Father?"

Heraclides said: "How can he be Son if he is also Father?"

Origen said: "While distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?"

Heraclides said: "He himself is also God."

Jesus is God and the Father is God, and they are disctinct from each other, but they are the same GOD. He is not using God as a common noun here, he is using it as he defined above as THE God almighty, uncreated creator of heaven and earth.

Origen said: "And the two Gods become one?"

Heraclides said: "Yes."
This is a statement that is saying the two persons who are both GOD are in reality ONE God. Two persons One God.

Origen said: "Do we acknowledge two Gods?"

Heraclides said: "Yes; the power is one."

He stated it this way as hyperbole to give himself the chance to explain further. He says so right below:
Origen said: "But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the subject must be examined with care in order to show in what respect they are two and in what respect the two are one God."
He knows that saying "two Gods" was shocking to the brethren since they believed in only one God, so he goes on to say that he was speaking for effect and that the two 'apparent' Gods (since the Father and the Son are both God) are in reality the SAME God. ...Similarly our Saviour and Lord in his relation to the Father and God of the universe is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God.

He gave some examples of how various things (husband, wife, etc) can be both two and one in the flesh, or spirit, but he then goes on to say that the Father and Son are more than that kind of unity. They are ONE God. The SAME God. That means the same substrate and essence. Same entity.

If you agree with that, then you ARE a trinitarian (well at least a binitarian since the holy spirit was not discussed)

But you don't agree with that do you? You seem to be a polytheist who thinks Jesus is a lesser diety.

A Trinitarian site would be better, I guess? :wink: Notice that the site quotes Origen himself on the gradation and hierarchy of the trinity.

Your read of Origen begs the question that he could not use theos of the Son as a common noun. That is against the immediate context and Origen's theology as a whole, inasmuch as he, like Philo, distinguishes the Son from ho Theos and Autotheos, as he says in the Commentary on John 2.2 above. To ignore this and read Dial. Heracl. in a Trinitarian way is to decontextualize Origen.

For more of the context, here is what came before the disputed passage:

I charge you, father Heraclides: By 'God' (i.e. ho theos) we mean the almighty, the uncreated, he who is supreme and made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?

Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.

Origen: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God [Phil. 2:6], being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: He was God before.

Origen: Was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: Yes, he was.

Origen: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?

Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.

Origen: Is it true then that the Son of God, the only-begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, was God, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

If the Son as God was distinct from the God in whose form he existed, was other than the God in whose form he existed, another being, and together they are two Gods (in any sense), then you cannot argue as you are without begging the question of your theology. In the following section, also given to you above, Origen explains the sense in which they are one God as that of a common or collective noun.

But you don't agree with that do you? You seem to be a polytheist who thinks Jesus is a lesser diety.[/font]

According to Origen:

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 08:08 PM

Please, by all means, point out my strawmen and ad hominems. I have not called anyone names as has someone else well known to this thread.

That would have been Ham's post 44, to which I responded with post 49 with substantially more effort than it deserved. Ham's response was then post 57 which to which I responded in-kind with post 59 (again with more effort than it deserved).

Learn to read Sparky, that was rayado (who has provided < 5 posts to this thread).

Who is crying now Sparky? Who is crying now?

And the ad hominems keep coming and coming... We see these because you have no other response.

Oh, and show me what I have cut-and-pasted asside from Scripture.

Oh, and show me where you have refuted even one of my arguments... without hand-waving.

The only way to squeeze the trinity out of Scripture is by twisting it.

Do you think if you repeat your nonsense enough times people will think you are right? If you accuse others of what you are doing that they will not see what you are doing?

You folks spend more time attacking me than you do my arguments, therefore, I spend more time defending myself than I do attacking your arguments... excellent strategy... See what you can do with post 58 and 68... oh, do not forget about post #1 either.

:rofl: You prove my points with every post. I don't even have to go hunting. Just read ANY post of yours in this thread.

It's all locker room material.

Starting with post #4. I gave you civil and real discussion to post number 1. your entire response was mockery and insult.

Post #7 does not refute anything I said but you just handwave it away.

The very post I am replying to here is an example.

About the cut and paste: I am pretty sure the entire first post in this thread is a cut and paste job. It sure reads like one. Some ignorant questions that show no understanding of the trinity and a long list of verse references, with no reasoning behind them. Did you find it on some anti trinitarian web site? Doing that without a reference cite is PLAGERISM.

as far as straw goes, how about trying to claim I am a modalist? How stupid is that? How about attacking Hamster's computer analogy and thinking you defeated it by saying "god is not a computer?" you ignore the whole point of the analogy and attack the analogy itself. STRAW. Analogies are not supposed to be one-to-one exact corresponding examples. If they were, they would BE the actual item being discussed and not an analogy at all. The purpose of an analogy is to take something familiar to explain an unfamiliar concept more clearly.

I tried to be civil with you VFarris but right from the start you had to keep being rude, so I am just going back to responding to you in kind. So everything you don't like about the way I treat you and the way I talk to you in this thread is a mirror of how you act.

Any time you want to stop and be civil I ,and I am sure the other in this thread, will respond in kind.

Any time you actually want to discuss things and not just handwave them away with a dismissive gesture and mocking insult, we will stop responding to your posts that way too.

Until then you reap what you sow. You act like a total jerk and so we treat you like one.

In fact if this continues, I may just move this post again, to the locker room or just have it closed. You and pythagoras can't seem to discuss anything.

Rayado

November 6th 2005, 08:30 PM

This must be a form of the elusive non-ad hominem no one seems to see much of any more.

Read my statement ray, "clearly, reasonable discussion is not in your mental makeup and the ad hominem is the only other argument you know" (post 59); the "shoe" fits.I see it clearly: you have slandered his intelligence.

To call Ham a "rat" fits with his online persona; nothing more should be implied unless you wish to look a bit foolish.I will say this once:

Your words are poison.

It doesn't even have to be implied: you took a cheap shot at him by his name, and are now trying to slither away from the rebuke you so richly deserve.

I take more abuse than almost anyone... except maybe J3b, so, yes, I can take it. Funny how the main one complaining of personal attacks is one of the "experts" at doing it, Sparko.If by "abuse" you mean "correction," yes.

By even defending what you said you violate Scripture itself: "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."--Matthew 18:35 If Sparko's been mean, why have you not shown him grace instead of enmity?

And with that, you're on track for a Florence Nightingale Memorial Hot Water Bottle award.

Verbal? It was a strawman; there was nothing of substance to defeat.Would you mind explaining why it was a strawman and not the argument you were actually defending, rather than doing the usual (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) and spewing pea soup on us.

You are new to the world of "figures of speech;" yes?No.

And my being an English Major hasn't helped that at all; nosiree. :ahem:

You have knowledge of multisylable[sic] words; so?You mean syllable? :tongue:

John 1:1 - "The word was God." Certainly God and His word existed together.How? Why? How was the Word generated before Creation? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 - "The word became flesh." Was this not Jesus' function to spread the "word" of God. This does not make Jesus God. In other words, Jesus was Gods instrument for the transference of His word to man... does anyone remember the carpenter - hammer analogy?If Jesus is not that Word described in John--what is?

And you manage to interrupt the continuity of John 1: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was--and was with--God in that beginning, and that same word became flesh and dwelt among us. And to no one's surprise, the darkness cannot comprehend it--as we see here.

Rather than use a 50¢ word (functional subordinationism) to describe a 2¢ concept why not go with the easiest explanation (ever hear of "Ockham's Razor?)Seems you haven't. Ockham's razor only applies if two explanations of different difficulty have the same solution; Arianism and Trinitarianism are two different ballparks. Since they are not equally predictive, the Razor does not really apply like you seem to think it does.

"Facts" not in dispute:

There is only one God.

There can be only one God.

The Father is God.But because of the nature of Arianism, those facts are in dispute.

3 ≠ 1For the last time, That is not what the Trinity teaches. You are attacking Tritheism, which is not what the Trinity teaches, and for that simple reason you are burning down a strawman. (Take note: this is how to properly accuse someone of a strawman: you demonstrate why.) You are wasting your own time, bandwidth, and breath if you think I am a tritheist.

Facts in dispute:

God exists as three "persons" each equally God.

The Father is God.

The Son (Jesus) is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.In dispute, yes--but not indefensible.

Now, I am no "rocket scientist"Truer words have never been spoken. For once we agree on something. :teeth:

"There is only one God" and "There can be only one God" are true statements,

and if:

the "Father" is God,

then,

the "Son" cannot also be God.Unverified assumption. By claiming this you assume that Godhead is limited to the Father, which is your own assumption imposed on the text of the Bible.

The only way around this problem is to say:

The Father is God = The Son (Jesus) is God = The Holy Spirit is God.

The assumption you have made is that there is a contradiction in terms "God" and "person." One God = Three Gods is a contradiction in terms. One person = Three persons is a contradiction in terms. But you have not proven that One God has to equal only One person.

If Jesus prayed to the Father he was also praying to himself.Not so, because Jesus does not have the same function as the Father or Spirit, and vice-versa. That the Father is the one to be prayed to does not lessen the Deity of Christ or the Spirit; that's like saying that because the Holy Spirit is the Comforter means that Jesus isn't God. It's a more or less meaningless accusation to Trinitarians.

Pythagoras

November 6th 2005, 08:54 PM

Hi Sparko,

I am so sorry that you don't understand the trinity, or it appears modalism. Modalism would be 1Father=1Son=1Holy Spirit.
The Father becomes the Son, who becomes the Holy Spirit. They change roles.

Correct Einstein. In other words Sabellius would say God is (1 to the power of three) or 1x1x1=1 or the same person (1) thrice ( to the third power).

Triniarianism maintains that there are three persons all existing at the same time who ar all God. One God.

Correct. Trinitarians mantain 1+1+1=1, or three persons yet one. It doesn't add up as you can see, that's why the Catholic Church(which fiated the trinity doctrine via Athanasius) terms it a mystery.
Gregory of Nyssa and the easterners settled with the following definition in an attempt to demystify it:

"As then, the golden starters are many, but the gold is one, so too those who are exhibited to us severally in the nature of man, as Peter, James, and John, are many, yet the man in them is one."

For all practical purposes this is tritheism, but they are not honest enough to admit it.

So I guess that explains why you don't understand the scripture or the writings of any early church father. You are blinded by your satanic doctrine of Arianism. The devil has his hands on your reigns and it shows in your ignorant posting and your pathetic attempts to distract from any cogent discussion on any matter.

Cute. The truth of the matter is that I know what I believe in , and I also know what you believe in . You know neither.

So, taunt all you want, pythagoras. If you don't know how to count, then I sure can't help you.

Your'e a Sabelliast because you believe God is defined as 1X1X1=1.

Rather than having any real argument you just try to distract by building strawmen and tossing insults.

Look who's talking.

best wishes ,

Sparko

November 6th 2005, 09:00 PM

For more of the context, here is what came before the disputed passage:

Uh I had that in my quote above... you merely highlight different words and use a slightly different translation. Regardless Origen says that JESUS is God. We can repeat ourselves all day long and you can try to say I am 'decontextualizing' but the fact remains, I posted the entire section, while YOU were the one who was using a selective section to try to promote your view.

the entire section as I show in my last post supports the trinity and denies that there can be any modalistic or arian explanation. He says many times that Jesus IS God. the very same God as the father.

According to Origen:

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).

As a trinitarian I have no problem with that quote for the most part. Lesser than the Father is speaking of position within the trinity. Functional subordination is trinitarian. It does not mean that they are separate Gods. It doesnt say that anywhere. In fact with Origen's other quotes about Jesus being God, this one about the Holy Spirit completes the Trinity.

The part about the realm of authority (power) being divided up (Son being supoerior to rational creatures alone, holy spirit only dwelling in beleivers) reads odd, but without more context I can't make a comment. It seems he is speaking of how the members of the Godhead relate to creation and their "job function".

Again, it looks like you got this snippet from that secular philosphy site you quoted earlier so even you don't have the complete section. It does not appear to be online anywhere.

John from Ebla

November 6th 2005, 10:11 PM

That sucking sound you hear is you.

(9) For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

(9) For in him the whole fullness of God lives in bodily form.

What is there to refute? God dwells in all who believe in him.

(16) And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

(13) By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

Once agin you are just saying Bla bla bla

You do NOT have the fullness of God- the attributes that make God God. Jesus did because he was the Word of God that became flesh (John1:1-3,10;14)

Grow up and debate with a bit of maturity- stop been a baby by just saying Bla bla bla

John From Ebla

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 12:09 AM

Hi Sparko,

Correct Einstein. In other words Sabellius would say God is (1 to the power of three) or 1x1x1=1 or the same person (1) thrice ( to the third power).

Correct. Trinitarians mantain 1+1+1=1, or three persons yet one. It doesn't add up as you can see, that's why the Catholic Church(which fiated the trinity doctrine via Athanasius) terms it a mystery.
Gregory of Nyssa and the easterners settled with the following definition in an attempt to demystify it:

"As then, the golden starters are many, but the gold is one, so too those who are exhibited to us severally in the nature of man, as Peter, James, and John, are many, yet the man in them is one."

For all practical purposes this is tritheism, but they are not honest enough to admit it.

Cute. The truth of the matter is that I know what I believe in , and I also know what you believe in . You know neither.

Your'e a Sabelliast because you believe God is defined as 1X1X1=1.

Look who's talking.

best wishes ,

As long as you insist on telling other people what they believe while they tell you differently, you will never acheive a usefull dialog because you are misrepresenting their beliefs. If I told you that you were wrong because you believe that God was a grilled cheese sandwich and refused to listen when you said I was misreprenting your views, I would look as foolish as you do now.

You don't know what trinitarians believe because you don't even know that the trinity is. You say you do, but with every statement you make about what trinitarians believe you show yourself to be wrong.

If you want to defeat trinitarianism, at least attack the REAL trinitarianism not some made up strawman version of it. Sheesh.

Pythagoras

November 7th 2005, 12:20 AM

Hi Sparko,

You don't know what trinitarians believe because you don't even know that the trinity is. You say you do, but with every statement you make about what trinitarians believe you show yourself to be wrong.

If you want to defeat trinitarianism, at least attack the REAL trinitarianism not some made up strawman version of it. Sheesh.

Well you're too dense to realize that I've been attacking the the REAL trinitarianism, a la Gregory Nyssa. At the same time I'm pointing out to you what trinitarianism is not, i.e. 1x1x1=1. This is classic Sabelliasm, which you hold to.

So don't get angry at me for educating you. Rather you should learn.

alam

November 7th 2005, 12:27 AM

Uh I had that in my quote above... you merely highlight different words and use a slightly different translation. Regardless Origen says that JESUS is God. We can repeat ourselves all day long and you can try to say I am 'decontextualizing' but the fact remains, I posted the entire section, while YOU were the one who was using a selective section to try to promote your view.

the entire section as I show in my last post supports the trinity and denies that there can be any modalistic or arian explanation. He says many times that Jesus IS God. the very same God as the father.

As a trinitarian I have no problem with that quote for the most part. Lesser than the Father is speaking of position within the trinity. Functional subordination is trinitarian. It does not mean that they are separate Gods. It doesnt say that anywhere. In fact with Origen's other quotes about Jesus being God, this one about the Holy Spirit completes the Trinity.

The part about the realm of authority (power) being divided up (Son being supoerior to rational creatures alone, holy spirit only dwelling in beleivers) reads odd, but without more context I can't make a comment. It seems he is speaking of how the members of the Godhead relate to creation and their "job function".

Again, it looks like you got this snippet from that secular philosphy site you quoted earlier so even you don't have the complete section. It does not appear to be online anywhere.

Here is from a Christian work I have been reading; perhaps you will take it more seriously. At least some of what he says is based on the Commentary on John cited above.

God is absolutely one and simple, simple spiritual nature admitting of no superiority or inferiority in himself, but in every respect monad 'and as I might say "henad"', being himself mind and the source from which the totality of spiritual and intellectual nature is derived. Yet God may be known by natural theology: not directly, any more than the sun can be seen directly, but only by inference from the brilliance of its rays shining on to windows; but the design of the universe and the works of providence serve like the sun's rays, and thus enable us to infer the Father of the universe from the beauty and order of the created world.

This presupposes the creative and revelatory work of the Logos; and Origen's version of the Logos doctrine, which is both interesting and important for its effect upon the subsequent development of theology, is motivated and controlled by a strong cosmological interest derived from the Platonist background of his thought. Like Clement, Origen thinks of the Godhead as subsisting at different levels; there is, so to speak, a broadening down of deity from the apex of the divine hierarchy where the Father is the source, himself participating in no higher stage of divine being, from which deity at every level is derived, and descending in an order of participation and of functional subordination through Logos and Spirit to the archetypal ideas which are contained in the Logos, and so by the process of derivation to all spiritual and rational beings, the logikoi who, in so far as they participate in the Logos, may properly be called 'gods'.

...Origen is most anxious to emphasize the distinction between the Father and the Logos. He wants to refute the monarchian view which would make no distinction in 'number' between them but postulate a unity not only of substance but of individual existence, so denying that the individuality of the Son is other than that of the Father. He knows that people are afraid of the implication that there could be two gods, but he insists that Father and Son differ from each other in hypostasis, that is, in their substance as individual entities or persons. The Father is absolutely God; this the Johannine Prologue acknowledges by prefixing the definite article, ho theos ('The God'), whereas the Logos is not God absolutely (autotheos) and the article is not prefixed when he is called 'God' any more than it would be in the case of other deified beings. The Son is first of theoi (gods), above all others as being 'the Lord the God of Gods'. The others, saints and all 'deified' creatures, derive their divinity from him; they are copies of the archetype. But he is the archetype, the model of all copies; only, his own deity is derived from the fountain-head, the Father, and he is the archetype because he is always with the Father and eternally beholds the 'depth' of the Father's being. Two points stand out here: the Logos is God by derivation and so, despite being substantially one with the Father, he stands, as it were, at a lower level in the hierarchy, as mediator between the Father whom he mirrors and all creatures who derive their relation to God through him; and his derivation of deity from the Father is pictured in Platonist terms as a continual process of contemplation.

In his Commentary on John, Origen discusses at length the various meanings which should be attached to the words 'logos' and 'theos' in different contexts, showing how these can be arranged in hierarchical order. This illustrates clearly how he conceives of deity being, as it were, eternally broadened down through a series of relationships (of communication and participation) from the apex or fountain-head to the rational creation at the base of the pyramid. It throws particular light on his theory of the intermediary, and mediating, status of the Logos between the Father and the many creatures who are logikoi and can rightly be termed theoi. As the logos in the logikoi is to the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God, so the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God is to the Father himself. As the true and absolute God (autotheos) is to the image and the images of the image, so the absolute Logos (autologos) is to the logos in every man; for, as God is the source of deity (and thus the Son is not autotheos), so the Son is the source of logos in the rational creation (and thus no angel or man can be autologos).

He can say that the Saviour and the Spirit transcend all creatures, not in degree only but in kind, but that they are in their turn as far transcended by the Father as they themselves transcend all creatures. The Son is above all angelic hierarchies, but he is nothing in comparison to the Father; he is not the effulgence of God himself but of God's light and glory, a mirror reflecting whatever the Father does.

Derived, subordinate Deity. If all this falls under the umbrella of "functional subordination," then cheers for functional subordination. :cheers: The Son and the Father are not one and the same God for Origen: he considers the Father alone to be ho theos and autotheos (absolute God, see above). They are "two Gods" in respect to individual hypostasis, and one in the sense of a collective noun. This is what he is saying in Dial. Heracl., and, with the qualifications Origen offers, I too could accept that.

Rayado

November 7th 2005, 01:46 AM

Alam, are you familiar with this passage from Wisdom of Solomon?

For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of goodness. Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with Wisdom. She is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against Wisdom evil does not prevail. She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well. I loved her and sought her from my youth; I desired to take her for my bride, and became enamored of her beauty. She glorifies her noble birth by living with God, and the Lord of all loves her. For she is an initiate in the knowledge of God, and an associate in his works.--Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-8:4

Because I think it's more than clear that that's what Origen had in mind when he wrote that.

alam

November 7th 2005, 02:14 AM

Shadow Phoenix

November 7th 2005, 02:26 AM

Hello VF. Are you aware that the language of John 1:14 is such that the Word took on the nature of flesh in that he became fully human? It is the exact same terminology used in John 1:1 to describe the Word as fully God. Then again, you probably aren't. I read your first post and all those obejctions are "basic objections."

[QUOTE=VF]"Facts" not in dispute:

There is only one God.

Agreed

There can be only one God.

Agreed

The Father is God.

Agreed

3 ≠ 1

Also agreed.

However, you take it further and make an assumption not found in your statements of fact.

Now, I am no "rocket scientist" but if:

"There is only one God" and "There can be only one God" are true statements,

and if:

the "Father" is God,

then,

the "Son" cannot also be God.

Um. No. You're making the fallacy of assuming that God has to be unipersonal. If God is unipersonal, your argument is quite sound. However, you have to show that he is.

The only way around this problem is to say:

The Father is God = The Son (Jesus) is God = The Holy Spirit is God.

If Jesus prayed to the Father he was also praying to himself.

Um. No. That's modalism. Trinitarianism is firmly rooted in the belief that God is relational in his very essence as the three persons of the Trinity are in a constant relationship. The relationship that was going on in Heaven with the Son communicating with the Father was not cancelled on Earth.

Furthermore, your problem is part of the use of the word "God." When Christians (Which you're not by the way if you don't hold that Jesus is fully God.) say "Jesus is God" they do not mean that Jesus is the Godhead entirely. They mean that Jesus fully possesses all the attributes of deity. Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus. For instance, if Sparko, Rayado, and myself are all in a room together. Each of us is fully human, but humanity is not the three of us. The essence of humanity is fully shared by each of our three persons much as the essence of deity is shared by the three persons.

Furthermore, the idea of 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is such a joke because you're confusing the terms. We don't need to say 1 X 1 X 1 either. That's just as pointless. We just have to look at what we're adding and what the conclusion is.

For instance, if I said 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple = 1 apple, then that would be nonsense. However, if I say that it equals 3 apples, then it is sound. The Christian position is yes, that that does equal 3 apples. However, when we get to the other side of the = sign, we're not talking about apples. We're talking about something else entirely, so it doesn't really matter.

In the left side of the equation, we are talking about persons of the Trinity. We are speaking about three persons and on the right side, we have one God. To even add them though is to poison the wells from the beginning as it can give the impression that each person is 33.3% God and when you put them all together, you get 99.999999% God (Which rounds to 100)

If you want to know the number of persons that fully possess the number of God, you look and see how many are in Scripture. There are three. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you want to see how many gods there are, there is one. Thus, we have one God and three persons possessing fully the attributes of God. Therefore, the orthodox Christian position is that there is one God eternally existing in three persons.

And yes, I'm already prepared for a slew of ad hominems. VF. Personally, I think you like to talk big but there's no substance, such as when you say you're an atheist's worst nightmare, but you don't debate them because of the tired old rhetoric supposedly. You can talk this way, but can you really walk the walk?

By the way, be sure to post only when you're really interested in the truth and not just in being arrogant.

Piebald

November 7th 2005, 12:12 PM

Nice strawman, guy

This is why no one should ever take you seriously. You have no idea what you are doing. Trying to watch you debate points is like trying to watch a leper enjoy a hot-tub. You try to settle into it at first, but then you just start falling apart, and before you know it, all we're left with is incomprehensible Vfarris soup.

Now, I don't believe for one instance that you will be able to comprehend that what I posted wasn't a strawman. Any reasonable human being lurking in this thread will immediately know why it isn't. But, because I am a masochist, I will explain it for you: In order for what I posted to be a strawman, I would have to be caricaturing an argument and then knocking it down.

What you posted was not an argument. I made an analogy and you said "Hurr, God is not a computer, Hurr!" Well, no kidding, Kublai Khan. The whole point of an an analogy is to compare two things that are otherwise NOT the same thing.

We all thank you for pointing out the obvious VFarris! Please enjoy the fresh-baked TheologyWeb reward cookie that will be arriving in your mailbox!

In order for your inane comment to be an actual argument (and thus something that can FEASIBLY be transformed into a strawman by me) it would need premises and a conclusion. A single sentence pointing out that my analogy was -- get this -- an analogy doesn't meet that requirement.

I don't expect you to be able to grasp this, however. I simply want this post to stand as a monument (an obelisk sitting in the lonely wasteland that you call an intellectual life) as to why I, nor any Trinitarian, should begin to take you seriously. Rational Unitarians post here - you are not one of them. I only expect you to post more sophomoric "I know you are but what am I?" retorts.

Clearly, I do and clearly, you do not... and...

Golly, that sure put me in my place!

clearly, reasonable discussion is not in your mental makeup and the ad hominem is the only other argument you know.

Since no actual argument was made to rebut my points, it cannot be asserted that I used an ad hominem argument to refute them. At best what I posted could be considered poisoning the well, but I doubt if that will even hold.

That you think one line conclusions are arguments that can be turned into straw-men or that calling you out on your incompetence are ad hominems, only testifies to your incompetence. You think that the names of these fallacies are only fancy latin words for rebutting your points and calling you out on what you do and what you are.

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 12:36 PM

Here is from a Christian work I have been reading; perhaps you will take it more seriously. At least some of what he says is based on the Commentary on John cited above.

Thanks Alam, Looks like an interesting book I will have to see if I can find it in the library.

But you do seem to be taking certain words in your own quote to be important to your definition while completely ignoring wording that shows that Origen did indeed see the Son as the SAME God. Like I said before, his speaking of the various 'power' levels sounded strange to me, but not having read the whole thing I can't really comment on what he meant just what it seemed to say to me.

Let's go through your quote and I will highlight the parts I see as relevant to showing that despite this "division" you see in the Godhead, he still is saying they are ONE God, and not three. I will make my highlights blue.

...Origen is most anxious to emphasize the distinction between the Father and the Logos. He wants to refute the monarchian view which would make no distinction in 'number' between them but postulate a unity not only of substance but of individual existence, so denying that the individuality of the Son is other than that of the Father. He knows that people are afraid of the implication that there could be two gods, but he insists that Father and Son differ from each other in hypostasis, that is, in their substance as individual entities or persons. The Father is absolutely God; this the Johannine Prologue acknowledges by prefixing the definite article, ho theos ('The God'), whereas the Logos is not God absolutely (autotheos) and the article is not prefixed when he is called 'God' any more than it would be in the case of other deified beings. The Son is first of theoi (gods), above all others as being 'the Lord the God of Gods'. The others, saints and all 'deified' creatures, derive their divinity from him; they are copies of the archetype. But he is the archetype, the model of all copies; only, his own deity is derived from the fountain-head, the Father, and he is the archetype because he is always with the Father and eternally beholds the 'depth' of the Father's being. Two points stand out here: the Logos is God by derivation and so, despite being substantially one with the Father, he stands, as it were, at a lower level in the hierarchy, as mediator between the Father whom he mirrors and all creatures who derive their relation to God through him; and his derivation of deity from the Father is pictured in Platonist terms as a continual process of contemplation.

In his Commentary on John, Origen discusses at length the various meanings which should be attached to the words 'logos' and 'theos' in different contexts, showing how these can be arranged in hierarchical order. This illustrates clearly how he conceives of deity being, as it were, eternally broadened down through a series of relationships (of communication and participation) from the apex or fountain-head to the rational creation at the base of the pyramid. It throws particular light on his theory of the intermediary, and mediating, status of the Logos between the Father and the many creatures who are logikoi and can rightly be termed theoi. As the logos in the logikoi is to the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God, so the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God is to the Father himself. As the true and absolute God (autotheos) is to the image and the images of the image, so the absolute Logos (autologos) is to the logos in every man; for, as God is the source of deity (and thus the Son is not autotheos), so the Son is the source of logos in the rational creation (and thus no angel or man can be autologos).

He can say that the Saviour and the Spirit transcend all creatures, not in degree only but in kind, but that they are in their turn as far transcended by the Father as they themselves transcend all creatures. The Son is above all angelic hierarchies, but he is nothing in comparison to the Father; he is not the effulgence of God himself but of God's light and glory, a mirror reflecting whatever the Father does.

Derived, subordinate Deity. If all this falls under the umbrella of "functional subordination," then cheers for functional subordination. :cheers: The Son and the Father are not one and the same God for Origen: he considers the Father alone to be ho theos and autotheos (absolute God, see above). They are "two Gods" in respect to individual hypostasis, and one in the sense of a collective noun. This is what he is saying in Dial. Heracl., and, with the qualifications Origen offers, I too could accept that.

Well needless to say, I disagree with your conclusion, and the conclusion of the author if he is saying what your excerpts say, which I still will not agree is correct unless I can read the whole book, seeing as how you seem to be pretty good at selectively quoting things to present your own view.

There is no problem with functional subordination within the Godhead. It does not mean they are different entities or that one person is physically/spiritually greater than another. It is speaking of relationships and job assignments. It is not speaking of difference in nature. And reading what i have of Origen, neither did he. He is speaking of difference in job function but not of substance. They are the SAME God.

JP Holding has an article discussing the diff between subordinationalism and functional subordination on his web site. Here is a link if you wish to read it:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psfuncsub.html

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 12:39 PM

This is why no one should ever take you seriously. You have no idea what you are doing. Trying to watch you debate points is like trying to watch a leper enjoy a hot-tub. You try to settle into it at first, but then you just start falling apart, and before you know it, all we're left with is incomprehensible Vfarris soup.

Now, I don't believe for one instance that you will be able to comprehend that what I posted wasn't a strawman. Any reasonable human being lurking in this thread will immediately know why it isn't. But, because I am a masochist, I will explain it for you: In order for what I posted to be a strawman, I would have to be caricaturing an argument and then knocking it down.

What you posted was not an argument. I made an analogy and you said "Hurr, God is not a computer, Hurr!" Well, no kidding, Kublai Khan. The whole point of an an analogy is to compare two things that are otherwise NOT the same thing.

We all thank you for pointing out the obvious VFarris! Please enjoy the fresh-baked TheologyWeb reward cookie that will be arriving in your mailbox!

In order for your inane comment to be an actual argument (and thus something that can FEASIBLY be transformed into a strawman by me) it would need premises and a conclusion. A single sentence pointing out that my analogy was -- get this -- an analogy doesn't meet that requirement.

I don't expect you to be able to grasp this, however. I simply want this post to stand as a monument (an obelisk sitting in the lonely wasteland that you call an intellectual life) as to why I, nor any Trinitarian, should begin to take you seriously. Rational Unitarians post here - you are not one of them. I only expect you to post more sophomoric "I know you are but what am I?" retorts.

Golly, that sure put me in my place!

Since no actual argument was made to rebut my points, it cannot be asserted that I used an ad hominem argument to refute them. At best what I posted could be considered poisoning the well, but I doubt if that will even hold.

That you think one line conclusions are arguments that can be turned into straw-men or that calling you out on your incompetence are ad hominems, only testifies to your incompetence. You think that the names of these fallacies are only fancy latin words for rebutting your points and calling you out on what you do and what you are.So, in other words, you have nothing useful to contribute... Thank you for your participation anyway...

Shadow Phoenix

November 7th 2005, 12:46 PM

So, in other words, you have nothing useful to contribute... Thank you for your participation anyway...

Translation: All Trinitarians are really supposed to cower befoer my horrid argumentation that makes no point whatsoever but is enough to fool Christians who are entirely clueless on this topic. You're not playing along though! Please please please have mercy on me while I try to act tough hoping you'll buy into my charade.

Piebald

November 7th 2005, 12:47 PM

you have nothing useful to contribute

So the answer to my analogy was a fatuous "God is not a computer" and yet you accuse moi of having nothing useful to contribute? Vfarris, do you have any sense of irony floating around in there somewhere?

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 01:11 PM

So, in other words, you have nothing useful to contribute... Thank you for your participation anyway...

Dang! there goes another case of Irony Meters!

:irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony: :irony:

PS, how come you didn't refute his analogy by pointing out that you are not a leper and this thread is not a hot tub?

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 01:47 PM

:rofl: You prove my points with every post. I don't even have to go hunting. Just read ANY post of yours in this thread.

It's all locker room material.

Starting with post #4. I gave you civil and real discussion to post number 1. your entire response was mockery and insult.

Post #7 does not refute anything I said but you just handwave it away.

The very post I am replying to here is an example.

About the cut and paste: I am pretty sure the entire first post in this thread is a cut and paste job. It sure reads like one. Some ignorant questions that show no understanding of the trinity and a long list of verse references, with no reasoning behind them. Did you find it on some anti trinitarian web site? Doing that without a reference cite is PLAGERISM.

as far as straw goes, how about trying to claim I am a modalist? How stupid is that? How about attacking Hamster's computer analogy and thinking you defeated it by saying "god is not a computer?" you ignore the whole point of the analogy and attack the analogy itself. STRAW. Analogies are not supposed to be one-to-one exact corresponding examples. If they were, they would BE the actual item being discussed and not an analogy at all. The purpose of an analogy is to take something familiar to explain an unfamiliar concept more clearly.

I tried to be civil with you VFarris but right from the start you had to keep being rude, so I am just going back to responding to you in kind. So everything you don't like about the way I treat you and the way I talk to you in this thread is a mirror of how you act.

Any time you want to stop and be civil I ,and I am sure the other in this thread, will respond in kind.

Any time you actually want to discuss things and not just handwave them away with a dismissive gesture and mocking insult, we will stop responding to your posts that way too.

Until then you reap what you sow. You act like a total jerk and so we treat you like one.

In fact if this continues, I may just move this post again, to the locker room or just have it closed. You and pythagoras can't seem to discuss anything.So, you too have nothing useful to contribute... I thought as much...

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 01:49 PM

I see it clearly: you have slandered his intelligence.

I will say this once:

Your words are poison.

It doesn't even have to be implied: you took a cheap shot at him by his name, and are now trying to slither away from the rebuke you so richly deserve.

If by "abuse" you mean "correction," yes.

By even defending what you said you violate Scripture itself: "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."--Matthew 18:35 If Sparko's been mean, why have you not shown him grace instead of enmity?

And with that, you're on track for a Florence Nightingale Memorial Hot Water Bottle award.

Would you mind explaining why it was a strawman and not the argument you were actually defending, rather than doing the usual (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) and spewing pea soup on us.

No.

And my being an English Major hasn't helped that at all; nosiree. :ahem:

You mean syllable? :tongue:

How? Why? How was the Word generated before Creation? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If Jesus is not that Word described in John--what is?

And you manage to interrupt the continuity of John 1: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was--and was with--God in that beginning, and that same word became flesh and dwelt among us. And to no one's surprise, the darkness cannot comprehend it--as we see here.

Seems you haven't. Ockham's razor only applies if two explanations of different difficulty have the same solution; Arianism and Trinitarianism are two different ballparks. Since they are not equally predictive, the Razor does not really apply like you seem to think it does.

But because of the nature of Arianism, those facts are in dispute.

For the last time, That is not what the Trinity teaches. You are attacking Tritheism, which is not what the Trinity teaches, and for that simple reason you are burning down a strawman. (Take note: this is how to properly accuse someone of a strawman: you demonstrate why.) You are wasting your own time, bandwidth, and breath if you think I am a tritheist.

In dispute, yes--but not indefensible.

Truer words have never been spoken. For once we agree on something. :teeth:

Unverified assumption. By claiming this you assume that Godhead is limited to the Father, which is your own assumption imposed on the text of the Bible.

The assumption you have made is that there is a contradiction in terms "God" and "person." One God = Three Gods is a contradiction in terms. One person = Three persons is a contradiction in terms. But you have not proven that One God has to equal only One person.

Not so, because Jesus does not have the same function as the Father or Spirit, and vice-versa. That the Father is the one to be prayed to does not lessen the Deity of Christ or the Spirit; that's like saying that because the Holy Spirit is the Comforter means that Jesus isn't God. It's a more or less meaningless accusation to Trinitarians.I see you have nothing to contribute either... What a waste...

Shadow Phoenix

November 7th 2005, 01:50 PM

So, you too have nothing useful to contribute... I thought as much...

See Post #85. Same answer applies here.

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 01:50 PM

Translation: All Trinitarians are really supposed to cower befoer my horrid argumentation that makes no point whatsoever but is enough to fool Christians who are entirely clueless on this topic. You're not playing along though! Please please please have mercy on me while I try to act tough hoping you'll buy into my charade.Still nothing... pity...

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 01:53 PM

I have nothing more to say to a bunch of raving lunatics. So, Sparky, Hammy, Nicky (I was going to respond to your post), JfEy, (and anyone else I forgot to mentiony)... :eek: I am out of here... for now.

Shadow Phoenix

November 7th 2005, 01:54 PM

Still nothing... pity...

Anytime you want to, I'm ready to take the Trinity argument to the gym.

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 01:56 PM

Anytime you want to, I'm ready to take the Trinity argument to the gym.You are on you own... do not forget... sustained exercise burns more calories than sprints...

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 01:56 PM

I see you have nothing to contribute either... What a waste...

:rofl:

At least answer my accusations! Let's start with this one:

About the cut and paste: I am pretty sure the entire first post in this thread is a cut and paste job. It sure reads like one. Some ignorant questions that show no understanding of the trinity and a long list of verse references, with no reasoning behind them. Did you find it on some anti trinitarian web site? Doing that without a reference cite is PLAGERISM.

Did YOU steal your opening post in this thread from another website without citation or did you think all that up all by yourself? I don't think you have the brains (what little it took) to do it yourself.

Prediction: VFarris01 will not answer this accusation.

apostoli

November 7th 2005, 02:04 PM

Hi Sparko & Alam,

Here is from a Christian work I have been reading; perhaps you will take it more seriously. At least some of what he says is based on the Commentary on John cited above.

Thanks Alam, Looks like an interesting book I will have to see if I can find it in the library.You guys might already have this in your archives, but if not, here is the full text for
Commentary on John, Book II (Origen)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

Here is an extract that has Origen giving (unambiguously) his view of the Logos as God...

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Well needless to say, I disagree with [Alam's] conclusion, and the conclusion of the author if he is saying what your excerpts say, which I still will not agree is correct unless I can read the whole bookSkip the book Alam recommended, read Origen direct (see link/s above and below). Though Alam and I don't agree on some intrinsic theology (I'm more aligned towards your belief), it needs to be admitted that Alam's conclusions on Origen are precise.

PS: Here is a link to the works of Origen available online. Particularly, Origen de Principiis which you guys were discussing.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

Shadow Phoenix

November 7th 2005, 02:06 PM

You are on you own... do not forget... sustained exercise burns more calories than sprints...

Translation: I am too afraid to go to the TWeb gym against a Trinitarian that has spent at least five minutes in his life studying this issue because I don't stand a chance so I just act tough until I'm told to back it.

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 02:16 PM

:rofl:

At least answer my accusations! Let's start with this one:

About the cut and paste: I am pretty sure the entire first post in this thread is a cut and paste job. It sure reads like one. Some ignorant questions that show no understanding of the trinity and a long list of verse references, with no reasoning behind them. Did you find it on some anti trinitarian web site? Doing that without a reference cite is PLAGERISM.

Did YOU steal your opening post in this thread from another website without citation or did you think all that up all by yourself? I don't think you have the brains (what little it took) to do it yourself.

Prediction: VFarris01 will not answer this accusation.

No, I did not "steal" it.
No, I did not "find" it on some anti-trini site.
Yes, I thought of it... however, I am sure the concept was not original.
It did not take much "imagination" to come up with the "list." ... ever heard of E-sword?
On the other hand, it takes quite the "imagination" to rationalize the "trinity."

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 02:24 PM

Translation: I am too afraid to go to the TWeb gym against a Trinitarian that has spent at least five minutes in his life studying this issue because I don't stand a chance so I just act tough until I'm told to back it.Translation: If I talk tough and he refuses to debate me, it will look like he is a coward.

Actually, I do not care... as opposed to the "five minutes" you studied the "trinity," I have been studying it for over 40 years... in fact I truely once believed the "trinity" was the "nature of God" until about 6 or 8 months ago.

One thing is for sure... I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone... least of all you.

Rayado

November 7th 2005, 02:57 PM

I see you have nothing to contribute either... What a waste...

Is that it?

Do you think, that with a wave of your hand, you've dispelled all that we say?

You are such a terrible sport at this. I guess the Dwarfs are still for the Dwarfs (slightly obtuse literary reference that I don't expect you to get).

I also suggest you be truthful to Sparko.

Actually, I do not care... as opposed to the "five minutes" you studied the "trinity," I have been studying it for over 40 years... in fact I truely once believed the "trinity" was the "nature of God" until about 6 or 8 months ago.Ah, so time now determines the truth of an argument. Glad to know that.

One thing is for sure... I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone... least of all you.Oh really?

Then why put on the broadway routine you did in this thread? Why do we have to justify our beliefs to you?

And you're just plain wrong if you think you don't have to justify your beliefs to anyone. "Critically examine everything. Hold onto the good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."--1 Thess. 5:21-22 dispels any notion of your faith not being subject to critical examination.

So if you are done with this thread, then Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsim--you've been weighed and found wanting, numerous times; and you're about to get sliced and diced for it and for your atrocious behavior too.

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 04:11 PM

No, I did not "steal" it.
No, I did not "find" it on some anti-trini site.
Yes, I thought of it... however, I am sure the concept was not original.
It did not take much "imagination" to come up with the "list." ... ever heard of E-sword?
On the other hand, it takes quite the "imagination" to rationalize the "trinity."

Then I accuse you of being a liar as well as a plagerist.

You took your post

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1258025&postcount=1

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God, why does he have the same God as his disciple?

Matthew 4:7
Matthew 4:10
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:12
John 17:3
John 20:17
1 Corinthians 15:24
Ephesians 1:17
Hebrews 1:9
Hebrews 10:7
Revelation 1:6
Revelation 3:2
Revelation 3:12, 13

... if Jesus is the "supreme" God why does he serve as high priest to God?

Hebrews 2:17
Hebrews 4:14, 15
Hebrews 8:1
Hebrews 9:24, 25
Hebrews 10:11, 12
Hebrews 10:21

directly from this site (see below), and just changed the statements to questions.

http://www.touchstoneforum.com/htdocs/dcforum/User_files/428371050164d9bc.html

1. Jesus has the Same God as his Disciples

Matthew 4:7
Matthew 4:10
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:12
John 17:3
John 20:17
1 Corinthians 15:24
Ephesians 1:17
Hebrews 1:9
Hebrews 10:7
Revelation 1:6
Revelation 3:2
Revelation 3:12, 13

2. Jesus Serves as High Priest to His God

Hebrews 2:17
Hebrews 4:14, 15
Hebrews 8:1
Hebrews 9:24, 25
Hebrews 10:11, 12
Hebrews 10:21

You didn't even bother to change the order of the points or the verses.

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 04:18 PM

I see you have nothing to contribute either... What a waste...Is that it?

Do you think, that with a wave of your hand, you've dispelled all that we say?

You are such a terrible sport at this. I guess the Dwarfs are still for the Dwarfs (slightly obtuse literary reference that I don't expect you to get).Mental midgets bore me...

I also suggest you be truthful to Sparko.I was.

Actually, I do not care... as opposed to the "five minutes" you studied the "trinity," I have been studying it for over 40 years... in fact I truely once believed the "trinity" was the "nature of God" until about 6 or 8 months ago.Ah, so time now determines the truth of an argument. Glad to know that.All I said was I have been studying Christianity for a very long time... making any other assumption will only serve to make the one making the assumption look foolish.

One thing is for sure... I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone... least of all you.Oh really?Oh, really.

Then why put on the broadway routine you did in this thread? Why do we have to justify our beliefs to you?I do not recall ever saying you did... that was you making an assumption again.

And you're just plain wrong if you think you don't have to justify your beliefs to anyone. "Critically examine everything. Hold onto the good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."--1 Thess. 5:21-22 dispels any notion of your faith not being subject to critical examination.Does this verse say anything about having to justify ones beliefs to anyone? I thought not.

I have done exactly as the verse suggests.

So if you are done with this thread, then Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsim--you've been weighed and found wanting, numerous times; and you're about to get sliced and diced for it and for your atrocious behavior too.How so?

VFarris01

November 7th 2005, 04:23 PM

Then I accuse you of being a liar as well as a plagerist.

You took your post

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1258025&postcount=1

directly from this site (see below), and just changed the statements to questions.

http://www.touchstoneforum.com/htdocs/dcforum/User_files/428371050164d9bc.html

You didn't even bother to change the order of the points or the verses.That I made use of someone else's work does not make me a plagerist... I came up with the idea and started compiling the list of verses before I found that site... Using it only saved me time... I checked out most of the verses as well... so sue me... Last time I checked the Bible was public domain... there are also no restriction associated with the site nor did I know it was a JW site... I probably would not have made use if it had I known.

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 04:33 PM

That I made use of someone else's work does not make me a plagerist

That you did use it without giving credit and then had the audacity to claim it as your own DOES make you a plagiarist. And a liar.

Rayado

November 7th 2005, 04:34 PM

That I made use of someone else's work does not make me a plagerist... :lmbo: Screwbie award!

WHAT IS PLAGIARISM? (http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm)

Plagiarism means using another's work without giving credit. You must put others' words in quotation marks and cite your source(s) and must give citations when using others' ideas, even if those ideas are paraphrased in your own words.

It would've even been plagiarism had you been borrowing it from yourself. Not only that, you earlier claimed that it was original, and when caught you admit to borrowing the list. So yep, you're a liar as well as a plagiarist.

alam

November 7th 2005, 05:18 PM

Hi Sparko & Alam,

You guys might already have this in your archives, but if not, here is the full text for
Commentary on John, Book II (Origen)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

Here is an extract that has Origen giving (unambiguously) his view of the Logos as God...

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Hi Apostoli,

Thanks. Commentary on John 2.2 has come up on the thread. Sparko thinks I misrepresented Origen by leaving out his stuff in Dialogue with Heraclides on how the Father and the Son are one God. Given the Trinitarian understanding of "God" as only a proper noun for the Supreme Being, I think I would have misrepresented Origen to include it, since Origen did not share the understanding (as per above).

Skip the book Alam recommended, read Origen direct (see link/s above and below).

There is no substitute for getting in touch with the primary sources. The problem is that the online texts for Origen are not always from accurate sources. His De principiis is online only in translation from Rufinus' Latin and Rufinus is known to have censored and/or edited the material. The Greek fragments of De Principiis are the final authority and I don't think they are online anywhere, though the article (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm) from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy quotes Butterworth's translation.

Though Alam and I don't agree on some intrinsic theology (I'm more aligned towards your belief), it needs to be admitted that Alam's conclusions on Origen are precise.

Thanks, but you are closer to Sparko's view than mine? That chafes man! :-) I am not the most extreme Arian around here

BTW. While you were away I was reading Catechetical Lectures, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm) and thought you might find something of value there.

All the best

apostoli

November 7th 2005, 07:17 PM

Hi Alam,

Hope you don't mind me intruding. I'll try to do so infrequently :wink:

Commentary on John 2.2 has come up on the thread. Sparko thinks I misrepresented Origen by leaving out his stuff in Dialogue with Heraclides on how the Father and the Son are one God. Given the Trinitarian understanding of "God" as only a proper noun for the Supreme Being, I think I would have misrepresented Origen to include it, since Origen did not share the understanding (as per above).I noted that you gave the same quote in post #39. I thought it worth repeating as the part you highlighted seems to have distracted Sparko from what I thought was more emphatic of Origen's view.

There is no substitute for getting in touch with the primary sources.Sparko in one of his posts seemed to be suggesting, he'd only believe what you were saying, once he read the book. Which is fair enough. Figured he may as well go to the source.

The problem is that the online texts for Origen are not always from accurate sources. His De principiis is online only in translation from Rufinus' Latin and Rufinus is known to have censored and/or edited the material. The Greek fragments of De Principiis are the final authority and I don't think they are online anywhere, though the article (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm) from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy quotes Butterworth's translation.Thanks for the link. I am aware of the issues with Rufinas' Latin translation but as you know it is said that the Greek has interpolations so...

But you are closer to Sparko's view than mine? That chafes man! :-)Well yes and no. With Sparko, I need to get him to accept an orthodox view of the trinity or at least conform his terminology with the creeds. With you: I'm hoping one day you might accept that the Son is not ex nihilo :smile:

I am not the most extreme Arian around hereI definitely wouldn't put you in the same class as those who take a Eunomius type view. Mind you there are some trintiarians I might put in a similar category as they "seek to defend their ideas on the rationalizing basis of Aristotelean dialectics" (CE). Ok maybe not so much Aristotle; more likely Plato ;-)

BTW. While you were away I was reading Catechetical Lectures, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm) and thought you might find something of value there.Thanks. I'll dump them down and have a read.

Maybe you and Sparko might consider having a look at
Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 8. CHAP. XII.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen168.html

In what follows. some may imagine that [Celsus] says something plausible against us. "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship one God the Father, and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth;" and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,"' has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

All the best.

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 07:46 PM

Well yes and no. With Sparko, I need to get him to accept an orthodox view of the trinity or at least conform his terminology with the creeds. With you: I'm hoping one day you might accept that the Son is not ex nihilo :smile:

Hi Apostoli,

I hold to the orthodox view of the trinity Apostoli. I would not be a moderator here at TWEB if I did not. My beliefs are essentially Southern Baptist (although my church is nondenominational)

All moderators have to agree with the core orthodox Christian beliefs and the TWEB statement of faith that states in part:

Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary being fully human and fully God. He lived a sinless life and through His substitutionary death, atoned for our sins. He was bodily resurrected and ascended into Heaven. He will return bodily, personally, and visibly.

And I affirm the Nicene creed.

what are your beliefs and what do you affirm?

apostoli

November 7th 2005, 08:16 PM

Hi Apostoli,

I hold to the orthodox view of the trinity Apostoli. I would not be a moderator here at TWEB if I did not. My beliefs are essentially Southern Baptist (although my church is nondenominational)

All moderators have to agree with the core orthodox Christian beliefs and the TWEB statement of faith that states in part:

Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary being fully human and fully God. He lived a sinless life and through His substitutionary death, atoned for our sins. He was bodily resurrected and ascended into Heaven. He will return bodily, personally, and visibly.

And I affirm the Nicene creed.

what are your beliefs and what do you affirm?I affirm the Nicene Creed.

"orthodox view of the trinity" - There are several, with subtleties in the definitions. I don't accept Augustine and his filioque. I used a play on words with Alam - orthodox meaning the Catholic Orthodox=Eastern Orthodox view.

You may not be aware: Occasionally in your posts you expound views that seem not "orthodox". Maybe it is just the terminology you use.

Pythagoras

November 7th 2005, 08:33 PM

Hi Apologianick,

Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus.

Illogical. If Jesus is fully God(as you say), then God must necessarily be fully Jesus, unless your definition of God changes from one side of the equation to the other, which it does in your equation.

Furthermore, your problem is part of the use of the word "God." When Christians (Which you're not by the way if you don't hold that Jesus is fully God.) say "Jesus is God" they do not mean that Jesus is the Godhead entirely.

If Jesus "is not the Godhead entirely"(as you say), then it follows that he is not "the Godhead", therefore you are comparing apples and oranges when going from one side of the equation to the other. You now have two definitions of God which are incompatable, which you try to fit into your equation, but that's not how equations work. You have (a) an entity which is fully God but not the Godhead entirely and (b) an entity which is the Godhead in it's entirety. If you try to equate(=, i.e. use an equation to relate the two) these two definitions your equation is nonsensical because the variables in it do not have standards definitions, i.e. 1 means 1 on the left side of the equation, but not 1 on the right side of it, i.e. an apple on the left side is no longer an apple on the right side of your equation.

They mean that Jesus fully possesses all the attributes of deity. For instance, if Sparko, Rayado, and myself are all in a room together. Each of us is fully human, but humanity is not the three of us. The essence of humanity is fully shared by each of our three persons much as the essence of deity is shared by the three persons.

Same fallacy. You're using two definitions for 1 here. On the left side of the equation 1 is definede in absolute terms, on the right side of the equation 1 is defined a a compound unity. There is no equation here.

Furthermore, the idea of 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is such a joke because you're confusing the terms.

Mother of all ironies. The variables of any equation must have standard definitions on both sides . The above equation does not. It is what Apologianick must argue if the definitions of his variables do not remain constant on both sides of the equation. The only way three persons yet 1 can be 'shown' to be yet 1 is if the definitions of the variables themselves vary from one side of the equation to the other. Your own words condemn you ; just read on:

The Christian position is yes, that that does equal 3 apples. However, when we get to the other side of the = sign, we're not talking about apples. We're talking about something else entirely, so it doesn't really matter.

"when we get to the other side of the = sign, we're not talking about apples." Exactly!! Need I say more? On the left side you are talking about apples but on the right side you're talking about something other than apples. Thus when you speak from the left side of your mouth you say Jesus is fully God, when you sepak from the right side of your mouth you say God is not fully Jesus; a forked tongue, and a crooked equation.

We don't need to say 1 X 1 X 1 either. That's just as pointless.

1x1x1=1 defines modalism. It's not pointless.

In the left side of the equation, we are talking about persons of the Trinity. We are speaking about three persons and on the right side, we have one God. To even add them though is to poison the wells from the beginning as it can give the impression that each person is 33.3% God and when you put them all together, you get 99.999999% God (Which rounds to 100)

And this is the same fallacy which I just pointed out. On the left side of the equation you define one tennis match in absolute terms, on the right side of the equation one tennis match is defined as one set of tennis matches. It must be pointed out that the meaning of the word 1 whether it refers to the 1 match or 1 set played, or 1 individual game played within a set is the same provided the variables remain consistent. -- i.e. an equation must be formed out of equally defined variables,"compound 1" vs. "compound 1", "absolute 1" vs. "absolute ".

best wishes,

Sparko

November 7th 2005, 08:42 PM

I affirm the Nicene Creed.

"orthodox view of the trinity" - There are several, with subtleties in the definitions. I don't accept Augustine and his filioque. I used a play on words with Alam - orthodox meaning the Catholic Orthodox=Eastern Orthodox view.

You may not be aware: Occasionally in your posts you expound views that seem not "orthodox". Maybe it is just the terminology you use.

It probably is a result of trying to explain the trinity in various ways to Alam, pythagoras, and vfarris, where the latter two act very dense and completely misconstrue anything I say. so I try various analogies to get my point across, which fail miserably with them also.

Alam is about 1,000 times better than discussing anything with the others. He at least has some valid points although I still think he is selectively quoting, (as he even admitted, because he "didn't want to misrepresent Origen") and trying to turn the early church fathers into Arians when they where nothing like that at all.

This all started when I quoted Titus 2:13 to show that Jesus was called God. Then I pointed out that Isaiah 44:24 said that YHWH created alone. And that John 1:3 and Colossians showed that Jesus created all, so if Jesus was a separate God, then Isaiah 44:24 was false.

The early church fathers were brought into this thread by Pythagoras who attempted to use Irenaeus to support his view that somehow God can take all the credit for Jesus creating and say he honestly did it all alone, and used a forged quote from a nontrin website. After I pointed out this error, he tried to say I was the one using Irenaeus to support my view which I was not. I was just refuting his.

Somehow this turned into Alam quoting various ECF's and I saw that he was using a selective quote to make Origen say that he believed in TWO seperate Gods instead of ONE God and that Jesus was God. I never really was worried if Origen had a fully orthodox view of the trinity or not.

Pythagoras

November 7th 2005, 10:23 PM

Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus. .

The illogic of the trinitarian position is made abandantly clear by the above mantra.

They admit God is not Jesus. Thus proving themselves wrong.

Rayado

November 7th 2005, 10:46 PM

Actually, Py, it's perfectly logical. Member X is fully a member of set Y; but set Y is not fully X. The logic holds.

Pythagoras

November 7th 2005, 10:53 PM

Actually, Py, it's perfectly logical. Member X is fully a member of set Y; but set Y is not fully X. The logic holds.

But member X is not Y, anymore than a soldier from a platoon is the platoon. Therefore Jesus(X) is not God(Y). The logic holds for me.

good luck,

Rayado

November 7th 2005, 11:07 PM

But member X is not Y, anymore than a soldier from a platoon is the platoon. Therefore Jesus(X) is not God(Y). The logic holds for me.

Let's look at Nick's logic again:

From the attachment we can visualize Nick's logic. Member X is part of set Y; but Y is not fully member X.

That part of the logic of the Trinity is sound; Jesus, while a member of the Godhead due to his eternal nature proceeding from the Father, is not fully the Godhead; but due to his nature and membership in the set he is not less than the other members.

The logic holds for you, but your second statment "Therefore Jesus is not God" does not follow from the logic that Nick and I use.

Pythagoras

November 7th 2005, 11:58 PM

Hi rayado,

You're saying the same thing again. It's not going to change the logic.

From the attachment we can visualize Nick's logic. Member X is part of set Y; but Y is not fully member X.

That part of the logic of the Trinity is sound

Yes. It shows X is a part of Y, but not Y.

Jesus, while a member of the Godhead due to his eternal nature proceeding from the Father, is not fully the Godhead;

In other words, X is not Y. Is the Godhead God?

The logic holds for you,

You better believe it.

but your second statment "Therefore Jesus is not God" does not follow from the logic that Nick and I use

Your conception only works if you drop the notion that God is One.

best wishes,

alam

November 8th 2005, 12:42 AM

Thanks Alam, Looks like an interesting book I will have to see if I can find it in the library.

But you do seem to be taking certain words in your own quote to be important to your definition while completely ignoring wording that shows that Origen did indeed see the Son as the SAME God.

Like I said before, his speaking of the various 'power' levels sounded strange to me, but not having read the whole thing I can't really comment on what he meant just what it seemed to say to me.

Let's go through your quote and I will highlight the parts I see as relevant to showing that despite this "division" you see in the Godhead, he still is saying they are ONE God, and not three. I will make my highlights blue.

...Origen is most anxious to emphasize the distinction between the Father and the Logos. He wants to refute the monarchian view which would make no distinction in 'number' between them but postulate a unity not only of substance but of individual existence, so denying that the individuality of the Son is other than that of the Father. He knows that people are afraid of the implication that there could be two gods, but he insists that Father and Son differ from each other in hypostasis, that is, in their substance as individual entities or persons. The Father is absolutely God; this the Johannine Prologue acknowledges by prefixing the definite article, ho theos ('The God'), whereas the Logos is not God absolutely (autotheos) and the article is not prefixed when he is called 'God' any more than it would be in the case of other deified beings. The Son is first of theoi (gods), above all others as being 'the Lord the God of Gods'. The others, saints and all 'deified' creatures, derive their divinity from him; they are copies of the archetype. But he is the archetype, the model of all copies; only, his own deity is derived from the fountain-head, the Father, and he is the archetype because he is always with the Father and eternally beholds the 'depth' of the Father's being. Two points stand out here: the Logos is God by derivation and so, despite being substantially one with the Father, he stands, as it were, at a lower level in the hierarchy, as mediator between the Father whom he mirrors and all creatures who derive their relation to God through him; and his derivation of deity from the Father is pictured in Platonist terms as a continual process of contemplation.

In his Commentary on John, Origen discusses at length the various meanings which should be attached to the words 'logos' and 'theos' in different contexts, showing how these can be arranged in hierarchical order. This illustrates clearly how he conceives of deity being, as it were, eternally broadened down through a series of relationships (of communication and participation) from the apex or fountain-head to the rational creation at the base of the pyramid. It throws particular light on his theory of the intermediary, and mediating, status of the Logos between the Father and the many creatures who are logikoi and can rightly be termed theoi. As the logos in the logikoi is to the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God, so the Logos who was in the beginning with God and is God is to the Father himself. As the true and absolute God (autotheos) is to the image and the images of the image, so the absolute Logos (autologos) is to the logos in every man; for, as God is the source of deity (and thus the Son is not autotheos), so the Son is the source of logos in the rational creation (and thus no angel or man can be autologos).

He can say that the Saviour and the Spirit transcend all creatures, not in degree only but in kind, but that they are in their turn as far transcended by the Father as they themselves transcend all creatures. The Son is above all angelic hierarchies, but he is nothing in comparison to the Father; he is not the effulgence of God himself but of God's light and glory, a mirror reflecting whatever the Father does.

Origen also said that the Father and the Son are Heteroousios (of different substance). The words did not have the same meaning they do today. To find out what Origen meant by 'substance' we have to look at what his beliefs entailed in practice. For Origen, the Son's consubstantiality (in some sense) was consistent with his possession of a derived Deity, his being a subordinate God in concrete terms. If you can allow this within Nicene Christianity, then as I said, I too am a trinitarian. But I would be very surprised if you do.

It is possible to thin down the concept of the divine ousia to the point where almost anyone could accept the Nicene creed. You just remove things from the definition. There is a specific example in the Eastern versus Western Trinitarianism. The link you were given earlier (which was not Mormon -- the author and the site are Trinitarians) explains that the EO Trinitarianism embodies some of the earlier view where the Father alone is Autotheos (absolute God). Autotheotes is peculiar to God the Father's hypostasis. And so they have a thinner concept of God's ousia -- it includes eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, but not autotheotes -- absolute Deity. For them the Deity of the Son is derived from the hypostasis of the Father.

And so highlighting portions of the text where it says that Origen thought that the Father and Son are consubstantial does not necessarily prove anything. We'd have to know what Origen meant by 'substance' before we could decide whether this supports your view. It is the same with his usage of 'God' and calling Jesus God. Based on the practical content of his views as shown on the thread, I'd think it was clear he did not mean the same things.

Well needless to say, I disagree with your conclusion, and the conclusion of the author if he is saying what your excerpts say, which I still will not agree is correct unless I can read the whole book, seeing as how you seem to be pretty good at selectively quoting things to present your own view.

There is no problem with functional subordination within the Godhead. It does not mean they are different entities or that one person is physically/spiritually greater than another. It is speaking of relationships and job assignments. It is not speaking of difference in nature. And reading what i have of Origen, neither did he. He is speaking of difference in job function but not of substance. They are the SAME God.

JP Holding has an article discussing the diff between subordinationalism and functional subordination on his web site. Here is a link if you wish to read it:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psfuncsub.html

Thanks, I have read it.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 12:43 AM

Hi rayado,

You're saying the same thing again. It's not going to change the logic.And why should I suddenly say something different and contradict myself?

Yes. It shows X is a part of Y, but not Y. [...]In other words, X is not Y.I think I see part of the problem here--aside from the substantially unintelligible responses like this one.

By being a part of Y it has all of the attributes of Y while not being the only entity in the set of Y. That which defines set Y (the Godhead) is not limited to a single person in the set. The unfounded assumption that you're smuggling into the equation is that set Y is the Father. You're comitting a fallacy of equivocation between God the Father and the Godhead. And until that is resolved or changed, you're spinning your wheels.

Is the Godhead God?Is your tautology a tautology?

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 12:47 AM

Translation: If I talk tough and he refuses to debate me, it will look like he is a coward.

Actually, we'll know you are. Case confirmed. Thanks!

Actually, I do not care... as opposed to the "five minutes" you studied the "trinity," I have been studying it for over 40 years... in fact I truely once believed the "trinity" was the "nature of God" until about 6 or 8 months ago.

And you got stumped by minor questions like those in your OP? Please. Personally, I haven't spent five minutes studying the Trinity, but a number of years. It's so odd that someone who studied it for 40 years fears someone who studied it for five minutes.

One thing is for sure... I do not have to justify my beliefs to anyone... least of all you.

Around here you do. If you make a claim on TWeb, you'd better be able to back it.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 12:47 AM

Hi Rayado,

2nd request:

Is Y(the Godhead) God?

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

best wishes,
Not until you respond to the rest of my post.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 01:05 AM

And why should I suddenly say something different and contradict myself?

The unfounded assumption that you're smuggling into the equation is that set Y is the Father. You're comitting a fallacy of equivocation between God the Father and the Godhead. And until that is resolved or changed, you're spinning your wheels.

Unfortunately your asumption is incorrect. According to you Y consists of V(father), W(holy spirit) and x(son) each of whome is God.
What then is Y?

Let me guess, God?

Answer my question with a yes or no.

alam

November 8th 2005, 01:20 AM

Hi Alam,

Hope you don't mind me intruding. I'll try to do so infrequently :wink:

Please intrude as often as you like.

Well yes and no. With Sparko, I need to get him to accept an orthodox view of the trinity or at least conform his terminology with the creeds. With you: I'm hoping one day you might accept that the Son is not ex nihilo :smile:

I do not maintain creation ex nihilo of the Son. The generation of the Son was impassible and above our comprehension. Justin Martyr's analogy of one fire kindled from another is about as good as we have to go on. It is just the case that the chain of causality, if it does not regress infinitely or go in a loop, must end in the uncaused, unconditioned, agennetos, the Ultimate. In the nature of the case these attributes are incommunicable.

I definitely wouldn't put you in the same class as those who take a Eunomius type view. Mind you there are some trintiarians I might put in a similar category as they "seek to defend their ideas on the rationalizing basis of Aristotelean dialectics" (CE). Ok maybe not so much Aristotle; more likely Plato ;-)

There were social factors at work in the odium in which Aetius and Eunomius were held. Aetius started from the low end of the social order, gradually working his way through many trades to a form of respectability. The intelligentsia of the time, represented notably in the Cappadocians, could not help but hold him in some contempt.

Maybe you and Sparko might consider having a look at
Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 8. CHAP. XII.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen168.html

In what follows. some may imagine that [Celsus] says something plausible against us. "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship one God the Father, and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth;" and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,"' has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

All the best.

Thank you for that Apostoli, and the best.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 01:30 AM

Well, rayado?

Perhaps he knows what will follow if he answers.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 01:33 AM

Unfortunately your asumption is incorrect. According to you Y consists of V(father), W(holy spirit) and x(son) each of whome is God.
What then is Y?

Let me guess, God?

Answer my question with a yes or no.

This is indeed a mystery, albeit an amusing one. How do you expect me to answer a question (What defines set Y or what makes God God) with a yes or no?

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 01:41 AM

This is indeed a mystery, albeit an amusing one. How do you expect me to answer a question (What defines set Y or what makes God God) with a yes or no?
I'm asking you a simple question. Is Y God? You cannot not define your terms if you want to conduct a logical discussion.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 01:47 AM

I'm asking you a simple question. Is Y God? You cannot not define your terms if you want to conduct a logical discussion.

The set Y, that we are discussing here, is not God per se. *dramatic chord*

The set Y, as we both use it, is the set of characteristics and attributes that makes God God. His Nature; His Essence; His Substance.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 02:00 AM

Hi rayado,

The set Y, that we are discussing here, is not God per se. *dramatic chord*

Thank you.

The set Y, as we both use it, is the set of characteristics and attributes that makes God God. His Nature; His Essence; His Substance

Therefore you believe in three Gods, since the Godhead is not God.

best wishes,

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 02:07 AM

Therefore you believe in three Gods, since the Godhead is not God. I wasn't aware that jumping to conclusions has become an olympic sport.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 02:17 AM

I wasn't aware that jumping to conclusions has become an olympic sport.

How is that jumping to conclusions? You agree v, w and x are three distinct entities in the Universe Y. Does v, w and x not add up to three?

best wishes,

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 02:27 AM

How is that jumping to conclusions? You agree v, w and x are three distinct entities in the Universe Y. Does v, w and x not add up to three?

best wishes,Well, that's certainly part of the comprehension problem. You jumped to conclusions by imposing a conclusion (that I'm a Tritheist; see my previous posts in this thread for that answer) before allowing any dialogue on the premises.

Second, I do not agree with your gross oversimplification that you have presented here.

You're also ignoring the previous logical statement of Nick's.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 02:38 AM

Hi rayado,

Well, that's certainly part of the comprehension problem. You jumped to conclusions by imposing a conclusion (that I'm a Tritheist; see my previous posts in this thread for that answer) before allowing any dialogue on the premises.

Second, I do not agree with your gross oversimplification that you have presented here.

You're also ignoring the previous logical statement of Nick's.

No answer to my question.

Last time I checked v, w and x are 3 , not 1. Count them.

best wishes,

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 10:32 AM

Hi rayado,

No answer to my question.

Last time I checked v, w and x are 3 , not 1. Count them.

best wishes,

Ah Py. Rayado was handling you well so I figured I'd let him keep going. You're still not getting it though.

3 what? 1 what?

By the way, we don't believe in three entities. We believe in one entity. You're assuming unipersonalism.

I suppose that's what happens with belief in the lonely God.

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 10:36 AM

I wasn't aware that jumping to conclusions has become an olympic sport.

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

apostoli

November 8th 2005, 12:19 PM

I do not maintain creation ex nihilo of the Son. The generation of the Son was impassible and above our comprehension. Justin Martyr's analogy of one fire kindled from another is about as good as we have to go on. It is just the case that the chain of causality, if it does not regress infinitely or go in a loop, must end in the uncaused, unconditioned, agennetos, the Ultimate. In the nature of the case these attributes are incommunicable.Cool!!! :cheers:

I must have misunderstood you way back when. Back then I referred to the following link. Just for clarification: How do you feel about the statement that follows?
A Definition and Exposition of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith
According to the Ecumenical Symbol.
http://celticchristianity.org/library/horosm.html

3. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten [Born] of the Father before all ages, (God of God), Light of Light, True God of True God; begotten [born] not made, consubstantial (or of one essence) with the Father;
Who with the Father and the Most Holy Spirit is One God according to His Eternal and Uncreate and unparticipatible essence, but that in this Most Holy Trinity there are not Three Gods, but One God in Three Hypostases; Who, in His Eternal and Uncreate Hypostasis, being Only-Begotten from His Unbegotten Father before all ages, times, places, and before the creation of all that is visible and invisible -- including all times and spaces -- is truly Begotten eternally from the Father, eternally and ineffably, and is therefore consubstantial, or of one and the same identical essence with Him, since like cannot beget unlike; Who being thus begotten from and consubstantial with the Father possesseth and is in His Person and Hypostasis all the fulness of all deity and godhead(qeoths) and all the infinite and limitless perfections of the infinite and uncreate and divine and eternal energies, without division or diminution or distribution or partition of the divine and more-than-essential essence, and without confusion of His Person, or the hypostastic characteristic(upostatikh idioths) of Begottenness and Generation-from-the-Father, with the Father (Who alone in the Most Holy, Consubstantial, Indivisible and Tri-Hypostatic Trinity is Unoriginate and Without- Source or -Origin or -Cause), or with the Most Holy and Life-giving Spirit(Who alone in the Most Holy Trinity Proceedeth from the Father);

apostoli

November 8th 2005, 01:15 PM

It probably is a result of trying to explain the trinity in various waysI understand. Just try to be aware that at times you border on Sabellianism.

to AlamI enjoy chatting with Alam. He is what I term a dealer in facts, without prejudice. He argues thoughtfully, which by my experience shows he has thought about what someone else has said.

pythagorasI have an affection for pythagoras. And yes he has at times flamed me but at other times he has delivered thoughts that have required some study.

so I try various analogies to get my point across, which fail miserably with them also. It is generally said that the Western church since Augustine has philosophied on how the one God persists as three; whereas in the Orthodox churches they have contemplated the witness of scripture where the three are revealed and contemplated God. The difference between the two is basically in the West there is a blur in the individualities of the persons of the trinity. Whereas in the East there is only one God of himself and two (the Son and the Spirit) who subsist in the Father and derive their divinity from the Father. To my mind: the later is much easier to explain.

This all started when I quoted Titus 2:13 to show that Jesus was called God. Then I pointed out that Isaiah 44:24 said that YHWH created alone. And that John 1:3 and Colossians showed that Jesus created all, so if Jesus was a separate God, then Isaiah 44:24 was false.I explain Isa 44:24 by referring (with other scriptures) 1 Cor 8:6. Orthodox belief is that the Son/Logos derives everything he is from the Father, therefore it is the Father "alone" who is the source and cause of all things.

As for Titus 2:13, Acts 20:28, 2 Peter etc etc; I don't think it wise to appeal to the disputed texts for a couple of reasons: 1. Oneness believers are dependent on them. 2. Each has a valid and static refutation. The Same goes for John 1:1. In my opinion only John 20:28 provides a little stammer in argumentation but even it can be explained away.

The early church fathers were brought into this thread by Pythagoras who attempted to use Irenaeus to support his view that somehow God can take all the credit for Jesus creating and say he honestly did it all alone,That is the traditional orthodox view.

and used a forged quote from a nontrin website. After I pointed out this error, he tried to say I was the one using Irenaeus to support my view which I was not. I was just refuting his.I guess the origins are in a different thread. No offence but your reply to Pythagoras at post #5 is inaccurate. Irenaeus teaching conforms with the Eastern understand, not the Augustine/Aquinas theory...

“For the Father bears the creation and His own Word simultaneously, and the Word borne by the Father grants the Spirit to all as the Father wills. To some He gives after the manner of creation what is made; but to others [He gives] after the manner of adoption, that is, what is from God, namely generation. And thus one God, the Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ; but the Word is through all things, and is Himself the Head of the Church; while the Spirit is in us all, and He is the living water, which the Lord grants to those who rightly believe in Him, and love Him, and who know that there is one Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. And to these things does John also, the disciple of the Lord, bear witness, when he speaks thus in the Gospel - In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was God.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren5.html

Somehow this turned into Alam quoting various ECF's and I saw that he was using a selective quote to make Origen say that he believed in TWO seperate Gods instead of ONE God and that Jesus was God. I never really was worried if Origen had a fully orthodox view of the trinity or not.Fair enough.

Thanks for explaining.

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 02:10 PM

I understand. Just try to be aware that at times you border on Sabellianism.

Er.. sorry guy but I am definitely not a sabellianist(?) / modalist nor anywhere close. Can you tell me how you got that?

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 04:13 PM

No answer to my question.

Last time I checked v, w and x are 3 , not 1. Count them.I'm not going to answer a loaded question.

Little Shepherd

November 8th 2005, 05:56 PM

No answer to my question.

Last time I checked v, w and x are 3 , not 1. Count them.
It depends on the answer to two very important questions. 3 what? 1 what?

Unless you completely failed math, then you know that many things can equal 1 depending on the qualifiers you put with them. Let's look at a few examples.

2 = 1 -- 2 can equal 1 if it's 2 pints and 1 quart, or 2 cups and 1 pint. You must have the descriptor word, however. By your logic, 2 cups do not equal 1 pint because 1 + 1 can never equal 1, period. That's stupid.

4 = 1 -- Same as the above, but now it's 4 quarts and 1 gallon.

2.2 = 1 -- pounds and kilograms

3.14... = 1 -- diameters and circumference (of a circle)

3 = 1 -- components and apple pie (crust + apples + pie goo)

What Christians are not arguing:
1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God

What Christians are arguing:
1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Spirit = 3 Persons
1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Spirit = 1 God
3 Person = 1 God

Not 3 Gods = 1 God. Qualifiers make all the difference...but then you'd know that if you took 3rd-grade arithmetic, or heck...even home ec or shop or something.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 06:23 PM

Welcome to the melee, LS. :teeth: :hi:

This is only confirming something I've long suspected with discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses.

The barrier that hinders Trinitarian dialogue is not one of theology, or even philosophy or logic: it's a linguistic barrier. What we mean by what we say is the stumbling block for those who wish to communicate the Trinity effectively.

And as such, Pythagoras will never be successful in discussion with knowledgable Trinitarians because the underlying structure of what he says will never be accepted by Trinitarians. And until he starts supplying definitions that Trinitarians will agree to, most everything he says is devoid of meaning to Trinitarians. And our obtuse little friend will continue to wonder why no one takes him seriously.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 08:25 PM

I'm not going to answer a loaded question.

How is that a loaded question? You yourself admit v, w and x are three distinct persons.

Stop giving lame excuses and answer my question..

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 08:46 PM

I'm not even going to begin humoring you until you leave the linguistic baggage behind.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 08:52 PM

I'm not even going to begin humoring you until you leave the linguistic baggage behind.

Just answer the question.

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 08:55 PM

Just answer the question.

Arians believe jesus is "a God" and that he is not the same God as the Father.

You believe in two Gods by your own definition.

You are polytheistic (that means beleiving in more than one God)

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 08:55 PM

Just answer the question.
You're still proving my point about your smugging in linguistic baggage that Trinitarians won't agree to. You're not even attacking that which I believe. Until then...don't be surprised when I'm a bit unresponsive.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 08:57 PM

Hi Apologianick,

By the way, we don't believe in three entities. We believe in one entity. You're assuming unipersonalism.

.

You may claim to believe in one entity , but the facts of your doctrine suggest otherwise. If the three persons of the trinity are distinct(as they are), they cannot be one entity.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:03 PM

Hi Rayado,

You're still proving my point about your smugging in linguistic baggage that Trinitarians won't agree to. You're not even attacking that which I believe. Until then...don't be surprised when I'm a bit unresponsive.

I'm not interested in your lame excuses. Answer my question:

The doctrine of the trinity states that the Godhead consists of there persons, all God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is distinct.

How can you claim to believe in One God?

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:03 PM

I'm not interested in your lame excuses. Answer my question:

The doctrine of the trinity states that the Godhead consists of there persons, all God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is distinct.

How can you claim to believe in One God?
You have not stated the Trinitarian formula correctly.

Try again.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:04 PM

You have not stated the Trinitarian formula correctly.

Try again.

Why don't you state it for me.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:05 PM

Why don't you state it for me.
Because you're the one who claims to know what it is.

You might even get it right this time, who knows.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:09 PM

Because you're the one who claims to know what it is.

You might even get it right this time, who knows.

And that's another excuse to not answer my question.

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 09:09 PM

Why are you bothering to claim trinitarians are polytheistic when you have already admitted that you are one Pythagoras? You told me that you believe Jesus is a God. Just not the same God as the Father. That makes two gods.

You believe in two Gods!!! You are a polytheist! How do you write that? 1+1=2??

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:11 PM

And that's another excuse to not answer my question.
I am not your nanny. I cannot teach you as well as you can teach yourself.

I'll give you a hint: you left something important out.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:27 PM

Hi rayado,

I am not your nanny. I cannot teach you as well as you can teach yourself.

I'll give you a hint: you left something important out.

Present your counter points instead of playing hide and seek . Tell me what I left out, in your opinion.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:29 PM

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 09:32 PM

Hi Apologianick,

You may claim to believe in one entity , but the facts of your doctrine suggest otherwise. If the three persons of the trinity are distinct(as they are), they cannot be one entity.

best wishes,

Oh really? Why not?!

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:34 PM

Hi rayado,

Present your counter points instead of playing hide and seek . Tell me what I left out, in your opinion.

best wishes,
You're smuggling in a definition of what makes God God that we do not hold to.

Try it with that.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:35 PM

Watch Rayado's contradiction, if he dares to answer, that is. I deliberately left that part out. It's best that it comes from his own mouth.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:37 PM

You're smuggling in a definition of what makes God God that we do not hold to.

Try it with that.

He doesn't dare answer.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:40 PM

I don't answer because the answer you seek is 1)irrelevant to the what the Trinity actually is, and 2)I simply don't agree with the terms as you present them.

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 09:44 PM

So Py, what color is the sky in the world of the lonely god?

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:46 PM

I don't answer because the answer you seek is 1)irrelevant to the what the Trinity actually is, and 2)I simply don't agree with the terms as you present them.

More lame excuses.

You don't even have the confidence to present your doctrine for me to dissect, because you know it's more of the same.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:48 PM

More lame excuses.

You don't even have the confidence to present your doctrine for me to dissect, because you know it's more of the same.
So how's that omnicience going for you these days?

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 09:49 PM

Stop getting excited Sparkey.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

You are a polytheist. You think that Jesus is another God. you try to claim that trinitarians beleive in multiple gods when it is your own belief instead.

Arianism is a heresy. It is false and polytheistic. The bible says there is only one God and you believe in many.

and you are afraid to defend your own beliefs. That's why you are ignoring me and continuing to just misrepresent the trinity.

:chicken:

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:50 PM

Oh really? Why not?!

Do you say three distinct persons like you , Sparkey(my pet) and me are one?

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 09:51 PM

Do you say three distinct persons like you , Sparkey(my pet) and me are one?

One what?

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:51 PM

Truth hurts doesn't it?

You are a polytheist. You think that Jesus is another God. you try to claim that trinitarians beleive in multiple gods when it is your own belief instead.

Arianism is a heresy. It is false and polytheistic. The bible says there is only one God and you believe in many.

and you are afraid to defend your own beliefs. That's why you are ignoring me and continuing to just misrepresent the trinity.

:chicken:

Sit, Sparkey, sit.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:52 PM

One what?

entity.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:52 PM

Do you say three distinct persons like you , Sparkey(my pet) and me are one?
I see no point in this discussion until you can accurately portray what I believe. You aren't within a hundred miles of what we believe.

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 09:53 PM

entity.

Nope

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:53 PM

So how's that omnicience going for you these days?

More evasion.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:54 PM

Nope

Let me guess, it's unit right?

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 09:55 PM

Sit, Sparkey, sit.

Answer the questions pythagoras!

Do you believe Jesus is a god?

If so, is he the same God as the Father?

Come on. you insist others answer your questions. why don't you answer mine?

:chicken:

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 09:56 PM

Let me guess, it's unit right?

No Py. We're material beings. We're three separate persons is all.

Rayado

November 8th 2005, 09:56 PM

No, really. You claimed to know what I'm going to do.

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 09:59 PM

No Py. We're material beings. We're three separate persons is all.

Why don't you answer your own question? Why are you playing hide and seek?

Shadow Phoenix

November 8th 2005, 10:01 PM

Why don't you answer the question . Why are you playing hide and seek?

I did answer it. The thing we share in common is that we're all fully human.

Oh yeah, we also share that we know way more about the Trinity than you do and we know that you've got your head in the sand with this one.

Gonna step away for now but seeing Py debate is better than watching the Late Show

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 10:04 PM

Hi Sparko,

Answer the questions pythagoras!

Do you believe Jesus is a god?

:chicken:

Yes, just like Moses is a god in Ex. 7:1 or Satan in 2Cor. 4:4. But not YHWH, not by a long shot.

Sparko

November 8th 2005, 10:11 PM

Hi Sparko,

Yes, just like Moses is a god in Ex. 7:1 or Satan in 2Cor. 4:4. But not YHWH, not by a long shot.

See, people? Proof that pythagoras is a polytheist. He not only believes that Jesus is a God, but Moses is too!

So now Pythagoras believes in three Gods. oh wait, you said Satan was a God too, didn't you? Now you believe in 4 Gods!!!!

Polytheism:
The worship of or belief in more than one god.
www.dictionary.com

Why are you polytheistic Pythagoras?

Pythagoras

November 8th 2005, 10:16 PM

Hi Apologianick,

I did answer it. The thing we share in common is that we're all fully human.

Just because we share the "same essence" ( i.e. human nature ) does not make us one unfortunately. This is a redefinition of the word one, and utter nonsense. Gregory of Nyssa?

Oh yeah, we also share that we know way more about the Trinity than you do and we know that you've got your head in the sand with this one.

This coming from someone who believes 1+1+1=1; if that's not having one's head in the sand, I don't know what is.

Gonna step away for now but seeing Py debate is better than watching the Late Show

As you wish.

The worship of three gods dulls the mind.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 12:01 AM

I see no point in this discussion until you can accurately portray what I believe. You aren't within a hundred miles of what we believe.

He keeps on saying I'm not accurately portraying what he believes, but when I ask him to portray what he believes , he refuses to do so.

He's giving excuses.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 12:15 AM

Hi Apologianick,

Just because we share the "same essence" ( i.e. human nature ) does not make us one unfortunately. This is a redefinition of the word one, and utter nonsense. Gregory of Nyssa?

And I never said we were one.

This coming from someone who believes 1+1+1=1; if that's not having one's head in the sand, I don't know what is.

Py. This is what we call "Algebra" here. (I have to explain mathematics to someone named after Pythagoras. This is rich.) What you are doing is confusing apples and oranges. 1x + 1x + 1x = 3x. What is X? X is persons. However, you make us want to say = 1x at the end referring to 1 person. Either that, or you make x = gods and then say we are added three of the same thing together and getting one.

That has NEVER been what Trinitarians have believed.

As you wish.

The worship of three gods dulls the mind.

best wishes,

Good thing I worship one God in Trinity then eh? Beats worshipping the lonely god playing solitaire before creation.

Heh. Watching Py debate is better than watching the Late Show.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 12:24 AM

If there's any redefining going on, Py, it's by you when you equivocate the terms 'person' and 'god' in your little 1+1+1=1 fallacy.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 12:29 AM

Hi apologianick,

And I never said we were one.

You're still beating around the bush.

What you are doing is confusing apples and oranges. 1x + 1x + 1x = 3x. What is X? X is persons. However, you make us want to say = 1x at the end referring to 1 person. Either that, or you make x = gods and then say we are added three of the same thing together and getting one.

If x is person, what is 1? Look who's confusing apples and oranges.

That has NEVER been what Trinitarians have believed.

Good thing I worship one God in Trinity then eh? Beats worshipping the lonely god playing solitaire before creation.

Heh. Watching Py debate is better than watching the Late Show

More nonsense.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 12:32 AM

Hi apologianick,

You're still beating around the bush.

How could I be beating around the bush when you were the one supposedly making the point here?

If x is person, what is 1? Look who's confusing apples and oranges.

1x = 1 person. However, the other variable is God. We believe in 3 persons. One God. person does not equal god.

More nonsense.

Hey Rayado. I'm thinking of popping some popcorn for the entertainment of Py's next post. Want some?

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 12:34 AM

Thanks, but I've got plenty.

:popcorn:

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 12:40 AM

1x = 1 person. However, the other variable is God. We believe in 3 persons. One God. person does not equal god.

Which other variable is God? Clarify yourself.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 12:44 AM

Which other variable is God? Clarify yourself.

Alright. You're wanting us to say 3 = 1.

In reality, you're wanting us to say 3x = 1x.

The problem is though, we believe in 3x and 1y. X is persons. Y is God.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 12:52 AM

Alright. You're wanting us to say 3 = 1.

In reality, you're wanting us to say 3x = 1x.

The problem is though, we believe in 3x and 1y. X is persons. Y is God.

Are you saying you believe 3x = 1y?

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 12:57 AM

Are you saying you believe 3x = 1y?

If you mean, you add x to x to x and get God, then no. That's not what we mean. That would mean that each x is 33.3% of Y. Hence, I think the whole analogy of using addition or multiplication is nonsense.

We beleive in one God and three persons. Each person fully possesses the attribtues of deity.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 01:05 AM

(I have to explain mathematics to someone named after Pythagoras. This is rich.)

the Irony is thick as Vfarris leper soup in here.

:irony:

What is also funny is that we have spent half of this thread and other threads trying to tell Pythagoras what the trinity really is and what we believe, and yet he keeps misquoting us and building strawmen and telling us he knows more about what we believe than we do ourselves. But when he is called on that and asked to actually STATE what the trinity is, he ducks and dodges all over the place.

It sure is easy for him to attack and burn strawmen, but he hasn't a chance against the real doctrine of the trinity - which he can't even expound upon.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 01:22 AM

Hi Apologianick,

If you mean, you add x to x to x and get God, then no. That's not what we mean. That would mean that each x is 33.3% of Y. Hence, I think the whole analogy of using addition or multiplication is nonsense.

Lol.

Gregory of Nyssa said (Peter) + (John) + (James) = 1 instance of man . This is a redefinition of the variable "man" going from the left side to the right side of the equation, which renders the whole equation nonsensical, so that 1z+1z+1z, where z = man is not necessarily 3z.

The same is done with God. Let's say x = God.

Trinitarians argue x+x+x = x, or God + God + God is One God instead of Three Gods.

We beleive in one God and three persons. Each person fully possesses the attribtues of deity

This is logically unsound if you claim there is one God. Either drop the trinity or drop the idea that God is one.
There are no two ways about it.

best wishes,

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 01:30 AM

Hi Apologianick,

Lol.

Gregory of Nyssa said (Peter) + (John) + (James) = 1 instance of man . This is a redefinition of the variable "man" going from the left side to the right side of the equation, which renders the whole equation nonsensical, so that 1z+1z+1z, where z = man is not necessarily 3z.

The same is done with God. Let's say x = God.

Trinitarians argue x+x+x = x, or God + God + God is One God instead of Three Gods.

Sigh. Py still needs math lessons.

First off, I could care less what Gregory said. It means about as much to me as the news report from CNN.

Secondly, WE ARE NOT ADDING GODS! How many times do I have to spell this out?

This is logically unsound if you claim there is one God. Either drop the trinity or drop the idea that God is one.
There is no two ways about it.

best wishes,

Please show that it's unsound instead of baseless assertions.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 01:36 AM

I'd like to see that quote of Greg's.

From its source.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 01:48 AM

I'm reading Gregory of Nyssa's work right now, and I can say with great certainty you'll wish you'd never mentioned him in this thread.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 01:57 AM

Hi Apologianick,

First off, I could care less what Gregory said. It means about as much to me as the news report from CNN.

I guess St. Gregory of Nyssa too wasn't "within a hundred miles of what" you and that elusive rayado fellow believe the trinity to be huh? Yeah Right!

This is what he said:

"We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided(3) in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are "many men," is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are "many human natures." And the truth of this we may see from the following instance. When we address any one, we do not call him by the name of his nature, in order that no confusion may result from the community of the name, as would happen if every one of those who hear it were to think that he himself was the person addressed, because the call is made not by the proper appellation but by the common name of their nature: but we separate him from the multitude by using that name which belongs to him as his own;--that, I mean, which signifies the particular subject. Thus there are many who have shared in the nature--many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs--but the man in them all is one;....."

Lol!

Secondly, WE ARE NOT ADDING GODS! How many times do I have to spell this out?

I can't help it if you cannot follow simple logic..

Please show that it's unsound instead of baseless assertions

An empty comment.

The worship of three gods dulls the mind indeed.

best wishes,

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 01:59 AM

I'm reading Gregory of Nyssa's work right now, and I can say with great certainty you'll wish you'd never mentioned him in this thread.

Don't get too excited, read it first.

apostoli

November 9th 2005, 02:00 AM

Er.. sorry guy but I am definitely not a sabellianist(?) / modalist nor anywhere close.No offense meant. Guess, my issue with your posts arises from the different approaches of say Calvin vs the Roman Church vs the Orthodox churches.

I must admit at times my argumentation has been borderline itself. Guess it is a trap we all fall into more sooner than later. The difficulty for many in explaining the Trinity, is they do an Augustine starting at God and working backwards to find three. The easier way is to start with the three, showing how they are in unity, and leading someone to the conclusion.

Er.. sorry guy but I am definitely not a sabellianist(?) / modalist nor anywhere close. Can you tell me how you got that?I'll just make ref to two of your posts on page #1...

Most oneness believers would take your comment in post #5, "That simply says that the Word created because the Father commanded him to. Who created? the Son. Back to Isaiah 44:24. God says he did it alone. If Jesus is not God, then God didn't do it alone did he?" as affirming their belief.

Then in Post #13 you say to pythagoras "I am not being contradictory. I never said he needed help from the Holy Spirit. I said that the bible says that each of the persons in the Godhead raised Jesus from the dead. The Father raised him, Jesus raised himself, and the Holy Spirit raised him. If they were not the SAME God, then it would be contradictory. They ARE the same God so there is no contradiction." Admittedly, you did mention the persons of the Godhead. The difficulty is some branches of oneness believers differentiate between the Godhead and God (ie: God=the Spirit; Jesus=the human in whom God had tabernacled who sits at the right hand of God). Orthodox theology, based on the witness of scripture, would suggest that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead directly. It was through the Sons obedience and faith in the Father, that the Father raised the Son via the Holy Spirit.

A little earlier in post #13 you did say "The trinity states they are the same GOD, not the same person. God is a being that consists of three persons, all who are fully God, yet God is not fully each of them. So the Father can talk to the Son and vice versa." The bit I have highlighted gives a mixed message and what some might see as multiple contradictions in your posts. The creedal formula is that each of the persons is truely God, not fully God. It is an important distinction.

The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 puts it this way...

"We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and earth John 4:24; Psa. 147:5; 83:18; Heb. 3:4; Rom. 1:20; Jer. 10:10 inexpressibly glorious in holiness Exod. 15:11; Isa. 6:3; 1 Pet. 1:15-16; Rev. 4:6-8, and worthy of all possible honor, confidence, and love Mark 12:30; Rev. 4:11; Matt. 10:37; Jer. 2:12-13 ; that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost Matt. 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 John 5:7 ; equal in every divine perfection John 10:30; 5:17; 14:23; 17:5, 10; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Phil. 2:5-6 , and executing distinct and harmonious offices in the great work of redemption Eph. 2:18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Rev. 1:4-5; comp. 2, 7. "
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/newhamp.htm

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 02:04 AM

Don't get too excited, read it first.
I asked for the source. What document is it from? Is it online?

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 02:11 AM

I asked for the source. What document is it from? Is it online?

Here it is genius:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 02:14 AM

Now, genious, let's look at the entire quote of Greg's, including the line that you conveniently left out:

Thus there are many who have shared in the nature--many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs--but the man in them all is one; since, as has been said, the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common.

Oops.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 02:19 AM

Oops what rayado?

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 02:23 AM

Oops what rayado?
Not only did he strike down your twisting of what we belive, but you quoted him out of context to spin-doctor his work.

You said:
Gregory of Nyssa said (Peter) + (John) + (James) = 1 instance of man ."I want that quote.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 02:31 AM

Hi rayado,

Not only did he strike down your twisting of what we belive, but you quoted him out of context to spin-doctor his work.

As usual you're being mysterious.Would you mind telling me how he striked down what I said?

I want that quote

Did I say it was a quote?

Gregory says when we refer to three men as Peter, Paul and John in the plural it's actually an abuse of language, because the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such but to that which is common.

You're beginning to bore me.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 02:46 AM

As usual you're being mysterious.Would you mind tellnig me how he striked down what I said?Well, he struck down what you said by qualifying that which you refused to.

Did I say it was a quote? Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you were telling the truth about what he said. I'll know better next time.

Gregory says when we refer to three men as Peter, Paul and John in the plural it's actually an abuse of language, because the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such but to that which is common.An abuse by whom?

This is what you refer to:

The argument which you state is something like this:—Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If, then, in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two, or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the Faith, though confessing the Three Persons, and acknowledging no difference of nature between them, we are in some sense at variance with our confession, when we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet forbid men to say “there are three Gods”?

You're beginning to bore me.Thank you for finally admitting your immense immaturity in approaching the subject.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 04:05 AM

Hi rayado,

Well, he struck down what you said by qualifying that which you refused to.

Another fortune cookie non-answer.

. Gregory of Nyssa is saying the man in Peter, Paul and James is one man because the term "man" is common to all men(for the term man belongs to the nature of all men). This is what I've always mantained Gregory is saying, and it is an utterly ridiculous position.

Do you agree with this point of view?

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed you were telling the truth about what he said. I'll know better next time.

And how did I not tell the truth regarding what he said?

Before today you hadn't even read Gregory's article.

John from Ebla

November 9th 2005, 04:18 AM

Hi rayado,

Another fortune cookie non-answer.

. Gregory of Nyssa is saying the man in Peter, Paul and James is one man because the term "man" is common to all men(for the term man belongs to the nature of all men). This is what I've always mantained Gregory is saying, and it is an utterly ridiculous position.

Do you agree with this point of view?

And how did I not tell the truth regarding what he said?

Before today you hadn't even read Gregory's article.

You have a body, soul, and spirit- how many of you (human) are there? 1 2 or 3

Kind regards
John from ebla

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 05:05 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

You have a body, soul, and spirit- how many of you (human) are there? 1 2 or 3

Kind regards
John from ebla

And ? A person who insists on twisting logic in order to keep the triune doctrine intact, would be hard-pressed to find a single item in the entire created universe which could not be sub-divided into smaller parts, until you get down to the atomic level. Even then, scientists differ as to the degree in which matter can be broken down into smaller units of division, beyond the proton and neutron and electron. Redefining the meaning of 1 this way would render the numerical definition of 1 senseless, for then 1 could sometimes be defined as a compound unity of three, as in the case of an atom(proton, neutron, electron) , at other times 1 could be defined as a compound unity of 100 (as in the case of a centipede), yet at other times 1 could be defined as a compound unity of four(as in the case of a square) ed infinitum.
By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from the modifier. Trinitarians must discard the mathematical,absolute definition of 1 to make sense of their doctrine, as is proved by the argument of Gregory of Nyssa.

best wishes,

for not properly citing copy righted material

John from Ebla

November 9th 2005, 05:57 AM

Hi John from Ebla,

And ? A person who insists on twisting logic in order to keep the triune doctrine intact, would be hard-pressed to find a single item in the entire created universe which could not be sub-divided into smaller parts, until you get down to the atomic level. Even then, scientists differ as to the degree in which matter can be broken down into smaller units of division, beyond the proton and neutron and electron. Redefining the meaning of 1 this way would render the numerical definition of 1 senseless, for then 1 could sometimes be defined as a compound unity of three, as in the case of an atom(proton, neutron, electron) , at other times 1 could be defined as a compound unity of 100 (as in the case of a centipede), yet at other times 1 could be defined as a compound unity of four(as in the case of a square) ed infinitum.
By any grammatical standard, in Hebrew, and certainly in English, any plurality of an noun which is either modified by an adjective or an indefinite pronoun, comes from the definition of the noun being modified, rather than from the modifier. Trinitarians must discard the mathematical,absolute definition of 1 to make sense of their doctrine, as is proved by the argument of Gregory of Nyssa.

best wishes,

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23).

How many of you are there.- 1 2 or 3

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 06:18 AM

Hey, Py, here's your fortune cookie:

Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book 1, part XIX: (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.htm)
It may seem to many useless to linger over what is so obvious, and to attempt a discussion of that which to them is on the face of it false and abominable and groundless: nevertheless, to avoid even the appearance of having to let these statements pass for want of counter-arguments, we will meet them with all our might. He says, “each being amongst them is unmixed, single, and absolutely one, as estimated by its dignity, both in fact and in conception.” Then premising this very doubtful statement as an axiom and valuing his own ‘ipse dixit’ as a sufficient substitute for any proof, he thinks he has made a point. “There are three Beings:” for he implies this when he says, ‘each being amongst them:’ he would not have used these words, if he meant only one. Now if he speaks thus of the mutual difference between the Beings in order to avoid complicity with the heresy of Sabellius, who applied three titles to one subject, we would acquiesce in his statement: nor would any of the Faithful contradict his view, except so far as he seems to be at fault in his names, and his mere form of expression in speaking of ‘beings’ instead of ‘persons:’ for things that are identical on the score of being will not all agree equally in definition on the score of personality. For instance, Peter, James, and John are the same viewed as beings, each was a man: but in the characteristics of their respective personalities, they were not alike. If, then, he were only proving that it is not right to confound the Persons, and to fit all the three names on to one Subject, his ‘saying’ would be, to use the Apostle’s words, ‘faithful, and worthy of all acceptation.’ But this is not his object: he speaks so, not because he divides the Persons only from each other by their recognized characteristics, but because he makes the actual substantial being of each different from that of the others, or rather from itself: and so he speaks of a plurality of beings with distinctive differences which alienate them from each other. I therefore declare that his view is unfounded, and lacks a principle: it starts from data that are not granted, and then it constructs by mere logic a blasphemy upon them. It attempts no demonstration that could attract towards such a conception of the doctrine: it merely contains the statement of an unproved impiety, as if it were telling us a dream. While the Church teaches that we must not divide our faith amongst a plurality of beings, but must recognize no difference of being in three Subjects or Persons, whereas our opponents posit a variety and unlikeness amongst them as Beings, this writer confidently assumes as already proved what never has been, and never can be, proved by argument: maybe he has not even yet found hearers for his talk: or he might have been informed by one of them who was listening intelligently that every statement which is made at random, and without proof, is ‘an old woman’s tale,’ and powerless to prove the question, in itself, unaided by any plea whatever fetched from the Scriptures, or from human reasonings. So much for this.

Oh, and it seems Greg also left your calling card with us long ago as well:

Against Eunomius, Book II, Section XIV
Those who keep repeating against us the phrase “three Gods,” because we hold these views, have perhaps not yet learnt how to count. For if the Father and the Son are not divided into duality, (for they are, according to the Lord’s words, One, and not Two) and if the Holy Ghost is also one, how can one added to one be divided into the number of three Gods? Is it not rather plain that no one can charge us with believing in the number of three Gods, without himself first maintaining in his own doctrine a pair of Gods? For it is by being added to two that the one completes the triad of Gods. But what room is there for the charge of tritheism against those by whom one God is worshipped, the God expressed by the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

And again, no less!

De Sanctae Trinitae, On the Holy Trinity
I may say that those who conceived this causeless hatred for us seemed to be acting very much on the principle of Æsop’s fable. For just as he makes his wolf bring some charges against the lamb (feeling ashamed, I suppose, of seeming to destroy, without just pretext, one who had done him no hurt), and then, when the lamb easily swept away all the slanderous charges brought against him, makes the wolf by no means slacken his attack, but carry the day with his teeth when he is vanquished by justice; so those who were as keen for hatred against us as if it were something good (feeling perhaps some shame of seeming to hate without cause), make up charges and complaints against us, while they do not abide consistently by any of the things they say, but allege, now that one thing, after a little while that another, and then again that something else is the cause of their hostility to us. Their malice does not take a stand on any ground, but when they are dislodged from one charge they cling to another, and from that again they seize upon a third, and if all their charges are refuted they do not give up their hate. They charge us with preaching three Gods, and din into the ears of the multitude this slander, which they never rest from maintaining persuasively. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us. Once more, we oppose to this assault our wonted armour of truth, and show that we abhor this form of heresy just as much as Judaism. What then? are they weary after such efforts, and content to rest? Not at all. Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:—They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for[1] proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

I quote the eloquent (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html) Phantaz Sunlyk, quoting Gregory in To Ablabius:
Therefore, among men because the activity of each is distinguished, although in the same pursuit, they are properly mentioned in the plural. Each of them is separated into his peculiar context from the other in accord with his peculiar manner of the activity. But in reference to divine nature, we have learned that this is not the case, because the Father does something individually, in which the Son does not join, or the Son individually works something without the Spirit; but every activity which pervades from God to creation and is named according to our manifold designs starts off from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit. On account of this the name of activity is not divided into the multitude of those who are active. To Ablabius

The work To Ablabius is of particular importance. In it, Gregory answers the question 'If we call three humans, who share the same nature, "three men", why not confess that three divine persons, sharing the same nature, are "three gods"? His answer is brilliant, and I highly recommend the reading of the entire work, which can be found online here. Here I merely wish to point out the structure of the working of God which is intrinsic to Nicene orthodoxy: from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. Unless Gregory of Nyssa was an Arian, subordination (here functional, not ontological) of the Son to the Father is not intrinsically heterodox.

Therefore it says, 'The Lord God is one Lord', but it also proclaims by the word for deity the only-begotten of God, and it does not break up the one into a dual significance so to name the Father and Son as two gods, even if each is proclaimed God by the holy authors. The Father is God, the Son is God, but by the same proclamation God is one because neither in regard to nature nor activity is any difference viewed. Ibid.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 06:55 AM

Hey rayado,

What's with the frantic quotes? You're not answering my question:

Gregory Nyssa says:

"Thus there are many who have shared in the nature-- many disciples, say, or apostles,or martyrs-- but the man in them is one; since, as has been said, the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common"

Do you agree with the above? Yes or No?

By the way, even the Catholic Church admits the Trinity is a mystery and our understanding of it remains only partial. So how can you even pretend a logical discussion of this mumbo-jumbo doctrine being that at most,you only have partial understanding of it? Were you trying to pull a fast one one me by giving the impression you knew everything about it? Is that why you're always so vague,unresponsive and mysterious when I ask you(over and over again) to defend this silly doctrine?

http://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/define0f.htm (http://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/define0f.htm)

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege…. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question."

Here's the Catholic definition of the trinity, which agrees very well with my conception of it:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

November 9th 2005, 07:07 AM

Hey rayado,

What's with the frantic quotes? You're not answering my question:

What's with your frantic quotes? You're not answering my question

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23).

How many of you are there.- 1 2 or 3

Kind regards
John from Ebla

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 07:20 AM

Hi Johnny,

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23).

How many of you are there.- 1 2 or 3

Kind regards
John from Ebla

How many of me are there? One ofcourse. But according to you I'm a "compound unity" and my spirit, soul and body are like the three presons of the "blessed trinity".Hey, that makes me the "Godhead." And wow, my body is of the same "ousia" as my soul.

No offense intended but I'm more inclined to entertain the reality of elfs than this trinity business.

best wishes,

John from Ebla

November 9th 2005, 07:34 AM

Hi Johnny,

How many of me are there? One ofcourse. But according to you I'm a "compound unity" and my spirit, soul and body are like the three presons of the "blessed trinity".Hey, that makes me the "Godhead." And wow, my body is of the same "ousia" as my soul.

No offense intended but I'm more inclined to entertain the reality of elfs than this trinity business.

best wishes,

No offense intended but, it is not according to "me" the sciptures say's it. So tell me, how come your able to see one? Body, soul, and spirit

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 07:38 AM

So tell me, how come your able to see one? Body, soul, and spirit

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Same way I'm able to see one tripod even though it has three legs.

No offense intended but, it is not according to "me" the sciptures say's it.

"According to you" , not according to bible, the human body, soul and mind proves the doctrine of the holy trinity.

John from Ebla

November 9th 2005, 07:44 AM

.
"According to you" , not according to bible, the human body, soul and mind proves the doctrine of the holy trinity.

Why me?, it is in the bible.
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23).

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 10:12 AM

I'd like to see that quote of Greg's.

From its source.

Anything that pythagoras quotes, go check it out for yourself, thoroughly. If the quote is from a website, try to find the original. www.ccel.org is a good source. I already caught him quoting a forged quote from Irenaeus from a nontrin website. He also likes to quote out of context.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 10:40 AM

No offense meant. Guess, my issue with your posts arises from the different approaches of say Calvin vs the Roman Church vs the Orthodox churches.

I must admit at times my argumentation has been borderline itself. Guess it is a trap we all fall into more sooner than later. The difficulty for many in explaining the Trinity, is they do an Augustine starting at God and working backwards to find three. The easier way is to start with the three, showing how they are in unity, and leading someone to the conclusion.

I'll just make ref to two of your posts on page #1...

Most oneness believers would take your comment in post #5, "That simply says that the Word created because the Father commanded him to. Who created? the Son. Back to Isaiah 44:24. God says he did it alone. If Jesus is not God, then God didn't do it alone did he?" as affirming their belief.

I was explaining a quote by Irenaeus to Vfarris, where he said:

"He [the Father] commanded, and they were created", Irenaeus asks "Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom the heavens were established" (AH3, VIII.3).

That is not sabellianism. Sabellianism is modalism which would mean there is not a Father and Son/word existing at the same time.

My point about God doing it alone is that I am speaking of God as the triune being YHWH. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and they all worked in creation, then GOD (the trinune being) did it all alone. If they were separate entities (Jesus was ANOTHER "god") then YHWH could not claim to have done it ALONE, since John 1:3 says that the word created everything.

Then in Post #13 you say to pythagoras "I am not being contradictory. I never said he needed help from the Holy Spirit. I said that the bible says that each of the persons in the Godhead raised Jesus from the dead. The Father raised him, Jesus raised himself, and the Holy Spirit raised him. If they were not the SAME God, then it would be contradictory. They ARE the same God so there is no contradiction." Admittedly, you did mention the persons of the Godhead. The difficulty is some branches of oneness believers differentiate between the Godhead and God (ie: God=the Spirit; Jesus=the human in whom God had tabernacled who sits at the right hand of God). Orthodox theology, based on the witness of scripture, would suggest that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead directly. It was through the Sons obedience and faith in the Father, that the Father raised the Son via the Holy Spirit.

Again, modalism could not claim that all three raised him from the dead. since all three persons of the Godhead do not exist at the same time. The bible does claim that each person of the Godhead did raise Jesus. This can only happen in a Trinity.

A little earlier in post #13 you did say "The trinity states they are the same GOD, not the same person. God is a being that consists of three persons, all who are fully God, yet God is not fully each of them. So the Father can talk to the Son and vice versa." The bit I have highlighted gives a mixed message and what some might see as multiple contradictions in your posts. The creedal formula is that each of the persons is truely God, not fully God. It is an important distinction.

Each person is fully God in nature. This might be a Protestant/Orthodox terminology difference. Each person in the trinity has all the nature and attributes of YHWH. They are not each 1/3 God. Yeah my bolded text could have been stated clearer. I should have said "yet the Godhead/Trinity is not fully/only each of them"

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 12:54 PM

What do you know? Py misquoted again and twisted something for his own purposes! I think I'm gonna go through Py's quotes and find a way to twist what he says somehow to make him a Trinitarian and see how he likes that.

Anyhow Py, you accused me of not being able to follow simple logic. I say you're giving a non sequitur. (That's a logical term in case you don't know.) Please prove your point.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 01:12 PM

What do you know? Py misquoted again and twisted something for his own purposes! I think I'm gonna go through Py's quotes and find a way to twist what he says somehow to make him a Trinitarian and see how he likes that

That's done easily enough using his own tactic of selective quoting out of context:

I'm a "compound unity" and my spirit, soul and body are like the three presons of the "blessed trinity"

:rofl:

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 01:25 PM

That's done easily enough using his own tactic of selective quoting out of context:

:rofl:

If Py lived in my area and told me the weatherman said it wasn't going to rain today, I'd get an umbrella before I walked out the door.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 01:40 PM

If Py lived in my area and told me the weatherman said it wasn't going to rain today, I'd get an umbrella before I walked out the door.

yup. I don't see how he thinks he has the truth and we are wrong if he has to keep making up strawmen to attack. If we truly are wrong, then there should be plenty of things wrong with what we ACTUALLY believe, eh? Instead he has to accuse us of believing in three Gods when we claim that anyone who believes in multiple Gods is not a Christian. Then he calls us modalists/sebellianists, when we have clearly stated the trinity to him multiple times and denied being modalist.

I wish Gregory of Nyssa was here on TWEB today, he would get a kick out of watching Pythagoras follow the exact same script as the Arians used nearly 2000 years ago!

Thanks for the quotes Rayado!

De Sanctae Trinitae, On the Holy Trinity

I may say that those who conceived this causeless hatred for us seemed to be acting very much on the principle of Æsop’s fable. For just as he makes his wolf bring some charges against the lamb (feeling ashamed, I suppose, of seeming to destroy, without just pretext, one who had done him no hurt), and then, when the lamb easily swept away all the slanderous charges brought against him, makes the wolf by no means slacken his attack, but carry the day with his teeth when he is vanquished by justice; so those who were as keen for hatred against us as if it were something good (feeling perhaps some shame of seeming to hate without cause), make up charges and complaints against us, while they do not abide consistently by any of the things they say, but allege, now that one thing, after a little while that another, and then again that something else is the cause of their hostility to us. Their malice does not take a stand on any ground, but when they are dislodged from one charge they cling to another, and from that again they seize upon a third, and if all their charges are refuted they do not give up their hate.

They charge us with preaching three Gods, and din into the ears of the multitude this slander, which they never rest from maintaining persuasively. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us.

Once more, we oppose to this assault our wonted armour of truth, and show that we abhor this form of heresy just as much as Judaism. What then? are they weary after such efforts, and content to rest? Not at all.

Against Eunomius, Book II, Section XIV

Those who keep repeating against us the phrase “three Gods,” because we hold these views, have perhaps not yet learnt how to count. For if the Father and the Son are not divided into duality, (for they are, according to the Lord’s words, One, and not Two) and if the Holy Ghost is also one, how can one added to one be divided into the number of three Gods? Is it not rather plain that no one can charge us with believing in the number of three Gods, without himself first maintaining in his own doctrine a pair of Gods? For it is by being added to two that the one completes the triad of Gods. But what room is there for the charge of tritheism against those by whom one God is worshipped, the God expressed by the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

So what Pythagoras is doing is nothing new. He is just following in his heretical father's footsteps, making up strawmen to burn.

Quite sad really.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 03:02 PM

When they logically fail, trinitarians depend on false accusations to divert attention.

Trinitarians, show me where I mis-quote Greogry of Nyssa, and explain how.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 03:06 PM

When they logically fail, trinitarians depend on helpless insults to divert attention.

This is exactly what YOU do pythagoras. You will not actually discuss anything just divert and insult. Is it any wonder you are now getting the same treatment in return? I have had quite good conversations with your buddy Alam. Must be YOU, huh?

How did I mis-quote Greogry of Nyssa?

Oh, gee, why don't you go back and actually READ the last two pages of posts in this thread instead of playing dumb (or dumber)

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 03:07 PM

Hi Sparko,

Just show me where and how I've mis-quoted Gregory of Nyssa.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 03:08 PM

It's almost like we took Py outside at high noon and he's still asking for evidence that the sky is blue.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 03:22 PM

Look it. You and sparko have accused me of mis-quoting Gregory of Nyssa . I just want you to show me how and where!

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 03:25 PM

Hi Sparko,

Just show me where and how I've mis-quoted Gregory of Nyssa.

Go back and read the various posts, pythagoras. here is ONE example:

in post 195, you left off a key sentence at the end and left off the preceding paragraph, making it out of context.

as rayado pointed out in post #200 and #209

You must have been an excellent dodgeball player as a child.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 03:30 PM

Look it. You and sparko have accused me of mis-quoting Gregory of Nyssa . I just want you to show me how and where!

See Rayado's long post that is a POTD

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 03:42 PM

Hi Sparko,

Go back and read the various posts, pythagoras. here is ONE example:

in post 195, you left off a key sentence at the end and left off the preceding paragraph, making it out of context.

as rayado pointed out in post #200 and #209

You must have been an excellent dodgeball player as a child.

That's a false accusation. Here's the portion in question.

"...Thus there are many who have shared in the nature-- many disciples, say, or apostles,or martyrs-- but the man in them is one; since, as has been said, the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common."

I stopped my quote with the bolded sentence. The sentence imediately following (;) does not change the meaning of what has been said before, in any way shape or form. If I had stopped with the second sentence you would have accused me of "mis-quoting" by not quoting the sentence that came after it.

Gregory of Nyssa is saying three men as in Peter, James and John are actually one man because the man in them is one, i.e. because they are all human.I've always mantained Gregory as saying this, even before presenting this quote.

Do you agree with his conclusion that three man are actually one man because all are human? Yes or No?
I've not been able to get a yes or no answer from any trinitarian here with refrence to this.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 04:12 PM

It's almost like we took Py outside at high noon and he's still asking for evidence that the sky is blue.
The Dwarfs are still for the Dwarfs.

Little Shepherd

November 9th 2005, 04:19 PM

The Dwarfs are still for the Dwarfs.
:stunned:
That's beautiful, man.

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 04:33 PM

If you know where it's from, you're getting pearls.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 04:41 PM

pythagoras: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

Little Shepherd

November 9th 2005, 05:05 PM

If you know where it's from, you're getting pearls.
Of course I know where it's from! Chronicles of Narnia, book 7 -- The Last Battle. When the true Narnians were fighting the Calormenes and the Narnians who sided with the Calormenes, the dwarfs refused to take sides. They just sat on the sidelines taking pot-shots at both sides while chanting "The dwarfs are for the dwarfs. The dwarfs are for the dwarfs."

I hope that's good enough. I do like me some pearls. :teeth:

Rayado

November 9th 2005, 05:24 PM

:yes: It also refers to their reaction to Aslan's feast after the battle.

Shadow Phoenix

November 9th 2005, 05:29 PM

I'm remembering that scene from Final Fantasy VI now with Terra, Edgar, and Locke leaving Figaro castle and getting chased by the Magitek armor. Terra uses magic for the first time and while this battle is going on, all the good guys just stop fighting and have small chat.

Only difference is that in Final Fantasy VI, magitek armor is a threat, whereas in here, Pythagoras isn't.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 06:26 PM

Hi Apologianick,

I'm remembering that scene from Final Fantasy VI now with Terra, Edgar, and Locke leaving Figaro castle and getting chased by the Magitek armor. Terra uses magic for the first time and while this battle is going on, all the good guys just stop fighting and have small chat.

Only difference is that in Final Fantasy VI, magitek armor is a threat, whereas in here, Pythagoras isn't.

Even with one hand tied behind my back I'm able to punish trinitarians.

Say, why do trinitarians have an affinity for fairy tales?

Lol.

Pythagoras

November 9th 2005, 06:34 PM

P.S. I'm still waiting for trinitarians to deliver: How did I "mis-quote" Gregory of Nyssa.

good luck,

apostoli

November 9th 2005, 08:09 PM

I was explaining a quote by Irenaeus to Vfarris, where he said:

"He [the Father] commanded, and they were created", Irenaeus asks "Whom, therefore, did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom the heavens were established" (AH3, VIII.3). That is not sabellianism. Sabellianism is modalism which would mean there is not a Father and Son/word existing at the same time. My point about God doing it alone is that I am speaking of God as the triune being YHWH.This is where we differ in understanding: specifically, to me, the direct scriptural witness is YHWH is the name of the God whom Jesus came to declare=the Father. To you, this may seem like JW spaek but where I differ to say a JW is I do not perceive the Son of God as one of God's creations, but he who was begotten of God before and beyond all ages.

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and they all worked in creation, then GOD (the trinune being) did it all alone. If they were separate entities (Jesus was ANOTHER "god") then YHWH could not claim to have done it ALONE, since John 1:3 says that the word created everything.
Again we have a difference of understanding: I don't perceive Jesus as another "god". I do acknowledge him as truely God, God from God, the Son of God with the same mind, will and majesty as the Father. Is he another entity? Well in a general sense person=entity but consider what A.Paul had to say about there being many persons in the church, but there is only one body.

Again, modalism could not claim that all three raised him from the dead. since all three persons of the Godhead do not exist at the same time. The bible does claim that each person of the Godhead did raise Jesus. This can only happen in a Trinity.A.Paul regularly tells us it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. Romans comes to mind: contemplate vs1:1-4 with 8:9-11;28-29. Here A.Paul differentiates between God, Jesus and the Spirit and shows their unity, but only one of those identified raised Jesus from the dead.

Each person is fully God in nature. This might be a Protestant/Orthodox terminology difference.Essence/Nature same thing basically. So no difference.

Each person in the trinity has all the nature and attributes of YHWH. They are not each 1/3 God.This may be the divide between Protestant & Orthodox view. Scripturally the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (Jn 17:21) and the Son receives all fullness from the Father (Col 1:19). There is a difference between attribute and nature. There are some attributes that the Father and Son don't share: for instance the Father cannot be the Son and visa versa.

Sparko

November 9th 2005, 08:27 PM

This is where we differ in understanding: specifically, to me, the direct scriptural witness is YHWH is the name of the God whom Jesus came to declare=the Father. To you, this may seem like JW spaek but where I differ to say a JW is I do not perceive the Son of God as one of God's creations, but he who was begotten of God before and beyond all ages.

But reading the OT you can see that much of the time when YHWH was speaking, he was speaking as what he would do/had done as the Son. For instance, YHWH claims to be the only Savior, the only Rock, the one who will judge between the sheep and the goats. And in the new testament we see that it is Jesus who did/will do all that. We also have examples of theophanies of YHWH in the OT (the "memras") where God appears to men like Abraham in a body and interacts with men. I take these as appearances of the preincarnate Christ. ApologiaNick has some interesting information about "memras" - which is the Hebrew word for "Word/Command" which is exactly why John calls Jesus the "Word" of God.

So YHWH is when all three persons are being spoken of as the Godhead. That's what I beleive.

Again we have a difference of understanding: I don't perceive Jesus as another "god". I do acknowledge him as truely God, God from God, the Son of God with the same mind, will and majesty as the Father. Is he another entity? Well in a general sense person=entity but consider what A.Paul had to say about there being many persons in the church, but there is only one body.

A.Paul regularly tells us it was the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. Romans comes to mind: contemplate vs1:1-4 with 8:9-11;28-29. Here A.Paul differentiates between God, Jesus and the Spirit and shows their unity, but only one of those identified raised Jesus from the dead.

I don't want to go hunt the verses up again, but I quoted verses where each person of the trinity was claimed to have raised Jesus from the dead.

Essence/Nature same thing basically. So no difference.

OK

This may be the divide between Protestant & Orthodox view. Scripturally the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (Jn 17:21) and the Son receives all fullness from the Father (Col 1:19). There is a difference between attribute and nature. There are some attributes that the Father and Son don't share: for instance the Father cannot be the Son and visa versa.

Attributes to me are things like Omniscience, Goodness, Love, Justice, Holiness, etc. Not titles like Father and Son, nor personhood.

Well, thanks for explaining your views to me Apostoli and for discussing mine. I really enjoyed that. You mentioned Orthodox. Are you Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or ?

apostoli

November 9th 2005, 11:40 PM

Well, thanks for explaining your views to me Apostoli and for discussing mine. I really enjoyed that. You mentioned Orthodox. Are you Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or ?Ditto. These days I would call myself non-denominational. My background is RCC, but studying the ANF I have an appreciation for the opinions of the GOC.

But reading the OT you can see that much of the time when YHWH was speaking, he was speaking as what he would do/had done as the Son.Hmm. Yes and no. On another thread I received a response from a oneness believer who meets your and my opinion half way. He would suggest "The God of the OT is YHWH, and it is he who tabernacled in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the name of the flesh - the flesh did not pre-exist." Where you and I disagree with him, is you and I attribute pre-existence to the Son of God. My opinion is that Jesus truely the begotten of God, the very Son of God and is the one who has mediated between man and God throughout history. He is the one who wrestled with Jacob, the messenger of God etc. If you want, establish another thread and we can discuss in more detail.

For instance, YHWH claims to be the only Savior, the only Rock, the one who will judge between the sheep and the goats. And in the new testament we see that it is Jesus who did/will do all that.What you say is very true, but the NT witness is that these tasks have been appointed to the Lamb, and the Lamb has been invested with the power to judge etc by his Father.

We also have examples of theophanies of YHWH in the OT (the "memras") where God appears to men like Abraham in a body and interacts with men. I take these as appearances of the preincarnate Christ.So do I.

ApologiaNick has some interesting information about "memras" - which is the Hebrew word for "Word/Command" which is exactly why John calls Jesus the "Word" of God.I'll assume we are in accord here.

So YHWH is when all three persons are being spoken of as the Godhead. That's what I beleive.Directly I have a different understanding, but indirectly via the doctrine of the unity of the persons, I won't contradict you. My understanding of the NT, is that it teaches the fulfillment of the OT, God's plan for the reconciliation of man to himself. In that regard, the economy of salvation to the Father, through the Son and by/in the Holy Spirit is self evident (aka the Trinity). However, Jesus himself makes the whole purpose of his sacrifice, the reconciliation of man to his Father.

I don't want to go hunt the verses up again, but I quoted verses where each person of the trinity was claimed to have raised Jesus from the dead.I got out my Crudens Concordance this morning and looked up all the texts for raise, raise etc all say it was the Father that raised Jesus from the dead. A couple of verses that need some closer inspection: Rom 8:9-11 shows it is the "Spirit of God" and not "the Spirit" that raised Jesus from the dead. Rom 1:7-8, clearly shows that Paul's God is God our Father. John 2:10 could be construed that Jesus predicted that he himself would raise himself but there is no collaborating scriptures that I could find.

Attributes to me are things like Omniscience, Goodness, Love, Justice, Holiness, etc. Not titles like Father and Son, nor personhood.Son as q title, implies that the person has particular attributes not neccessarily shared eg: obedience to the Father.

alam

November 10th 2005, 04:55 AM

Cool!!! :cheers:

I must have misunderstood you way back when.

Hi Apostoli. Sorry for the delay. We discussed this last summer but I may not have been clear enough. The creation ex nihilo of the Logos was a radical teaching of Arius. Most other things he taught can be found in earlier writers. 'Ex-nihilo' was the point he really seems to have thought needed defending, even in a few words to his fellow-Lucianist, Eusebius of Nicomedia:

"We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being" (Epistle to Eusebius (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius1.htm)).

"But if the terms 'from Him,' and 'from the womb,' and 'I came forth from the Father, and I am come' (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28) be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the incorporeal God" (Epistle to Alexander (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius2.htm)).

It is noteworthy that Arius starts from beliefs he expects right-minded Christians share (e.g. God is alone 'Anarchos' and 'Agenetos'; He is indivisible and incorporeal, He is the cause of the Son's being), and only presents 'ex nihilo' as their logical outcome.

Most of the so-called Arians did not see it this way. They held (and I do) that the Son is generated from God Himself, but impassibly -- without any division or alteration in God. How is this possible? I think the typical answer would have been that God is immaterial, a spirit, and so we go wrong in trying to conceive of the generation in material or spatial terms.. Our own spoken word (logos) is produced from our inward reason (logos) without diminishing from it.. although that analogy can easily get out of hand, since the Son is a real person.

There could have also been a problem due to Platonism where the "non-existent" (to mh on) was held to be a low-grade something out of which all else was fashioned. To affirm creation ex-nihilo of the Logos would not only mean that he was not out of God, but might have been taken that he was out of something else. I do not think this is what Arius meant, but it could have been a factor in the rejection of his terms

"For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Un-begun, the Father of Christ, is One" (Fifth Arian Confession, Article 1 (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/5arcon.htm)).

Back then I referred to the following link. Just for clarification: How do you feel about the statement that follows?
A Definition and Exposition of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Faith
According to the Ecumenical Symbol.
http://celticchristianity.org/library/horosm.html

3. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten [Born] of the Father before all ages, (God of God), Light of Light,

This is true.

True God of True God;

John 17:3 gives me pause on this one.

begotten [born] not made,

If this means "not made as anything else was made," then yes. If meant to exclude any idea of creation at all, well, there is Prov. 8:22; Sirach 1:4, Colossians 1:15, Heb. 3:2.

consubstantial (or of one essence) with the Father;

Under some interpretation yes, but not under most. If the "ousia" is simply the universal of the Godhead it seems that anyone could say the Father and the Son are consubstantial by defining 'substance' with reference to what They have in common (which is quite a lot--the divine activity, John 5:19), while referring what is not held in common to the difference of hypostases.

Who with the Father and the Most Holy Spirit is One God according to His Eternal and Uncreate and unparticipatible essence, but that in this Most Holy Trinity there are not Three Gods, but One God in Three Hypostases; Who, in His Eternal and Uncreate Hypostasis, being Only-Begotten from His Unbegotten Father before all ages, times, places, and before the creation of all that is visible and invisible -- including all times and spaces -- is truly Begotten eternally from the Father, eternally and ineffably, and is therefore consubstantial, or of one and the same identical essence with Him, since like cannot beget unlike; Who being thus begotten from and consubstantial with the Father possesseth and is in His Person and Hypostasis all the fulness of all deity and godhead(qeoths) and all the infinite and limitless perfections of the infinite and uncreate and divine and eternal energies, without division or diminution or distribution or partition of the divine and more-than-essential essence, and without confusion of His Person, or the hypostastic characteristic(upostatikh idioths) of Begottenness and Generation-from-the-Father, with the Father (Who alone in the Most Holy, Consubstantial, Indivisible and Tri-Hypostatic Trinity is Unoriginate and Without- Source or -Origin or -Cause), or with the Most Holy and Life-giving Spirit(Who alone in the Most Holy Trinity Proceedeth from the Father);

There may be an interpretation that makes all these statements true. You know that I am not so averse to the eastern form of trinitarianism, since they confess that the Father alone is 'Arche Anarchos'. But my thinking remains this:

I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always believed thus, and in this sole and true faith I make the passage unto my Lord:

I believe that there is one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, framer and maker of all creation, not having [any] like unto him (for which reason there is one God the Father of all, who is also the God of our God), and [in] one Holy Ghost, an illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ says after the resurrection to his apostles: "behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be indued with power from on high" (Luke xxiv. 49); and again, "ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Ghost" (Acts i. 8)--neither God nor Lord but faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient to the Son in all things, and the Son subject and obedient in all things to his God the Father.

God bless,

John from Ebla

November 10th 2005, 05:05 AM

Hi Apostoli. Sorry for the delay. We discussed this last summer but I may not have been clear enough. The creation ex nihilo of the Logos was a radical teaching of Arius. Most other things he taught can be found in earlier writers. 'Ex-nihilo' was the point he really seems to have thought needed defending, even in a few words to his fellow-Lucianist, Eusebius of Nicomedia:

"We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being" (Epistle to Eusebius (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius1.htm)).

"But if the terms 'from Him,' and 'from the womb,' and 'I came forth from the Father, and I am come' (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28) be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the incorporeal God" (Epistle to Alexander (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/arius2.htm)).

It is noteworthy that Arius starts from beliefs he expects right-minded Christians share (e.g. God is alone 'Anarchos' and 'Agenetos'; He is indivisible and incorporeal, He is the cause of the Son's being), and only presents 'ex nihilo' as their logical outcome.

Most of the so-called Arians did not see it this way. They held (and I do) that the Son is generated from God Himself, but impassibly -- without any division or alteration in God. How is this possible? I think the typical answer would have been that God is immaterial, a spirit, and so we go wrong in trying to conceive of the generation in material or spatial terms.. Our own spoken word (logos) is produced from our inward reason (logos) without diminishing from it.. though that analogy can easily get out of hand, since the Son is a real person.

There might also have been a problem due to Platonism where the "non-existent" (to mh on) was held to be a low-grade something out of which all else was fashioned. To affirm creation ex-nihilo of the Logos would not only mean that he was not out of God, but might have been taken to mean that he was out of something else. I do not think this is what Arius meant, but it could have been a factor in the rejection of his terms

"For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Un-begun, the Father of Christ, is One" (Fifth Arian Confession, Article 1 (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/arians/5arcon.htm)).

This is true.

John 17:3 gives me pause on this one.

If this means "not made as anything else was made," then yes. If meant to exclude any idea of creation at all, well, there is Prov. 8:22; Sirach 1:4, Colossians 1:15, Heb. 3:2.

Under some interpretation yes, but not under most. If the "ousia" is simply the universal of the Godhead it seems that anyone could say the Father and the Son are consubstantial by defining 'substance' with reference to what They have in common (which is quite a lot--the divine activity, John 5:19), while referring what is not held in common to the difference of hypostases.

There may be an interpretation that makes all these statements true. You know that I am not so averse to the eastern form of trinitarianism, since they confess that the Father alone is 'Arche Anarchos'. But my thinking remains this:

I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always believed thus, and in this sole and true faith I make the passage unto my Lord:

I believe that there is one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, framer and maker of all creation, not having [any] like unto him (for which reason there is one God the Father of all, who is also the God of our God), and [in] one Holy Ghost, an illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ says after the resurrection to his apostles: "behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be indued with power from on high" (Luke xxiv. 49); and again, "ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Ghost" (Acts i. 8)--neither God nor Lord but faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient to the Son in all things, and the Son subject and obedient in all things to his God the Father.

God bless,

" Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4 It does not say God your Lord is One God

It is telling you there is only one LORD as does Paul 1Cor 8:6 One God and One Lord

Father and Son are God (The word was God)

Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

alam

November 10th 2005, 05:32 AM

" Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4 It does not say God your Lord is One God

It is telling you there is only one LORD as does Paul 1Cor 8:6 One God and One Lord

Father and Son are God (The word was God)

Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

God is One because the Father is One.

I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One.

There are not two Gods because the personal principle, the Father, is One.

Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only(1), the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.

"Two Gods" for the church fathers does not mean multiple beings who are called "God", otherwise the Bible itself is polytheistic (Psa. 82:1). It means two principles of deity. This is why they condemned Marcion for teaching two Gods, but not Justin Martyr for teaching,

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."
....
Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who 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 [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm]

Read and understand his argument with Trypho the Jew if you would know the mind of the ancient church.

John from Ebla

November 10th 2005, 05:57 AM

God is One because the Father is One.

I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One.

There are not two Gods because the personal principle, the Father, is One.

Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only(1), the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.

"Two Gods" for the church fathers does not mean multiple beings who are called "God", otherwise the Bible itself is polytheistic (Psa. 82:1). It means two principles of deity. This is why they condemned Marcion for teaching two Gods, but not Justin Martyr for teaching,

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."
....
Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who 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 [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm]

Read and understand his argument with Trypho the Jew if you would know the mind of the ancient church.

Why are you a coward?

Answer the question
Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.

Kind Regards
john From Ebla

Shadow Phoenix

November 10th 2005, 12:31 PM

Hi Apologianick,

Even with one hand tied behind my back I'm able to punish trinitarians.

Say, why do trinitarians have an affinity for fairy tales?

Lol.

Wow. Now that is a real fairy tale! Py. You could have 50 hands and not be able to defeat us. Now how did you misquote Gregory of Nyssa? IT'S IN THE POST!

Sorry Py. If anyone has fairy tales, it's you with your belief that you actually threaten us.

Pythagoras

November 10th 2005, 02:50 PM

Hi Rayado, Sparkey and Apologianick,

Rayado:

This is my second request. Do you agree with Gregory of Nyssa when he says the following:

"...Thus there are many who have shared in the nature-- many disciples, say, or apostles,or martyrs-- but the man in them is one; since, as has been said, the term "man" does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common."

Sparkey and Apologianick:

Now how did you misquote Gregory of Nyssa? IT'S IN THE POST!

There is no mis-quote. You're making a false accusation. Read my post. 229 if you're not satisfied.

Let's get back on track. Do you agree with Gregory Nyssa's above comment which I quote? Yes or No? Second request.

Good luck to all three trinitarians,

Pythagoras

November 10th 2005, 03:56 PM

Hi John from Ebla and trinitarians in general ,

John from Ebla:

" Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4 It does not say God your Lord is One God

It is telling you there is only one LORD as does Paul 1Cor 8:6 One God and One Lord

Father and Son are God (The word was God)

Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

You're arguing modalism,assuming your argument is true ; one person, three modes -- body, soul and spirit.

Are you a Sabelliast? Gregory of Nyssa, a trinitarian would argue otherwise. He would say God is like three men, Peter, James and John but yet one. He would say three men are not really three but one because they are all human, or share the same human nature. (But in my opinion this is a ridiculous argument and all clear thinking people must reject it.)

Trinitarians in general:

Say trinitarians, no offense intended, but to believe God is three Gods yet one (and to believe God is a man at that) strains credulity and is even more ridiculous than believing in elf , goblin , easter bunny, santa clause and the like. Again no offense but I've noticed trinitarians gravitate towards such cartoons. I've often asked myself why? Take that JB Holding fella for instance, he's far gone in this regard ! I believe the deeper one falls into trinitarianism, the greater their propensity for fairy tales.

Please wake up and smell the coffee my trinitarian friends. God is one, not three in One.

best wishes,

alam

November 10th 2005, 05:08 PM

Why are you a coward?

Answer the question
Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.

Kind Regards
john From Ebla

I have answered enough of your questions and never an intelligent response from you JFE. It is a free country and you are welcome to your Sabellian delusions, but I do not share them, and with God's help, never will.

For your reference and that of others, here is a partial listing of unanswered or half-answered responses to your cavils about the principle of agency (10 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1213141&postcount=10), 192 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235539&postcount=192)), your translation of Hebrews 9:14 (74 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74)); your claims about the Wisdom tradition (41 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1219901&postcount=41)), about how many saviors there are/can be (111 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1226874&postcount=111), 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)); about the "form of God" and the meaning of "one spirit" (185 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235516&postcount=185)), divine titles in general (70 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222091&postcount=70); 92 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224144&postcount=92)), about John 1 (122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)), Colossians 1:15 (244 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1242970&postcount=244)), and the generation and eternal fatherhood (150 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251810&postcount=150); 164 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252780&postcount=164); 172 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252891&postcount=172)) among many others.

apostoli

November 10th 2005, 08:26 PM

Hi alam,

Why are you a coward? Answer the question
Do you have a body, soul, and spirit alam? You are created in the image of the One that made you.I have answered enough of your questions and never an intelligent response from you JFE. It is a free country and you are welcome to your Sabellian delusions, but I do not share them, and with God's help, never will.

For your reference and that of others, here is a partial listing of unanswered or half-answered responses to your cavils about the principle of agency (10 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1213141&postcount=10), 192 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235539&postcount=192)), your translation of Hebrews 9:14 (74 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222133&postcount=74)); your claims about the Wisdom tradition (41 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1219901&postcount=41)), about how many saviors there are/can be (111 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1226874&postcount=111), 122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)); about the "form of God" and the meaning of "one spirit" (185 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1235516&postcount=185)), divine titles in general (70 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1222091&postcount=70); 92 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1224144&postcount=92)), about John 1 (122 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227648&postcount=122)), Colossians 1:15 (244 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1242970&postcount=244)), and the generation and eternal fatherhood (150 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1251810&postcount=150); 164 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252780&postcount=164); 172 (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1252891&postcount=172)) among many others.I don't think John From Elber is suffering from Sabellian delusions, far worse. I think he is into the Book of Urantia. Have a browse at the link below...
http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html#PARTI

Read back through my conversation with him on the thread "Why is the trinity important?" and the contradictions in his answers begin to add up. Not to mention why he never answers anybody's questions...

JFE is fond of reciting a litany he calls the "eternal spirit". So I typed that in google and came across "the Book of Urantia" here is a quote...
http://www.truthbook.com/UrantiaBook/U6.htm

"When a Son of the Eternal Son appeared on Urantia [=Earth], those who fraternized with this divine being in human form alluded to him as "He who was from the beginning, whom we have heard, whom we have seen with our eyes, whom we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, even the Word of life." And this bestowal Son came forth from the Father just as truly as did the Original Son, as is suggested in one of his earthly prayers: "And now, O my Father, glorify me with your own self, with the glory which I had with you before this world was." The Eternal Son is known by different names in various universes. In the central universe he is known as the Co-ordinate Source, the Cocreator, and the Associate Absolute. On Uversa, the headquarters of the superuniverse, we designate the Son as the Co-ordinate Spirit Center and as the Eternal Spirit Administrator. On Salvington, the headquarters of your local universe, this Son is of record as the Second Eternal Source and Center. The Melchizedeks speak of him as the Son of Sons. On your world, but not in your system of inhabited spheres, this Original Son has been confused with a co-ordinate Creator Son, Michael of Nebadon, who bestowed himself upon the mortal races of Urantia. Although any of the Paradise Sons may fittingly be called Sons of God, we are in the habit of reserving the designation "the Eternal Son" for this Original Son, the Second Source and Center, cocreator with the Universal Father of the central universe of power and perfection and cocreator of all other divine Sons who spring from the infinite Deities. The Eternal Son is just as changeless and infinitely dependable as the Universal Father. He is also just as spiritual as the Father, just as truly an unlimited spirit. To you of lowly origin the Son would appear to be more personal since he is one step nearer you in approachability than is the Universal Father. The Eternal Son is the eternal Word of God. He is wholly like the Father; in fact, the Eternal Son is God the Father personally manifest to the universe of universes. And thus it was and is and forever will be true of the Eternal Son and of all the co-ordinate Creator Sons: "He who has seen the Son has seen the Father."

ps:
Martin Gardner is skeptical of the UBF's claims. He believes the UB has very real human authors. Originally, he says, the UB was the "Bible" of a cult of separatist Seventh Day Adventists, allegedly channeled by Wilfred Kellogg and edited by founder William Sadler, a Chicago psychiatrist. According to Gardner, in addition to an array of bizarre claims about planets and names of angels, etc., the Urantia Book contains many Adventist doctrines.
http://skepdic.com/urantia.html