Cos
-
Posts
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Cos
-
-
The apostle Paul confirms for us that the Holy Spirit is a real Person by declaring that the Holy Spirit possesses a mind (Romans 8:27).
“But He that searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is...”
The Greek word in this verse translated “mind” is φρονημα (phronéma). The word appears 4 times in the NT, and in these other 3 passages (all in Romans 8) the word is only applied to persons.
Let’s take a look at what some dictionaries and Lexicons have to say about and how they define “phronéma”.
Abbot-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT; “ φρόνημα, -τος, τό that which is in the mind, the thought: Rom 8:6-7; Rom 8:27.”
E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek Testament; “φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels; hence, mind, thought, feeling, will; knowledge or wisdom, as being the product of the mind”
Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
“φρόνημα phronēma frame of thought, will, aspirations”
A Manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament has;
“φρόνημα that which is in the mind, the thought”
Hastings New Testament Dictionary, phronema denotes “thoughts and purposes”.
Vines Dictionary; Noun,5427,phronema denotes "what one has in the mind, the thought" (the content of the process expressed in phroneo, "to have in mind, to think"); or "an object of thought…"
Dodson Greek-English Lexicon; “ φρόνημα, ατος, τό Noun, Neuter thought, purpose”
Strong’s Greek Dictionary
φρόνημα phronēma, fron'-ay-mah
From 5427 (mental) inclination or purpose:--(be, + be carnally, + be spiritually) mind(-ed).
THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON 5427: φρόνημα
φρόνημα, φρονηματος, τό (φρονέω, which see), what one has in mind, the thoughts and purposes (A. V. mind): Romans 8:6f, 27. (Hesychius φρόνημα. βούλημα, θέλημα. In various other senses also from Aeschylus down.)Strong's Electronic Concordance; phronéma: the thought (that which is in the mind)
Original Word: φρόνημα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: phronéma
Phonetic Spelling: (fron'-ay-mah)
Short Definition: thought, purpose
Definition: thought, purpose, aspirations.NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin from phroneó
Definition the thought (that which is in the mind)
Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament.
“φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels;' hence, mind, thought.”
Samuel G. Green Vocabulary definition in, “Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, has, “φρονημα, thought, regard”
W. J. HICKIE, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament,
“φρόνημα τό, thought, mind.”
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, " way of thinking, mind(-set), aim, aspiration, striving.”
The Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures has “minding” as the translation for phronéma at Romans 8:27.
All other Interlinear I consulted all had “mind” as the translation of phronéma.
Interesting how the Watchtower tries to cover how the word phronéma is understood in the NWT. In Romans 8:6-7 the NWT has the word “minding” at the other three places where phronéma appears but not in Romans 8:27, note how the word in Romans 8:6-7 clearly indicates the mindfulness or thought patterns of persons; worldly (fleshly) ones in contrast to those persons who are near to God.
We also note in Romans 8:27 that there is a distinction between the first Person “who searches the hearts” and “knows” the thoughts of this other Person who in turn is pleading on behalf of the saints. <><
-
On 1/24/2018 at 8:59 PM, Space Merchant said:
Yes I read your apology and I have already accepted it. I only summarized what you have stated in pervious comments, as well as calling Unitarianism identical to Arianism, which is not because last I checked, we don’t pray directly to Jesus, nor do we worship Jesus, ignoring the Father as if he not there or nothing at all, that is absurd and it is basically disrespecting God nor could you equal that we follow Arian doctrine, I’ll give you a hint, non-trinitarianism doesn’t make one an Arian, for even those who believe that God, the Son and the Spirit are separate don’t follow what the Arians today do. We don’t disrespect God neither should any of us disrespect him in any way shape or form, which some Arians today still do, Jesus worship, which is not something one should do.
You will love my next post then.
Stafford had since been an ex-jw years ago, this isn’t something new. He did start small group, but it wasn’t with JWs, however he has fallen under the radar for quite some time, but did acknowledge that he still speaks to JWs, as well as ExJWs, and other groups, believe it or not if you manage to find any of his blogs, for people brought them up via neutral Christian forums, he still uses the Watchtower/Awake magazines, so if he continued since his departure to make use of them, obviously he, as do other, tend to low-key use said magazines just to get in a bit of information either for themselves, or for their own gain, others have used said magazines of various religious groups, including JWs for other means, Thailand being an example.
All in all, I do fancy watching debates for it is something I taken great interest in since for several years now and since it is universal, it involves ALL people from faiths to speak up. The I find Greg Stafford interesting because he is the only Jehovah’s Witness at the time that was known to get into these debates, which in quite rare and very interesting at the same time. As for James White, not many Christians like him as much, and usually watches to take note of what he says to prove him wrong, others have taken key elements of what Mr. White claims and corrects for that, even the great Anthony Buzzard refutes several claims of both James White and Rob Bowman, if you look up the aftermath of what him and Rob been through, it is quite an interesting read with even commenter getting in on the mix.
No it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus, you really going to base accept a scripture “as Is” without research? For a guy who is against Arians/or Arianism, you must know what the Arians were targeted for: religious devotion and worship to Jesus, an act that is not something a Christian should do, unless they are an Arian, of course.
No, the different sense is that Angels were the ones paying homage, worship and or obeisance to Jesus, for God has exalted him, making him above the Angels, seating Jesus at his right hand, for God has commanded this and God has says so. The other is the fact is that for us as people, human beings, we show exclusive religious worship to the True God, not to Jesus, for worshipping Jesus over YHWH is Arianism and takes away worship from God the Father, that. Previously, you assume that I met people themselves exclusively worshipping to Jesus, when I stated again I was referring to the Angels in that verse alone, Hebrews 1:6. As for the exjw Stafford he answered it correctly in his debate with James White, God has commanded the Angels to worship and or show homage to Jesus whereas James White have believed JWs would take issue to that verse, but Stafford made it very clear for him. Nowhere in scripture did God say give exclusive and or devoted worship to Jesus. God has not changed; we shouldn’t assume he has change, to assume such is being unreasonable as a Christian.
Let’s go back to Hebrews 1:6:
God commanded his Angels to worship and obeisance (also meaning homage, honor, reverence, adoration, etc) /obeisance to Jesus, not exclusive devotion obviously because true religious worship is devoted to God and He alone. God doesn’t change his mind and tell angels to switch over all devoted worship from him to Jesus that would just be absurd to even thing, especially in terms of God the Father who has through his Word made all things come into existence.
As for the verse you mentioned, Luke 24:52, the disciples merely bowed down in honor/reverence/obeisance/etc to Jesus Christ, nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship, knowing who his Father is, the true God, Our God, because devoted worship to such, be it a god(s) (man, person, idol, etc) it is a sin, idolatry and to the Triune guys out there, it is Arian. We clearly see many, many examples of this in scripture, and we also see many examples of people showing honor/obeisance/reverence/worship/whatever to others in the bible that IS NOT exclusive worship.
As for Jesus, in scripture it is said that Jesus was a born king (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:32, Luke 1:31, 32, etc.), even one of his disciples exclaimed this, Nathanael, in John 1:49. Reasons being on how the people treated those with such status, Kings in those ancient times, an example
never commanded us as human beings to do such in regards of Jesus, thus if one did so, are pretty much doing something that God has not commanded them to do and also doing what the Arians today do. However, Jesus was indeed a born King, and Kings are honored as such, hence his title “born king of Israel”.
To literally think Luke 24:52 was an act of complete devotion to Lord Jesus Christ, just proves that you need to look into scripture more, the very words in that verse also applies to how the Shema is interpreted, each word in this same verse have Strong’s numbers, including “worship” that points back to “proskyneō” (in the Septuagint G4352), meaning:
To kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication.
The Hebrew version of that being שָׁחָה (shachah/hish·ta·chawah Strong’s #7812) which means: To pay homage to another one by bowing low or getting on the knees with the face to the ground. The act literal to bow, and so it can also be used of one man bowing to another, as well as an act to show honor, reverence, obeisance, worship, etc.
On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship”) are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both shachah/hish·ta·chawah and proskyenō.
The Greek word proskyenō and its root Hebrew word shachah were clearly understood by ancient times. proskyenō was the Greek word the ancient Jews used to translate the Hebrew word shachah in their Greek translation of the Hebraic scriptures known as the “Septuagint” a century or two before the birth of in Bethlehem. This Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek is important because it shows how ancient Jews before Christ understood the word proskyneō. Their uses of the word proskyneō plainly shows how some people today, people like James White, are falsely claiming that this word referred to an act one should only do toward the God of Israel. Keep in mind that the word in “proskyenō” was also translating as "worship" in the New Testament.
This word is translated by scholars of old and the now in two main ways “to bow down/before”, and or “worship”. Both are used below in example to clearly show how much of a serious, and yet confusing problem with how people view this word.
This is because David and Solomon sat on the throne of God, 1 Ch. 29:23. They were anointed to exercise God's authority over all of Israel just as the resurrected man, Jesus, was anointed to be exalted above the angels, Hebrew 1:9. It should be very clear to any reasonable person that the Greek word proskyneō was used to bow down in submission to any higher authority, hence reverence/honor/obeisance.
We also see the word used again in Revelation 3:9b, whereas Jesus uses the word proskyneo to refer to Jews worshiping Christians, in this case, Jews worshiping the Philadelphian Christians: “I will make them come and bow down (proskyneō) before your feet.”
The wealth of scriptural proof to show people that one that the word proskyneō was not restricted to "worship" of God, but in the end, people tend to ignore true facts and continue to speak of what they’ve been told when not really going in depth of what the word proskyneō really means.
As stated before, yes, the word has a different sense, and it means the same as other words as to bow down, show honor, etc, even worship. But one reader would have to see for themselves that there is a difference in worshiping terms of showing honor to Kings and or certain persons, and showing devoted, religious worship to the one God who is true, the God of Israel.
That being said, a smart Christian would know this: Not to have Jesus take the place of God in terms of devoted act(s) of Worship. And biblically, you see how God reacted.
For the Bible tells us that our worship in the sense of religious reverence and complete devotion must be addressed solely to God, and He alone. Moses said it himself, “a God exacting exclusive devotion.” The Bible makes it clear to us to “worship” the One has created everything, Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:7.
When you get the chance, look into the connected verse to Luke 24:52 is Acts 1:9, the full account could be read in the book of Acts 1:9-26, including what took place after Jesus had ascended, and or “lifted up and a cloud caught him up in their sight”.
Actually it was from a Christian form. This user was referring to bible translations that use obeisance, homage, honor, etc. I took part of his comment to post it. I am a user on another Christian form whereas everyone is pretty neutral and cool based on discussion and bible findings, and in looking for other translations that uses the rendering of proskyneō, as well as finding other bibles that also use a rendered word that also means the same thing (the ones marked in red in previous post). That being said The CSE community is a treasure trove of information, reasons why I use it for the specific word, proskyneō and its renderings.
As for Irenaeus
Irenaeus’ Belief
We know that on one hand Irenaeus repeatedly insists the Father alone is the “one” and “only true” God. In Trinitarian theology, this does not work since the Father alone is “not” the only true God. The Father is true God along with the Son and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Irenaeus does not mind telling us that God’s Son Jesus can be referred to as deity; however, he says that the scriptures also call Christians "God”. Irenaeus does not believe that the Son is "God" by identity, but is deity/divine by virtue of his divine origins in the Father as the Logos (The Word). Being "of" the Deity, The Word is deity. Some people see "God" to be a three person being, in Irenaeus’ case, he sees his God to be a “one” person, “one” being, out of whom came the Son, and therefore, Jesus is deity of the Supreme Deity, the only one true God and this God is the Father alone and the divinity of the Son is simply a derivative of the Father who is the Deity, therefore, for this reason only the Heavenly Father is the one true God.
For Irenaeus, Jesus can be called "God or god (Deity or deity)" but only in the sense that he derives his power and incorruptible deity from the One and Only True God, the Father, and as such he is the Word of God, a manifestation of God, but is not himself, “The One and True God". Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his Christians brothers in those ancient times that Jesus is deity of The Deity, and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Irenaeus, along with all the early Christian witnesses, reveal that the early church of the first 250 years was most definitely not a church who worshiped a 3 in 1 God.
Against Heresies
In his work, Against Heresies, it is recognized that he was writing against Gnostic like groups of various kinds, who had turned away from the teachings Orthodox Christian Church.
Irenaeus claims against them were that they did not follow the teachings handed down by the Apostles and the scriptures, resulting in many groups, Sects, with bizarre beliefs. They use scriptures used by Christians, however, Irenaeus wasn’t writing against men who have heretical views that sound somewhat Christian. These are extreme heretical movements that claim to have the true knowledge of Christianity by taking in numerous concepts with Christian belief. He is not debating his points against other Christians who have went astray, but men who are completely distorting Christian beliefs and merging them with various forms of Gnostic-Platonic philosophy and or that of non Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, as a means of forming their own unique religions.
This work of Irenaeus is very important to a solid understanding of the identity of God for two reasons.
First, Irenaeus is defending the apostolic traditions of the church. Second, the Gnostics preached other gods and Irenaeus must argue, even considering it a Christian heresy, for Irenaeus knew who the true identity of the One and Only Christian God and will do anything it takes to defend this truth.
His main defense and offense:
(1) The Church follows the teachings handed down by the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which includes their Scriptures, and follows them without contradictions and does not fall victim to wild and outlandish speculations.
(2) The Church has this universally accepted belief concerning God and Christ handed down from the Apostles (Apostolic Age), which he himself holds, and is defending, and by which he is also refuting the deceptions of these men who are competing as a power against the Christian church. And if, anyone was not given over to a growing Platonism in the church, it was Irenaeus. He is no philosopher and simply takes the scriptures as they are without delving into deeper questions. And in fact, one of Irenaeus' main themes in this work, is to establish the identity of the one and only true God which he repeatedly insists is the Father alone, through reasoning from the scriptures. The mass of overwhelming evidence Irenaeus leaves us for the early church's true belief concerning God is certainly decisive.
John, proclaiming One God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made.... But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, he, namely, the only-begotten Son of the Only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men. (I,9,2).
What I find interesting is you probably didn’t know the actual name of the chapter in book 3. The actual title of said chapter is
“Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin.”
You have cut up into pieces of what the chapter is trying to tell the reader, allow me to post what is says:
But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son shall make
The full paragraph to “Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19”, 2. It would seem you only picked a “portion” of it and highlighted that one part of the paragraph, not realizing what Irenaeus had said before in the previous paragraph before I post it, I will show you exactly where you took that part from in full:
For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?” since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He [Jesus] is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 2)
Now for what was said before the, previously to the above information, we see what Irenaeus at the time believed about Jesus being The Word and the Son of God:
To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: “I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men.”He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19, 1)
We see here again in Chapter 4, of which you only pulled a portion of said paragraph, not realizing, once again, what Irenaeus was talking about, allow me to post that paragraph so you can see for yourself. Also with all due respect, Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person (said spirit has no personality whatsoever), however, never once did he claim that it was God, or that it, the Son and the Father are “selfsame” (remember this word for what you will see later) in this specific paragraph, as you claim:
Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them." For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time, ] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject. Vain, therefore, ark those who, because of that declaration, "No man knoweth the Father, but the Son," do introduce another unknown Father. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7, p.4)
Irenaeus establishes in Chapter 20 that the Holy Spirit, that is his Wisdom, was God's power that was used to create man and all things, for he made all things through both the word and wisdom, nowhere in Chapter 20 did he establish, specifically, the Holy Spirit was an “Eternal Person”. In attention, the title of Chapter 20 even states: That One God Formed All Things in the World, by Means of the Word and the Holy Spirit, you can find that out in your bible as well, if you really look that is, anyways to the paragraph you seem to misinterpret:
As regards His greatness, therefore, it is not possible to know God, for it is impossible that the Father can be measured; but as regards His love (for this it is which leads us to God by His Word), when we obey Him, we do always learn that there is so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established, and selected, and adorned, and contains all things; and among the all things, both ourselves and this our world. We also then were made, along with those things which are contained by Him. And this is He of whom the Scripture says, "And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life." It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world. - (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20, 1).
You sure about that? I say “no” to that. And some didn’t claim it, Irenaeus wrote it himself. You just choose to ignore it.
Check this out: In this, Irenaeus speaks a common voice with all his early Christians brethren, Jesus is deity [god] of The Deity [God], and the only true Deity was the Supreme God, the Father. Also he refer to Christian(s) as “God(s)”, does that make “us” begotten Gods? Not really. You have to understand how the people spoke back then and not just jump to a conclusion and or “accept as is”, do the research.
As for the other part of your comment, not quite, Ireaneus made it clear as to who Jesus is, and who God is throughout his books he speaks of both and uses Deity and deity as well as God and god, in one of his writings he even referred to Christian(s) and I quote “which is begotten of God is God”, hence Christian(s) are God(s), when in truth, regarding to what he really met in his books that all sons of God are gods and or godlike (regarding Angels), even God said it himself, Psalm 82:6, said that his followers (as well as the angels) are gods it is also within the Law of the Jews as Jesus spoke of in John 10:34, 35, as well as Paul also mentioning “many gods and many lords in heaven or on earth”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Ireaneus isn’t a fool and if one understands or even read his books, they would know exactly what he met. Ireaneus wouldn’t be foolish for literal think that Jesus, Christian men and women, angels are literal Gods that are equal to the Father, which is absurd, in addition, it would put all of his work into contradiction and make him no different than the ones he is against. Read his work and you will get a BETTER understanding. Any Christian knows what “Begotten” means in terms of a Parent to a child (Abraham to Isaac, Hebrew 11:17) In addition to that, throughout his books when he speaks of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, he references them time and time again “The Word and The Wisdom” of God, he also referred to Jesus as The Son of God. Just because he refers to Jesus as such, then you would also have to take into account as to what he says on others. Plus if Ireaneus truly believed Jesus was fully “God”, you would have mentioned that, but you didn’t because, it is unfounded. Bene Elohim/Benai Ha Elohim (Son(s) of God) have a meaning, it isn’t hard to learn/look this up via studying the bible.
So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God.* And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 47)
[* ftn.] [178](I, i. 18: to gar ek theou gennethen theos estin.) For Irenaeus, as is evidenced throughout his writings, this is also true of Christians who are also begotten of God. [178]
Also I suggest you start reading his books a little more.
You are taking the paragraph in chapter 5 out of context (why mention book 4 if it is not found there), in addition, it doesn’t prove anything about the Trinity, as you claim. This is the full paragraph:
God, then, is one and the same, who rolls up the heaven as a scroll, and renews the face of the earth, who made the things of time. For man, so that coming to maturity in them, he may produce the fruit of immortality, and who, through His kindness, also gifts them eternal things, "that in the ages to come He may show the surpassing riches of His grace," who was announced by the law and the prophets, whom Christ confessed as His Father. Now He is the Creator, and He it is who is God over all, as Isaiah says, "I am witness, says the LORD God [YAHWEH], and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am. Before me there was no other God, neither shall be after me. I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour. I have proclaimed, and I have saved." And again, "I myself am the first God, and I am above things to come." For neither in an ambiguous, nor arrogant, nor boastful manner, does He say these things, but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He instructs men, through his Word, to know God. To those, therefore, who are ignorant of these matters, and on this account imagine that they have discovered another Father, justly does one say, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.".... He is the God of the living; and His Word is He who also spoke to Moses.... Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5, 2).
Reading it in full speaks volumes. Not to mention the actual title of Chapter 5 that says: The Author Returns to His Former Argument, and Shows that There Was But One God Announced by the Law and Prophets, Whom Christ Confesses as His Father, and Who, Through His Word, One Living God with Him, Made Himself Known to Men in Both Covenants.
Interestingly enough, the term “God of the Living” (“of the Living God”) is found in the bible (Hebrews 10:31; 12:22, Rev 7:2, Matthew 16:16, Jeremiah 10:10, Luke 20:38), in addition, everywhere it is used, it is referring to the Father.
If you were to read ahead from that paragraph that, it would most definitely destroy what the claim you just said here with minimum effort, shooting yourself in the foot, if you will. In addition, if you read carefully as to what paragraph 1 in the same chapter or anything from paragraph 3 to 5.
Also what you said “the name of God is applicable to both the Father and the Son” is unfounded. Why you may ask? Simple, for NO such thing was said in Chapter 5 in book 4.
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it…
(Read Psalms 110:1)
Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth (Read
(Psalm 45:6-7)
For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. - (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 6, 1)
Not sure if you actually read the title to Chapter 6 in book 3, you make it obvious, especially in regards to context. And Yes I agree with this statement, that God and Jesus, The Father and The Son, in this very chapter are spoken of as two different persons, and both identify as Lord, further proving that they are literally NOT one God (3 in 1). For it is God the Father who does the anointed, and the anointed one is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus acknowledged an anointing via prophecy in Isaiah 61:1 that is applied to himself, whereas the praise” LORD [YHWH] has anointed me” is appears. In Luke 4:18, Jesus states clearly that God has anointed him using his Spirit. You already agreed on that, hence your comment in regards to the actual statement above, but with ample evidence of them not literally being a 3-in-1 God, you would just ignore what the book even says.
That just tells me you “didn’t” read the full paragraph, this is what it really says about how the early church views God and his Son:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 1)
If you continue to read into the other paragraphs, it continues to put a strong emphasis on the faith and belief of the church and of its members. As it continues on to say in the next paragraph, just a single sentence: As I [Irenaeus] have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. - (Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, 2)
Now what is this preaching they received as well as their belief? “SHE” the church, believes in One God, The Father Almighty. “She” believes in One Christ Jesus, The Son of God and The Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the administrations of God.
Just take a look at the first few sentences of paragraph 1 in Chapter 10. I don’t see how you missed this, and I have no doubt in my mind if you read it from start to finish, you would disagree with Irenaeus on the spot.
Lastly, take a good look at this [Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father]. As to my pervious comment in Irenaeus’ other book, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, anyone can figure this out so there is no further need to go into detail, in addition, as I said before, you didn’t read the other portions of the same paragraph, let alone took the time to read the book, at least some of it (even though I hyperlinked in one of my comments aside from a basic Irenaeus’ quote).
You really missed many, many points when you don’t read the full paragraph, out of curiosity did you know exactly Irenaeus was talking about, let alone against, in this very paragraph? Just to give you a hint, that chapter 13 have nothing to do with God the Father or Jesus, he was speaking of Gnosticism (Their version of God and their verse of LOGOs, the word; their hersey) the title even states the following: The First Order of Production Maintained by the Heretics is Altogether Indefensible.
If that isn’t enough for you, this is what the chapter was referring to Gnosticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)
http://www.pfrs.org/gnosticism/Gnosticism01.pdf
You have taken Irenaeus’ words and his writings out of context, again, and didn’t really see what his real message is and that of the early church. You take bits and pieces from these parts the books, not realizing what the chapter is about or what was said before/after of which you posted. Irenaeus, who “fought heresies and defended the church”, makes it crystal clear of what he believes and what the Christians in his time, of the church, believed.
Quote: There is no doubt that Irenaeus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead and extended the term God (as theoi or elohim) to include the Son and those also of the adoption. We know without doubt that the Council of the Sons of God were the elohim (god/deity) (cf. also Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7; the Psalms and Rev. 4 and 5). Thus the adoption, by definition, had to include the loyal Host also (see below). He seems to indicate here that Christ gathered the elect, whereas we know from Scripture that it is God who gives the elect to Christ in order that they be gathered (Jn. 17:11-12; Heb. 2:13; 9:15). The exclusive use of the term to the physical elect may be incorrect given Irenaeus’ application here. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 and 5 – thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church and that this was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and on into the second and subsequent centuries.
It is clear that Irenaeus held that only God the Father was the true God of the Bible and he was creator of all others.
Really? I don’t think so. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies only contains “5 books” (Books I, II, III, IV, and V being the “final volume). Unless, you mean Book 4, Chapter 6, with its title being: Explanation of the words of Christ, "No man knows the Father, but the Son," etc.; which words the heretics misinterpret.
I already know what Book 3, chapter 1 and 6 says, since I already read it, I invite you to read it too, for context of course. Yes I had read it, in full. But apparently you didn't.
Nope. Irenaeus speaks for himself in his own writings. Plus I already made mention to it. It wasn't hard to miss, especially in his books.
I’m surprised you quoted from John Norman Davidson Kelly’s “Christian Doctrine”, a Patristic Scholar who is a Protestant. That being said, you missed what he said on the start of page 107, and what he continues on to say about Irenaeus’ belief in pages 108-110. In addition to that, he quoted Irenaeus, and from that quote, I already made comment to.
But going on with JND, do you believe that: The Father, the only God, is a single personage and that the Word, that is the Son and the Spirit that acts through.
What is interesting is that you didn’t get to the several remaining sentences of Chapter 25, let alone the context to what you quoted as to what the writer has stated after that.
Before we start on Tertullian, here is a brief bit of information about what he wrote pertaining to his wirings and what it is about: The book, Against Praxeas, is the main document written by Tertullian which illustrates his beliefs concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scholars strongly believe it was written after he became a Montanist (AD 210).
Now then, since you left out a bit of Chapter 25, I will continue it off from what you quoted” These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” It continues to read:
Continuing from what you quoted (what’s actual there, after said quote): I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that the Father, being the husbandman, John 15:1 must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son as in heaven, when, lifting up His eyes thereto, John 17:1 He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The mid portion of the same chapter continues to say:
John 17:11 We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son's distinction from the Father, My God, why have You forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 and again, (in the third Gospel,) Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit. Luke 23:46 But even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His resurrection and glorious victory over death. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
Now that all the restraint of His humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not from curiosity, nor with Thomas' incredulity. But not so; Jesus says unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
The final portions of that SAME chapter:
Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? John 20:31 Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 25)
So we know that Tertullian didn’t believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity or Triad as he calls in other writings, were All 3 as One God. We see in chapter 25, he is pointing out that the 3 are separate and distinct essence, quote: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete (meaning Holy Spirit; Comforter/Helper), produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” So in short, Tertullian knows that the Father, God, is one, Jesus being the Son, is also one, and the Holy Spirit is one, for he describes the Holy Spirit in the opening of chapter 25 that the “there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. Referencing John 14:16 at the opening of the chapter, even addressing John 16:14.
The way I see it, what I “can” agree with is that Tertullian sees that there is a distinction between the 3. In regarding both the Father and the Son, we see how he makes a clear distinction between the 2, two persons, a Father and a Son; therefore, they are NOT one person.
I am sure you are aware of the title of Chapter 2? I will spare you on the title of this chapter… Also once again you only take “a small part” of something and accept it “as is” without understanding and or context. I reference this time because I will just state what Chapter 2 entails:
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
So clearly we see that Tertullian, again, shows a clear distinction between The Father and The Son, even stating that the Only God also has a Son. Trinitarians will say that Tertullian didn’t mean that, but unfortunately it is said and done and part of history.
Let’s continue:
Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
So we now see here, he makes it clear once again, that the Father and the Son are 2 different persons. For he believed that the Father sent the Son, Jesus Christ to earth via bestow Holy Spirit to the Virgin Jew Mary, who became pregnant. Being both a Man and God (godlike ones, sons of the Most High, Psalm 82:6), he is called Jesus Christ, believing him to have suffered, died and buried, only to be resurrected by the Father (literally dozen verses in the bible says this), raised up again out of death (Firstborn from the dead) and ascends to the Father to be seated at his right hand side. I don’t see how you still think Jesus is literally God the Father after reading something like that. But truly I say to you, that you don’t agree with Tertullian, especially now since he makes such a thing clear.
Let’s continue:
That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever — that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
Don’t you agree with Tertullian? That is something to look at, especially in all of Tertullian’s works in chronological order, including the Against Praxeas book. Let’s continue:
As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 2)
Tertullian, as I stated somewhere else, was the first to coin the word “Trinity” for he believed God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not only separate beings, but they work in some way as a unity of some sort. Nowhere in his work he claims that The Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit is “one” person or a “three in one” person, as some Trinitarians claim to say this today, people like James White for example. To Tertullian, the idea of God becoming human is absurd, for God is incorruptible, the very opposite of corruptible, the case was different with Jesus, for he has only been made immortal AFTER God resurrected him from the dead.
Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three “persons”, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist - (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570).
You also left out the closing conclusion of that same chapter, which speaks briefly on what Tertullian was talking about from the beginning of the Chapter:
For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character — addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.
Tertullian never once said that all of them are, together one God. That goes against what he was trying to tell us since Chapter 1. Just because the word is coined, Trinity doesn’t mean Tertullian considers all 3 of them in 1, a single God. Once again, he has made the distinction between the 3, and in his writings he uses bible scriptures, of which you ignored.
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; (Gen.1:26)" whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us (Gen.3:22)," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us." - (Against Praxeas, chapter, 12)
That was just a portion of Chapter 12, for its full version goes more in depth of the distinction between the Father and the Son, as well as how the Father use of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian makes a “fine” point in this chapter, for thinking The God and the Son are the same, let alone throwing the Holy Spirit into the mix, is quite really an absurd idea, and in Tertullian’s words, "a heresy".
Just going to cut this one short because every comment you make is the same pattern, taking bits and pieces out and assuming without reading the “full context” of what Tertullian is trying to tell us.
For I should give the name of sun even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son. – (Against Praxeas chapter, 13)
And viola, now you see what he tells us with the closing comments of chapter 13, it concludes to the point that both God is the Father and his Word, that is Jesus Christ, is the Son. Nowhere does he claim they are the same person, and or in Tertullian’s words, “selfsame person.”
The root of Unitarianism, as do most Christians, were Subordinationist. Like it or not, it is true and it is history, it is as true as the bibles using the oldest and reliable sources that some bibles seem to ignore. I don’t see how and why are you still in denial of this, but hey, some Christians today don’t like their history or past in those ancient days, trying to change and twist what our early church fathers were about.
Subordinationism is a belief within early Christianity that asserts that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being, meaning that apart from God, The Son and the Holy Spirit are apart from the True God himself, thus making them separate. It has been around in the Pre/Ante-Niece Era, The Apostolic Age and has been around since the practice of Arianism started to spread, even outlasting the practice of Arianism.
Unitarianism is a belief that the God in Christianity is one Entity/Deity/Elohim. For the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are separate from each other. Unitarians also believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and that Jesus is a savior, but he was a normal human, born of a Jew into the Law, he was a man, The Word, from God, that became flesh. Unitarianism is NOT one single Christian denomination, it is a collection of both extant and extinct Christian denominations, whether historically related to each other or not, which share a common theological concept of the oneness nature of God.
Very much alike, very similar to each other, all of us who are Non-Trinitarians have our roots in Subordinationism. But apparently, it is too hard for you to believe this, but I will leave that information up for the others, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses so they know where majority of Christianity originated from before the Council of Nicaea.
Not quite. I pulled the information from the source I linked before. Other websites have the same quotes (technically it is called the internet so most items will be identical), some closer to said quote, I don’t dwell in Catholicism, nor would I dwell in anything to do with websites that believe apparitions of Mary” are often seen in their churches, like the one in Egypt, as they claim. I am completely baffled to how you do not know the history of Binitarians (which of whom Irenaeus was against; the Binitarians also had a role in the Trinity doctrine itself), allow me to note the following clearly:
During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.
The Canons of the Council of Nicea have been lost. It was later established that there were only 20, which commenced the introduction of aberrations such as: domiciliary rules for the clergy living with females, i.e. celibacy; the persecution by the imposition of penance of Unitarians (incorrectly called Arians)
In 328 CE Constantine realised that the Athanasians were not the majority sect and were a source of division and persecution in the Empire and he recalled the five Unitarian leaders. (It is suggested this was at the urging of Constantia, widow of Licinius. However, it is more probable that she was merely a prominent Unitarian of the Eusebian or Arian faction). The problem with the Unitarian Christian system was that it followed the Bible tenets and was not concerned with the control of nations.
It was shown what the early position was over the first two centuries and how it became Modalist and then Binitarian from the beginning of the fourth century and from the Council of Nicaea, and finally Trinitarian from the introduction at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the ratification from the Council of Chalcedon after 451. – (Early Theology of the Godhead, No. 127)
After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" - (Pfandl, Gerhard. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists. Biblical Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD June 1999).
Athenagoras set the philosophical division between Christ and the other sons of God and began the inexorable march to adoption of the Binitarian worship found in the devotees of the cults of Attis, Adonis and Osirus, and from the Mysteries and which were established at Nicaea in 325. It is a form of the Noetian Heresy denounced by the Smyrna trained disciples. The canons of Nicaea were destroyed as heresy and that system was removed from 327 with the restoration of the Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians. The restoration of Binitarianism and the grounds for Trinitarianism came with the appointment of Theodosius as emperor in the East by Gratian and his support of the Athansians in 381 at Constantinople, and from 451 from the Council of Chalcedon.
Other Note: The Binitarians considered a new faction that had a new and developed doctrine based on the pagan theology of the Triune God, which came in from the worship of Attis in Rome and Adonis among the Greeks. Trinitarians and Trinitarianism did not come into existence until 381.
You “may” want to check out the history of the Nicene Creed. A brief bit of information:
[Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Reasons why Modalists and the Semi-Trinitarians were able to sign the early Nicene Creed while the Arians could not]
What can be said is that things got really “brutal, bloody, violence, excommunications, eventually going on into the things of the following, the burning of writings and literature, killings and what not. Just so people can be “forced” to not believe in Arianism, since the Creed was met to target them. Anything in the name of Trinitarianism, right? I’m surprised you don’t know how bad things got, reasons being I linked a book for you to look at.
I dunno if anyone can agree with or say "Amen" regarding people plotting to kill Christians, force them to believe one doctrine, burn their writings, and the like. But I guess "Christian Violence" gives some people that rush when they praise that stuff, like getting wild off of caffeine kind of way.
You maaaaaaay wanna look at how Arius, and others have died. Let's just say it seems kinda Rated R for those who dig for this truth.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Everyone knows who Eusebius is, one of the well known church Fathers in his time, hence his title “The Father of Church History”.
You really want to take that chance, with a person like me who occasionally quotes and or briefly speaks of Eusebius? By all means, I am up for it. As for you claim “works there is no mention of Binitarianism”, nowhere was his works mention, don’t see why you want to bring up his works when it will a contradictory to what you believe, but if you want to get into that topic, I am all for it. That being said, do you have any idea of what “heresies” Eusebius was even against???
There is a reason he is called “The Father of Church History”, don’t forget that.
Technically he has mention such heresy, just as the other church fathers have, in addition to that, you will be astounded by Eusebius’ belief if you actually took time to look it up.
You may want to check on what the Binitarians believed and their history, they have existed from the start of the 4th century and into and after the Council of Nicaea. Oh and they have referred to it, those who believed that The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are literally one being, or a 3-in-1 God, “selfsame”.
Irenaeus has fought and or was against Binitarianism. Others included Polycarp, Melito, Tertullian (although he himself did not hold a Binitarian view), Origen and Hippolytus, we have strong evidence that some sort of Binitarian view was held during the time of Smyrna era of the Church of God (the second, third, and early fourth centuries).
The early Church Fathers tend to fight against doctrines that are bad, this includes Binitarianism. Don’t add Eusebius into this if you don’t really know who he is. Don’t take chances with him, it won’t go too well for you if you do.
Also Unitarianism = Subordinationism = common belief of early church (one God, one Son, one Holy Spirit, etc) I gave you a “clear-cut” definition of both. You can’t deny Christian history and think you can get away with it.
Not quite, because you have only taken bits of information without even going to the book itself to look at the complete context, examples being this phrase:” rather God Himself, since He is the Word” Last I checked, God the Father’s name wasn’t “Nous” and the aspects of LOGOS were several spirit beings, as the Gnostics have taught, similar to their the Valentinians counterparts, the very portion paragraph in the Chapter of which you assume was talking about God the Father and Jesus who is the Son and The Word. Perhaps this would help you out:
My claims are not lacking, for us Unitarians believe that God is one and true. We believe that The Word and Wisdom of God is the Son (Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit (Wisdom), both from God the Father, the same views as the Pre-Nicene Christians held way before the Council of Nicaea for the majority of Christians were indeed Subordinationst.
For a guy who thought Irenaeus has “6 books in his “Against Heresies” perhaps it is you who need to do a bit more research on the Church, let alone the history of Christianity.
“[My Father is greater than I.] In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son.” –Tertullian
“For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son.” – Hippolytus
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible” – Eusebius
MISC:
Space merchant,
You post is very long I will try to keep my response shorter in comparison. Also I will not use the “quote window” as it is quite unmanageable when responding to such a long post, what you claims are above anyway.
Now, why in Luke 24:52, when after Jesus had departed, the disciples we are told, worshipped Jesus, all you do is dismiss this by saying:
“it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus”.
Of course it does for the simple fact that Jesus had separated from them!
Why would they “merely bowed down in honor/reverence/obeisance/etc” when He was separated from them? It makes no sense to do “obeisance” after He had departed from them, unless it was a religious act!
You say; “nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship”
Yes it does. The passage is quite clear the worship was directed to Jesus after He had left them. You claim ignores what the passage says.
Also, your claims on the meaning of proskunéō ignores that the word is used in the Bible to designate a religious act of worship (Matt. 4:8-10, 1 Cor. 14:25 etc). Notice that in 1 Cor. 14:25, part of worship includes falling down on one’s face or knees in humility.
Where else in the Bible do people show “honor/obeisance/reverence” to a person who had just left and is separated from those doing proskunéō other than to God? You claim that there are many examples of this apart from Luke 24:52...where?
You go off on a tangent about worship, and I think you do so to help you cope with the implication of Luke 24:52 where after Jesus had separated Himself from His disciples they then worshiped Him, which constitutes a religious act. That’s the plain and simple fact of the passage.
You make one point which I agree with, where you say;
“The Bible makes it clear to us to “worship” the One has created everything, Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:7”
To your two Scriptures I’d add also, Rev. 4:11.
And you will note that when we read the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus is the very One who created everything for Himself, John 1:1-3, 10; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12, He is our Creator.
Jesus is, therefore, worthy of the very worship that every creature must give since He is the Creator of all things that exist (Heb. 1:10-12)
Can I just say that everyone who follows online debates chooses sides (and champions) based on their theological perceptive.
Irenaeus’ Belief
Let’s look again at what Irenaeus taught and believe.
Your claim, that because Irenaeus says that the Father is the only God that that somehow is detrimental to Trinitarian theology…wrong…what this shows is that you don’t know much about Trinitarian theology.
As I stated in my last post, I have no problem with what Irenaeus says, nor do any other Trinitarians, we totally agree with him. Look again at the opening words of the Nicene Creed;
“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty”
What Irenaeus says is in complete accord with the Trinity doctrine. Only in your imagination and in a complete misunderstand of the Trinity would you make such a preposterous assertion.
You go on and rightly state that Irenaeus’s work “Against Heresies” was to refute the Gnostic idea and what they taught about other gods… it would therefore be ridiculous for Irenaeus to say, in refuting this Gnostic idea, that Jesus is in some way another god. Can you see how absurd that would sound to a Gnostic?
Nowhere in the Writings of Irenaeus does he state that Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) are creatures, nowhere, now surely if he were a Unitarian, as you asserted, then he would have said so in his refutation of the Gnostic idea!
As I stated in my last post and above, I totally agree with what Irenaeus says.
But when I asked you if you do, all you can say is that I probably don’t know the headings of the chapters.
You make a big deal about the chapter headings; look the chapter headings were added to give a brief overview of what Irenaeus says in that chapter. You should be more concerned about the actual content instead of the added headings.
Now I will ask you again, in your Unitarian perspective, do you agree with what Irenaeus says about Jesus in book 3, chapter 19 that Jesus is “God, and Lord, and King Eternal”?
I fully agree with this.
You claim that I just “pull portions” from what Irenaeus writes as if doing so were wrong in some way, even thought you recognize that what I said is correct for you acknowledge that “Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person”, but it is you who doesn’t agree with Irenaeus on this… so how can you attribute Unitarianism to Irenaeus?
You go on to quote something and then append that quotes to another, like in the portion where you tell me to “check this out” it seems that you try to accredit what you stated as all being from the treatise “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” that’s what it seems you are claiming when you say “check this out”.
If you want to read “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” in full you can do so at this site http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
And I can guarantee that when you do read this, then you will realize that your claims are once again unfounded and that someone is leading you astray on this.
I wonder if you actually read what Irenaeus says, note this following statement he makes about Jesus and the Father
“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5)
Is that a Unitarian viewpoint? Is Christ together with the Father THE GOD of the living a teaching of Unitarianism?
If that is a Unitarian teaching then I’m Unitarian!
Space merchant, it all comes down to this simple test, you are a Unitarian, and I’m not. Therefore if, as you claim, Irenaeus is Unitarian then you’d WOULD have to agree with what he states, not just where he says that the Father is only God, but elsewhere as well and I believe you don’t.
I in turn totally and fully agree with what Irenaeus says, BECAUSE what he says is in full accord with the Trinity doctrine. How strange is that when you consider that your claim was that Irenaeus was a Unitarian.
I can’t emphasis this enough, if Irenaeus were Unitarian you’d have to agree with him on all count not just one!
I do read the context of what Irenaeus writings even if you think that I don’t, I always do, and that’s why I can say without hesitation that I agree with him. Can you do the same?
Sometimes I will tend to have many books open when I’m writing, I must have been looking at something else when I said “book 6” of Against Heresies when there is no book 6. I meant book 3, chapter 1. Notice carefully what Irenaeus wrote,
“Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord…. For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father…. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son… Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am… And again, when the Son speaks to Moses…” (Against Heresies book 3, chapter 1)
I agree totally with Irenaeus on this, do you?
You say that it “surprises” you that I would quote from “Early Christian Doctrine” by J. N. D. Kelly, why? I find Kelly to be quite astute in his book. Also you claim, for some reason, that I missed what Kelly said at the start of page 107.
The start of page 107 (after finishing off the last sentence from what he says on page 106) is as follows;
“declares Him to us. The Johannine basis of this theology is apparent, and it finds characteristic expression in such statements as, 'The Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation, for the Son's manifestation is the making known of the Father'; and, 'What is invisible in the Son is the Father, and what is visible in the Father is the Son'.” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 107)
What is it that you say I missed which is pertinent to what he says further down on page 107 about Irenaeus? What?
You also say “and what he continues on to say about Irenaeus’ belief in page 108-110”
On page 108 Kelly discusses Irenaeus’ “economic Trinitarianism” again what have I missed?
Page 109 begins a new chapter, and the only time Irenaeus is even mentioned is on page 110 (twice) he is not mentioned on page 109.
“Our first task is to consider two theologians who stood more or less directly in the line of the Apologists and Irenaeus, and reflected their influence at many points… The comprehensive term they borrowed from Irenaeus for the latter was 'economy'”(J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 110)
So I’m really scratching my head as to what you claim I missed?
You ask this following question, which again shows me that know little about the Trinity doctrine. Here is what you ask;
“But going on with JND, do you believe that: The Father, the only God, is a single personage and that the Word, that is the Son and the Spirit that acts through.”
First, what do you mean “going on with JND”?
Now the question you ask is one in relation with modalism, which is the idea that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father as well as being the Holy Spirit. This is not the Trinity doctrine. So my answer to your question is no.
By the way, I think you will find that when Tertullian became a Montanist it was towards the end of his life, AFTER he had written his great works. Tell me which “scholars” you claim believe otherwise?
Let me repeat to you that Tertullian was not a Unitarian as you tried to assert in your previous post. Remember you said, “Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian”.
Tertullian’s teachings are in full accord with the doctrine of the Trinity. Just read you own quotes and see for yourself!
You say:
“So clearly we see that Tertullian, again, shows a clear distinction between The Father and The Son, even stating that the Only God also has a Son. Trinitarians will say that Tertullian didn’t mean that, but unfortunately it is said and done and part of history.”
No, Trinitarians do not say any such thing!
In the doctrine of the Trinity we hold that the one true God does in fact have a Son who is distinct from the Father, and is true God from true God in essence and substance as Tertullian also states, re-read your own quotes please.
Your claim was that the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian. Can you honestly still claim this? I think not. RE-read your own quotes from Tertullian!
You say;
“Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three “persons”, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist - (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570).”
What Phillip Schaff says on page 570 is this: “Otherwise he stands, as already observed, on subordinatian ground, if his comparisons of the trinitarian relation to that of root, stem, and fruit; or fountain, flow, and brook; or sun, ray, and raypoint, be dogmatically pressed.” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570, Phillip Schaff)
Note the word “if”.
I need to again ask, was Tertullian a Unitarian?
Please re-read all of your own quotes and show me from those quotes where Tertullian’s Unitarianism is set forth! I eagerly await your answer.
Moving on with your following claims and assertions; let me just say that you create for yourself a false dilemma, in your claim that, because Jesus is subordinate to the Father, then that somehow means he cannot be God.
The Trinity doctrine along with the early church writings explains that there are three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - who together are One God. The Son and the Spirit although distinct are equal to the Father in power and in glory. So, all three Persons within the Godhead are equal in nature, essence, and attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, etc.).
Now in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, the Son willingly submits to the Father's authority; in other words He is subordinate, and the Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. However, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not any less in nature, as each member of the Trinity is of the same substance. You will often hear Christians, even today, refer to the Father as the first Person of the Trinity, the Son as the second and the Holy Spirit as the third Person. That does not mean that they are any less in nature.
Let put this in a way that you should be able to understand. Biblically the wife is subordinate to her husband, but is equal in nature because she is made of the same stuff as the man.
Jesus’ subordination to the Father is a voluntary one when He came as a man, but that does not detract from or deny His equal Deity, any more than the divine order of the submission of the wife to the husband in the wife/husband relationship detracts from the wife’s essential equality and humanity, or implies her inferiority!
I hope that you can grasp this, but maybe not, maybe this is too hard for you to understand…but I will leave this information up for others to read, such as the JWs and in that way they can see that before the fourth century the early church believe the same as I believe today.
You have a tendency to pluck quotes from the internet randomly in an effort to try to boast your claims; many times you do not even references the quotes and expecting others to just except the claims regardless of their false assertions.
And because you do this that is when contradictions arise; in one of your quotes you allege that the foundation of binitarian was in 325 AD, here is what you quoted;
“At Nicea in 325 the Trinity was not formulated. Only the foundation of the Binitarian structure was laid down here.”(quoted by you)
But now you admit that binitarianism is a late fourth century invention, see your own quote from Gerhard Pfandl.
Then comes the even more absurd claim, which I would venture is another quote and again without any reference, where you say “Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat” which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ”
This claim is so twisted in its allegations and clearly shows that whoever made it has no knowledge of church history whatsoever.
Then MORE quotes without any references….
And then there is your threats regarding Eusebius and church history…really?
Look, the only reason I mentioned Eusebius was to show that he knew nothing about Binitarianism since he does not mention it in his church history and that’s because it was a late fourth century invention, which you admit, and which contradicts your previous claim!
Then you say this about Eusebius, “Technically he has mention such heresy”.
Where does Eusebius mention Binitarianism? Please show where this is done.
You then name some of the early church writers and say that they “fought or were against Binitarianism”, again, please show where they do this?
You then quote Tertullian and then Hippolytus and Eusebius but do not give the location from where these quotes come from.
Just like how you quote Robert M. Grant, but you don’t give the reference to where the quote comes from so that I can look it up.
As I mentioned above you just quote randomly from the internet and from discussion forums and not give reference, here you just mention Robert M. Grant without giving the name of the book or article the quote originated from.
Here is an example of how to reference a quote;
“A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Hippolytus, Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8)
Notice how I gave you, not just who wrote this, but also the book from which it is derived and the general location in that book where the quote can be found, it really is that easy. You should try it MORE often!
But be careful because sometimes you might reference something and mistakenly type in a wrong book number or chapter number, but that’s fine just as long as you can amend the error later, when asked, by giving the correct location from where the quote is taken, I won’t hold it against you…unlike some.
I’ll take a look and respond to your other post at a later date, which, from a glance, appears just as long. <><
-
-
13 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
Distinction of course, personality?...........afraid not.
I’m afraid you have abandoned any sense of reason in an effort to cling to a false idea. How can you maintain the contradictive teaching of the Watchtower without any Scriptural support? You admit Scripture only but you don’t have Scriptural backing…why is that?
Anyway stay tuned, I will continue providing Scriptural proof that the Holy Spirit is a real Person who has a will, emotions and intellect. <><
-
20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
And yet to be demonstrated in connection with the holy spirit being a person separate from it's originator, the Father, Jehovah.
This is a typical response from someone who follows the shifting teachings of a magazine. Scripture demonstrates the distinction and personality of the Holy Spirit from the Father in many places, Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are two such examples. <><
-
The Holy Spirit has a will, and decides which gifts to give believers:
“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:11)
The Greek word βουλεται (translated “will”) is the present indicative of βούλομαι and grammatically is referring to the Holy Spirit. The present tense of the word in this verse “emphasizes the habitual or repeated action. He gives not according to the merit or wishes of men but according to his own will.” (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament p429)
“The Present Indicative is used to express customary actions and general truths” (Syntax of Moods and Tenses of New Testament)
Strongs Greek Dictionary
G1014 βούλομαι boulomai
boo'-lom-ahee
Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”, that is, (reflexively) be willing: - be disposed, minded, intend, list (be, of own) will (-ing). Compare G2309.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
1014: βούλομαι
…to will, wish; to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded: …of the will electing or choosing between two or more things…Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
βαύλομαι,
to will, wish, desire, purpose, be minded, of the will making choice between alternatives
Dodson Greek-English Lexicon
G1014
βούλομαι
Verb
I will, intend, desire
Strong's Electronic Concordance
boulomai: to will
Original Word: βούλομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: boulomai
Phonetic Spelling: (boo'-lom-ahee)
Short Definition: I will, intend, desire
Definition: I will, intend, desire, wish.Discovery Bible Word-studies
1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).
1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).
[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]
Vines Dictionary
Verb,1014,boulomai
"to wish, to will deliberately," expresses more strongly than thelo (No. 6) the deliberate exercise of the will
Hastings New Testament Dictionary
When we turn to βούλομαι we find that the verb is always used of man, except in Luk 22:42, Heb 6:17 (the only case where the word occurs in Heb.), 2Pe 3:9, and Jam 1:18 Mat 11:27, 1Co 12:11… The verb thus denotes plan and settled deliberate purpose
How can an a mindless active force make decisions?
The word βούλομαι appears in the Bible 34 times and used only for persons. The Holy Spirit is a person. For in 1 Cor. 12:11 He acts as a person; distributes favors, confers gifts as He wills. It would be absurd to say a “force” bestows favors, and distributes the various gifts, and raising the dead.
Here is a clear and full proof of the personality of the Spirit, who is not only distinguished from His gifts, and the distribution of them, which is a personal act described to Him; but this is said to be done according to THE WILL of the Holy Spirit, which shows an intelligent person, capable of choosing and willing.
The NWT has for boulomai “it wills”. Yet how can a thing, an active force, a mindless power, have will?
It is also quite clear that poetical personification, as you JWs always imagine when it comes to the Holy Spirit, would be quite out of place here because of the personal deeds attributed to the Holy Spirit in the context. <><
-
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:
First you accused and or assume that I am a Jehovah's Witness, when it is evident I am not
And I did apologies for doing so, but when a person is on a JW forum, and is agreeing with the other JWs on said forum then the chances can be very high that they are also JWs.
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:you ask me a lot of questions
No I haven’t, all I asked was for you to show me where in the writings of the early church is the Unitarian form of religion mentioned (more on this below).
Your assertion about Christians with regard to the Shema is unfounded; what I’ve noticed is how Arian/Unitarians (sorry for grouping you thusly) have seized upon this verse as being supposedly fatal to our Christian doctrine of the Divine Tri-unity. “There, now” is the claim, “nothing could be plainer. God is a moneity, not a plurality. He is one, not three, for Deuteronomy 6:4 says so.” Yet that simply is not the case.
The Jewish Publication Society’s commentary shows how the Shema probably had nothing to do with the way you Arian/Unitarians try to use the verse as a prime proof-text that God is an absolute numerical one.
"’The LORD is our God, the LORD alone’…For all its familiarity, the precise meaning of the Shema is uncertain and it permits several possible renderings. The present translation indicates that the verse is a description of the proper relationship between YHVH and Israel…This understanding of the Shema is describing a relationship with God, rather than His nature." ([JPS torah], Sarna, Potok (Gen eds)/Tigay on Deut p.76).
The JPS commentary goes on to say,” the Shema began as a declaration of allegiance” (p.440).
One linguistic tool says for the word “(Echad) = Stg 259…one, i.e., that which is united as one in contrast to separate parts (Ge 2:24; Dt 6:4)” [Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains, Hebrew Old Testament].
And from Strong’s Dictionary confirms that, “259. …echad, ekhawd; a numeral from 258; prop. united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first”
“258. …achad, aw-khad; per. A prim. Root; to unify, i.e. (fig.) collect (one's thoughts).” [Stg Dict]
So in short when examining the word echad we discover that the basic meaning of the word is “united” from the Hebrew root “to unify.” I am reminded by what one Hebrew professor has said about the word echad how it means the same as used in Psalm 133:1 where it says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in echad (unity).”
According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad, “is closely identified with yahad “to be united” and with rosh “first, head”…It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness…the question of diversity within unity has theological implications.” (Vol. 1, page 30).
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:I am aware the NWT has Obeisance, and I am aware that Worship and what Mr. Stafford has said
The fact that this person is no long a part of that group and that he seeks to form his own group speaks volumes, it would be interesting in passing would be to know how many have jumped over onto his band-wagon. Another thing which would be interesting to know is does he still read that bogus magazine?
From what you say about this former JW, it is clear that you admire him, but the fact that he is no longer a JW, well….
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:I also said that it has another meaning, for you brought up that
I was just making an observation on what you brought up. The question was asked, and this ex-JW obviously knew the sense the question was ask, but from what you say, he answered in another sense. That’s just double talk, saying one thing but instead meaning another that is not in line with the sense of the question.
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was worshipped, it is a bias assertion to claim otherwise.
After Jesus had ascended to heaven His followers worshipped Him (Luke 24:52). This word does not always mean religious homage, but here we note Jesus’ followers offered this worship after Jesus had left them and therefore here constitutes a religious act. This act by the disciples wasn’t simply bowing down this was worship in the religious sense because of the fact that He was no longer there. This is only done for true Deity.
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:A quote from another Christian when it comes to worship/obeisance in terms of Jesus Christ:
Your quote that followed this comment is I believe is from a JW publication is it not?
Can I just say (without you taking offense) before moving on how I find it really cumbersome that your quotes on the writings of Irenaeus are in separate windows, to which I have to click to read, if you can please post without being in these windows it makes for better flow when reading.
Your quote from Irenaeus is taken out of context as I will show but before doing so lets look at what Irenaeus actually taught and believed.
Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, GOD, AND LORD, AND KING ETERNAL, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19).
I agree completely with this statement by Irenaeus, do you?
Irenaeus marks the identification of the Holy Spirit as a person just as the Son is a person when he writes; “the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject.” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7)
Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20)
Irenaeus certainly believed that Jesus Christ was fully God. Not "a god" as some try to claim. Eternal God. Nowhere does he suggest that Jesus had a different "existence" or essence from God the Father.
Irenaeus did, when refuting different manifestations of Modalism, stress that Jesus was a different "person" from the Father, which is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. However regarding the essence, he says in Against Heresies book 4 chapter 5; “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, IS THE GOD of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.”
So Christ is aptly termed God with the Father. In a practical sense, Irenaeus believed in the Trinity. Moreover, Irenaeus says that the name of God is applicable to both the Father and the Son.
He says in Against Heresies book 3 chapter 6 that: "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God…For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father."
I agree with this statement, do you?
In Against Heresies book 1 chapter 10, Irenaeus says that the early church’s faith is based on the teachings of the apostles and their disciples and believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and he says, "Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King."
I say, “Amen!” Do you?
“And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word — differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?” (Against Heresies 2 chapter 13).
Many more examples can be added, now my point is, as can be seen above, his understanding was not Unitarian. If what Irenaeus believed were Unitarian in nature then you would have to agree the things he sates above…I know I do and I’m not a Unitarian!
When reading the writings of the early church it is always beneficial to understand their meaning by reading in context, you quote from Against Heresies book 6, chapter 4, but did you not read in chapter 1 of book 6 where Irenaeus says;
“Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord…. For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father…. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son… Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am… And again, when the Son speaks to Moses…” (Against Heresies book 6, chapter 4)
Now when read in context the part that you quote is in contrast to the preceding part of the passage that is speaks about false gods.
The rest of the quotes you call up from Against Heresies we Christians fully agree with the Father in His own right is our only God and Lord, but as Irenaeus shows (see above) Jesus too is in His right is true God and Lord.
One scholar has this to say about Irenaeus' theology;
“Naturally the Son is fully divine: 'the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God'…Thus we have Irenaeus's vision of the Godhead, the most complete, and also most explicitly Trinitarian, to be met with before Tertullian. Its second-century traits stand out clearly, particularly its representation of the Triad by the imagery, not of three coequal persons (this was the analogy to be employed by the post-Nicene fathers), but rather of a single personage, the Father Who is the Godhead itself, with His mind, or rationality, and His wisdom. The motive for this approach, common to all Christian thinkers of this period, was their intense concern for the fundamental tenet of monotheism, but its unavoidable corollary was a certain obscuring of the position of the Son and the Spirit as 'Persons' (to use the jargon of later theology) prior to their generation or emission. Because of its emphasis on the 'economy', this type of thought has been given the label 'economic Trinitarianism'. The description is apt and convenient so long as it is not assumed that Irenaeus's recognition of, and preoccupation with, the Trinity revealed in the 'economy' prevented him from recognizing also the mysterious three-in-oneness of the inner life of the Godhead. The whole point of the great illustrative image which he, like his predecessors, employed, that of a man with his intellectual and spiritual functions, was to bring out, however inadequately, the fact that there are real distinctions in the immanent being of the unique, indivisible Father, and that while these were only fully manifested in the 'economy', they were actually there from all eternity. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 107).
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html
I don’t think so! You only give a link to a web site here instead is what Tertullian does say;
Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25).
I totally agree do you? Would you say that what Tertullian says here was Unitarian?
“All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes THE UNITY INTO A TRINITY, placing in their order THE THREE PERSONS — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: THREE…of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, WILL BE SHOWN AS OUR TREATISE PROCEEDS.” (Against Praxeas chapter 2)
That is quite clear right? Read it again, would you say that what Tertullian says here was Unitarian?
“Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…the distinction OF PERSONS IN THE TRINITY is clearly set forth” (Against Praxeas, chapter 11)
“If the number of the Trinity also offends you…With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity… the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons… I must everywhere hold one only substance in THREE COHERENT AND INSEPARABLE PERSONS” (Against Praxeas, chapter 12)
“That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God” (Against Praxeas, chapter 13)
Does any of what Tertullian say above sound anything like Unitarianism? Nooooooooo!
You also quote from an article “CATHOLICISM Frequently Asked Questions” which says that initially at the Council of Nicea the formulated doctrine was Binitarian, I disagree with this (as I disagree with a lot of things from Roman Catholics), below is the creed, and as you will clearly see mentions not only the Father and the Son but the Holy Spirit also!
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son
Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
Who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.(Nicene Creed Contemporary Version),
Eusebius, in his history of the Christian church mentions the heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time (fourth century), in his works there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all
Why would he not mention this heresy? He mentions all the others. It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the Unitarian form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers.
On 1/19/2018 at 4:17 PM, Space Merchant said:I can pull up even more if you want
I think you better because as I have shown above, so far you have not demonstrated anything that is Unitarian in the writings of the early church, see the above again! So your claim that Unitarianism is in the writings of the early church pre fourth century is still lacking. <><
-
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
unsubstantiated opinion
Gone fishing,
This is really very simple, my “opinion” as you say, is easily validated by the simple fact that you have no Scriptural backing for your position.
19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:fails to establish truth
Maybe for you, but certainty is via the Scriptures only, not from the pages of a bogus magazine which blinds the minds of its adherents. ¿ ~~><>
-
On 1/17/2018 at 7:43 PM, Gone Fishing said:
It appears your belief is core to your argument
Gone fishing,
No, Scripture is core to my argument, my belief is the product of what the Scriptures teach and verify.
Sadly, it appears that all you have for your belief is the ever shifting and inconsistent teaching of men who hide behind a magazine, with NO Scriptural backing.
Can “force/ power” have feelings, a mind and intellect? These are traits of a real Person not a thing…<><
-
10 hours ago, Space Merchant said:
especially on how he was able to tread with ease in that debate
Space merchant,
What’s ironic is this JW you mention (now an ex-JW) did not even quote from the NWT, because in Hebrews 1:6 the JW version does not have the word “worship” but “obeisance”.
Anyway, I’m sorry but time does not permit me to watch you tube videos as I have many other matters to attend to.
However, I’m still interested in you showing me from the writings of the early church (pre fourth century) where the Unitarian form of religion is mentioned. We know that these writers wrote to combat all forms of heresies that the early church faced, so if your believe system were present pre fourth century as you assert, and not an invention of some later date, then it is in these writings that will verify this. <><
-
The Watchtower generated idea that the Holy Spirit is some type of “force/power” is a false manmade teaching that has no biblical backing, but JWs accept this false teaching without any Biblical verification.
On the other hand there is so much evidence in the Scriptures which show that the Holy Spirit is a Person. For example, numerous times in the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit is described in language which clearly indicate that The Holy Spirit is a person, who speaks (1:16; 8:29), forbids (1 6:6), thinks good (15:28), appoints (20:28), sends (1 3:4), bears witness (5:32), snatches (8:39), prevents (16:7), and resisted (7:51) just name a few. <><
-
15 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:
Despite how long the debate was, in this sole topic the jw had the upper hand.
Space merchant,
I don’t think "the JW had the upper hand", because according to JWs in their many publications they claim that Jesus can’t be worshipped so he was answering contra to what JWs believe and teach, no wonder that person in the debate is no longer a JW!
31 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:CoS: as for our history, it can easily be googled, History of Unitarianism as well as our Christology (understanding of the Messiah).
I don’t think it is my position to look up Unitarian history to try to verify your claim, you instead should be showing where the Unitarian form of religion is mentioned in the writings of the early church before the fourth century to back your claim. <><
-
46 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
People can come to know the true God and his son TODAY (more than 1900 year gap). And they can be as loyal and faithful as the first apostles. No one can judge that too much time has passed since Jesus was here.
And Jesus said at Matt. 19:26 - “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Ms DeeDee,
I’m not disputing that people can have a relationship with God, I’m saying that they did long before the JW religion came onto the scene. <><
- Srecko Sostar and Shiwiii
-
2
-
50 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
Yes, the Father's position is the MOST HIGH. And Jesus said at Matt. 4:10 – Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
Ms DeeDee,
It is amusing how you guys only quote those passages that show Jesus is fully man and there stop, thinking you have proved He is not God. The Bible shows many times that Jesus is worshipped!
JWs claim Jesus is Michael the archangel, now note please how Michael the archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. We see in Jude 9 that Michael must bridle his tongue, so to speak, before the foe of man. We read, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9).
In contrast Jesus rebuked the devil to his face (Matt 4:10). Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), then Jesus and Michael cannot be the same person! <><
- Srecko Sostar and Shiwiii
-
2
-
42 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
That is my point...It is written by man... and man is deceived by Satan. Unless the words come from the Bible, to me they are not valid.
Ms DeeDee,
This is what the early church taught and believed, which is the same as Christians believe today, no 1900 years gap as your religion would have. <><
-
40 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:
Plus our history is traced back to the Apostolic Age, the Ante-Nicene Period, waaaaaaaaay before the Council of Nicaea.
Space merchant,
Please show me from the writings of the early church (pre fourth century), which were penned to combat all the heresies that the early church faced, where is the Unitarian form of religion mentioned? <><
-
11 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
To think that there are spiritually-minded people who follow Jesus as strictly as if they were there in his presence, is NOT ridiculous.
Ms DeeDee,
The ridicules part is 1900 years gap in-between when this supposedly happened! <><
-
11 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
No, I took an oath when I was initiated as a pagan to not share certain information with those who are uninitiated. Since you are not initiated, I cannot share that information with you. And in keeping Jesus' commandment, "Let your word 'Yes' mean yes," I cannot go against any oath I take. I am firm in ALWAYS letting my 'Yes' mean 'yes.'
Ms DeeDee,
Well you are no longer “a pagan” as you say so that oath is null and void. <><
-
17 minutes ago, DeeDee said:
This is not a quote from the Bible. Here is what Jesus said in the Bible:
John 14:28 - You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.
Ms DeeDee,
I didn’t say it was from the Bible. I’m demonstrating how the first Christian up until now understand and believe the same.
And please Jesus is speaking from the position of His humanity in John 14:28 as is quite clear.
Jesus came as a man, fully man in every way, that’s why He could say, “for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), Jesus is here speaking from His position of manhood.
Note carefully what Jesus specifically said, “The Father is greater than I,” not, “The Father is better than I.”
The word “greater” is used to point to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), and has nothing to do with nature. Had the word “better” (Greek kreitton) been used, then this would indicate that the Father has a better nature than Jesus, and that Jesus was less in nature, but this word is not used. To put it in a way that even you should be able to understand. The Queen of England is in a higher position than the rest of us. Therefore the Queen is greater than the rest of us. But, she is still just a human being, and therefore, not better than the rest of us. Jesus’ use of the word “greater” points to the Father being higher in position only. During the time that Jesus walked among us, He functioned in the world of humanity, so therefore the Father was higher (greater) in position than Him. <><
-
-
2 hours ago, DeeDee said:
I only meant that the JW's are the "spiritual" continuation of the first disciples.
Ms DeeDee,
With a gap of some 1900 years in-between...come on that’s just plain ridiculous. <><
-
5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:
Not denying anything.
You do share the same ideas or similar and that’s what I’m getting at
Historically the idea that you both share regarding the person of Jesus originated in the fourth century not before.
Arianism is a term to describe those who espouse this similar view, because as you have said, there are many such groups.
I suggest you read the writings of Christians, who lived BEFORE the fourth century and see what they taught and believed about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then you will see that what they taught and believed is the same as that is believed by Christians for the last 2000 years.
Let me sum this for you.
The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in complete accord with the later creeds (which were formulated to combat the false ideas).
If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the 4th century formulated creeds.
I finish off here with a quote from Ignatius AD 30 - 107;
“There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.”(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, chapter 2). <><
-
9 hours ago, DeeDee said:
Here is the triple form used for some goddesses: Maiden - Mother - Crone.
Another triple form in paganism is: Mother - Father - Son.
Ms DeeDee,
Which “pagan gods and goddess” were these? <><
-
1 hour ago, DeeDee said:
JW's obey the teachings of Jesus. For example, at Matt. 28:19, 20 Jesus tells his disciples:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them … teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you…”
So the JW's obey that command by teaching the people of all the nations.
Ms DeeDee,
2000 years ago Jesus said His church would NEVER cease to exist...so where has the JWs form of religion being for so long? <><
- Shiwiii and Srecko Sostar
-
2
JW's mistaken claim...
in Topics
Posted
Space merchant,
I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read.
I only touched on the Hebrew word echad in my other post and how the basic meaning is “united” from the root “to unify”, which apparently is only “half correct”.
Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would write about God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right?
There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word “one” (also there are many variants of these nine).
Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality?
Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And if that word is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on.
The word is yachiyd (Strong’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.).
A Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the word yachiyd be applied to God in the Bible, at least once...
On the other hand, Bible believing Christians would not expect to find yachiyd applied to God because we believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.
And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? Scripture never applies yachiyd to God, and never describes God as a solitary person.
On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply the word echad to God because this would mean that God is “one” in a composite sense.
And as a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this reality.
So when we open the Bible, what do we find?
We find that echad is applied to God.
He is “one” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God.
The use of echad in Duet. 6:4 is exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of Persons and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this).
Like it or not, there are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed.
It is interesting to note also that the Greek word heis performs the same function as the Hebrew echad.
Bible believing Christians everywhere, following the teachings of Jesus (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity.
I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is “our only Master and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).
So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ.
How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master?
Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and Lord if Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord?
The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our “Master and Lord” according to Jude 4!
Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not?
Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3?
Jesus says, that they might know you…and me.
Imagine that… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it!
We need to know God to have life and that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3.
Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's our ONLY Master and Lord.
See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere.
Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son.
Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father.
The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28).
It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. Unless, of course, He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.
I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><