JW's mistaken claim...

[Shiwiii]

16 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

think I made myself pretty clear on my last comment.

I don't celebrate Christmas not just for religious reasons, but cultural reasons too, in fact, I have never celebrated it because that was how my family was brought up out of Belize and into the US, for my family had always believed some holidays not only have pagan roots, but forms of Druidism and other things. I don't take issue for one's free will to choose if they want to celebrate it or a holiday or not, I am not stopping them, even thought I view it as something that is not right. However, if someone comes to me and says to me Jesus was born December 25th, when me, knowing that Tishri (month of Ethanim) wasn't a cold day, when Chislev (November/December) and Tebeth (December/January), as well as the Shepherds being out in the month of Ethanim. In short, the mixing of Holy Days with Man-Made traditions. Anything to with the Sun God, the Yule worship and Druidism, along with a list of many reasons as why many avoid it.

I hold on to these views strongly and I don't consider Jesus being used to reap profit.

I understand what you are saying. I don't partake in the Santa Claus thing nor yule,sun god or the like. Me and my family simply choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus at that time. I guess what I wanted to get across was the fact that the Bible allows such celebration as long as it is to the Glory of God. While not all choose to celebrate, which is fine, no one has the right to judge....make a statement that "true Christians" don't or anything along those lines, because that is in direct contrast to Colossians 2:16. 

[Space Merchant]

11 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I understand what you are saying. I don't partake in the Santa Claus thing nor yule,sun god or the like. Me and my family simply choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus at that time. I guess what I wanted to get across was the fact that the Bible allows such celebration as long as it is to the Glory of God. While not all choose to celebrate, which is fine, no one has the right to judge....make a statement that "true Christians" don't or anything along those lines, because that is in direct contrast to Colossians 2:16. 

For me, glorying God is an everyday thing (24/7/365 non-stop), the same for my relatives, the same for our family in both Belize, the Virgin Islands and in the US, time is taken out each day to speak of God, who Jesus is, people who followed Jesus and various things, examples being those in Jesus' genealogy as well as the not so much talked about two female ministers mentioned in the New Testament, in doing so we show we truly love God by talking, learning, applying what we've learn and so forth, build up faith, the thing that makes us Christian.

If Jesus was born in the month of Tebeth or Chislev, then things would have been different and quite understandable, perhaps for most Christians, however, Jesus being born in the month of Tishrei (the month of Ethanim) pretty much counters the December 25th date or the month pertaining to either Chislev or Tebeth (the months that include December). We must also take into account that the only one capable of judging is God himself. As for celebrations, the only thing I'm pretty sure most Christians partake in is the Lord's Evening Meal, despite it being done differently from how it was originally done, a day we take in high value for we are to remember the sacrifice of the Savior and what it means.

However, I do have concern for those who practice the celebration in terms of safety. I have friends who do celebrate the holiday, some who are good people, but not really that religious or non-religious, they tend to be targets of some Christians who take a violent approach to those who celebrate the holiday, even going as far as to destroy decorations, to others, they destroy anything that has to do with Christmas or anything to do with Jesus or scripture, at times violence is inflicted on said person or acts of vandalism, you'd be surprised how some people would snap if they hear "Merry Christmas". Believe it or not, the Muslims have almost the same stance on their members in terms of the holiday and them being targets of others who don't celebrate it.

That being said, if you do this, just make sure nothing outside of the ordinary ruins Spiritual things that build faith. Many Christians I know say the same thing but slowly let the traditions and festivities to be included into their faith building activities. Keep your family safe as well.

[Space Merchant]

20 hours ago, Cos said:

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, IÂ’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 Tl;DR

Worship can also translate to homage, bow down to/him, latreai, obeisance. Jesus was exalted that is why the angels had shown an act of obeisance to him, which is vastly different from God because God is already Superior. (This is also a command given to the Angels by God to do so, not something a human being would be doing as to your comment). Also a Man who is worshiping Jesus= Arian/Arianism compared to a Man worshiping God=Not Arian/Not Arianism.

Obeisance/Worship/Honor/Homage/Reverence/etc = to Proskyneo/Proskuneos=Shahhah/Shachhah (In Hebrew) whereas in Hebraic sense it equals to Worship and or Obeisance, the act of such resembles Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc).

No The former Jehovah's Witness was actual right: Spirit Creatures=Angels, command by God to do what? Worship and or show Obeisance to/To honor. Why? Because God said so. Why in terms of Jesus? Because God exalted him, making him Superior to the Angels. He also places Jesus at the right side of his him if you continue reading.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who uses a different word in place of worship, few other bibles also use obeisance, as well as bow down to, homage, etc, even in different languages you might find something like adoration, or prostration. Even other Christians will say the same thing, those who know what the word means in both ancient Greek and Hebraic sense, and take no issue or rip out their hair if worship is obeisance, or homage, etc.

As for Unitarianism, it traces back to it's root, in fact, the root to all Christianity in the Pre-Nicene era, and that root is called Subordinationist, the belief of God, the Son, The Holy Spirit, however, they do not believe that all of them are literally a 3-in-1 Deity. This belief is when one knows who God is and know how his Word and his Spirit is used, especially in terms of creation; subordinates to the Father's being.

Other: First you accused and or assume that I am a Jehovah's Witness, when it is evident I am not, however, I do respect them because of a specific bible verse when it comes to "Men of Peace". Second, you accuse Unitarianism of being Arian, when you clearly recognize what I said, we don't worship Jesus, that is wrong, we worship God the Father, which is correct. Arians, even to this day, worship Jesus, they don't consider him a mediator, they pray to Jesus only, etc. the complete opposite of what we, as well as others do. Plus no one in their right mind you practice Arianism if they know what Jesus did in regard to The Shema (Shema Yisrael, something Trinitarians can't stand to talk about or even speak of). Arians not only ignore The Shema, but they act as if it never existed. That being said, you ask me a lot of questions, the only thing I would ask of you 2 simple question:

"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?" And Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents? That is all  

Now then, on to the other stuff.

 

Long Verison

I don't see why you had to use parentheses when I already establish that this man is no longer a Jehovah's Witness, this debate was not only old, but it was among the best Christian debates next to Christians vs Atheists, Adnan Rashid vs James White, and Hamza Myatt vs. Godwin, there are numerous debates and it is often done by Christians from Non-Trinitarianism and Trinitarianism, Baptist, Protestants, Muslims, etc. As for the former Jehovah's Witnesses, even to this day he still defends them because he is a Non-Trinitarian who is on the side of Monotheistic Christianity.

I am aware the NWT has Obeisance, and I am aware that Worship and what Mr. Stafford has said. But what you fail to realize is the word is also used "Proskyneo" (Proskuneo) that can be translated to either "Homage", "Bow Down/To/Bow Before", "Worship", as well as "Obeisance", it can also be translated to Latreia, Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc)., or Reverence in other languages. As for the word itself it has the same meaning as the other mention. I also said that it has another meaning, for you brought up that:

 

Quote

Cos: 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!

What Mr. Stafford was referring to was in Hebrews 1:6 whereas it says: And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

You can see his book when it comes to defending, not for just the Watchtower, but for God the Father and Jesus, what he says on worship can be seen in page 5 via scrolling (literal page num. 364): http://www.elihubooks.com/data/topical_index/000/000/259/JWD3_Chap_5_sec_worship_051210_SITE.pdf

The Ex-JW turned apologist makes himself even clearer as to the word worship and or obeisance.

Also the other links, I dunno if you saw them, Brother Kel speaks on the same thing and what worship/homage/obeisance means in terms of Jesus when he was made superior than the other angels.

If you want to be hardcore about it, the English word "worship" in Hebrew "Shahhah/Shachah". This Hebrew word appears 172 times in the Biblical text, however, only translated as "worship" 99 times in the KJV. As Hebrew instructor Jeff Benner has said:

Quote

Whenever the Hebrew word "shahhah" is used as an action toward God, the translators translate this word as "worship". But, whenever this same Hebrew word is used as an action toward another man, the translators translate this word as "obeisance", "to bow" or "bow down". As you can see, the translators are preventing the reader from viewing the text in its proper Hebraic context. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word "shahhah" can be seen in Numbers 22:31 - "and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face". "shahhah" means to bow down with the face to the ground.

So to a man, it is God alone he must worship. The angels themselves worship God an to the some they were commanded to pay homage/worship/obeisance before the one who has been exalted, the only reason why the Angels bow down to Jesus because we are told why, very obvious in text.

As I said before, Obeisance

So what were the angels commanded to do (What God the Father commanded them to do)? Pay obeisance (to bow down, to honor) to Jesus, for not only he was exalted by God (given power and authority, is the anointed one, the horn of salvation, the king). You can use the word worship if you like. Also last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship (as in pray to directly, glorify, etc) Jesus, they do this with God the Father, Yahweh/Jehovah. The worship in a sense that is given to Yahweh, if done to Jesus, is Arianism, for Arians practice worship to Jesus only and do not consider Jesus as the mediator to God.

In the debate, James White (in every debate) doesn't think that angels are to show any obeisance/worship (whatever floats your boat) to Jesus, however the bible makes it clear as to whom Yahweh made superior to the angels, thus why they so this honor and respect to (Not in the same sense as God) and if you read the verse even further, you will see what position Jesus has on God's throne, at his right hand side, The Son next to the Father, vice versa.

You also claim that:

Quote

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”.

Well there are few Bibles that use the word "Obeisance". An example would be the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) that was complete bible translated in 2003 (Not easy to copy, but you can see it).

Several examples of Hebrew 1:6 in terms of Angels showing obeisance/honor,worship, etc to Jesus

Quote

ABP_Strongs(i) 6 G3752 [3whenever G1161 1and G3825 2again] G1521 he should bring in G3588 the G4416 first-born G1519 into G3588 the G3611 inhabitable world, G3004 he says, G2532 And G4352 let [4do obeisance to G1473 5him G3956 1all G32 2angels G2316 3of God]!

Another, uses a word similar to it "Bow Before Him", this can be seen in the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), complete bible translated in 1862.

Quote

and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God;'

 

Revised English Version (REV), complete translated in 1989:

Quote

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the inhabited world, he says, And let all the angels of God pay him homage.

 

The Latin Vulgate is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible that became the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible during the 16th century.

Quote

 et cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae dicit et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei

When he brings the oldest in the world, he said, bowing down to him, all of... (Some just translate it to worship or homage or obeisance)

NOTE: Obeisance being used in the bible, the word that is said to be used by ONLY the Jehovah's Witnesses is false because there are few bibles, even in other languages as well that will have something in a similar sense. The perks of those who can speak other languages, huh.Ones I didn't mention, which you can look up:

Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT)-1898-1901 Word used: bow down before him

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)-1985 Word used: Homage

The Complete Bible in Modern English (MEV)-2014 word used: Honor/Honour

To they all equal to worship and or obeisance? Yes.

The list goes on, even into other languages an other translations, take your pick because there is  TONS of translations and editions, as well as revised ones, some to modern English and or chosen language. It proves the point that "worship" not only has other meanings, but other words that pertain to "worship" still remains the same.

Obeisance or paying homage is an act of bowing to or honoring someone. There is no issue with saying worship, obeisance, homage, reverence, etc or if used in a bible translation. Plus you yourself thought before I was talking about JWs or any Christian worshiping Jesus (again, Jesus worship is Arian). If you watch the video, you would understand what that JW (now an ex-JW) met.

 

Plus you be surprised that Mr. Stafford, even though he isn't a Jehovah's Witnesses anymore still speaks to anyone, even JWs, former JWs, or those who want to be JWs because Stafford still holds dearly to what the Bible says about God and about Jesus, hence his status as The JW Apologist, as many have called him, especially in terms of his blogs and writings, in addition, this guy has never lost a debate, ever. One Pastor in particular didn't fair too well against him, Pastor Rob Bowman, to a degree, Greg Stafford is literally the Jehovah's Witness version of Hamza Myatt/Adnan Rashid, both who are Muslims and prominent Speaker's Corner (Hyde Park) debaters, and both never lost against a Trinitarian, including James White. If you do go to those videos, I advise caution because the comment section puts what you know about the bible to the test.

 

A quote from another Christian when it comes to worship/obeisance in terms of Jesus Christ:

Quote

Such acts of obeisance, or expressions of respect, were fairly common in the Orient of Bible times. Jacob bowed down seven times upon meeting his brother, Esau. (Genesis 33:3) Joseph’s brothers prostrated themselves, or did obeisance, before him in honor of his position at the Egyptian court. (Genesis 42:6) In this light we can better understand what happened when the astrologers found the young child Jesus, whom they recognized as “the one born king of the Jews.” As rendered in the King James Version, the account tells us that they “fell down, and worshipped [pro·sky·ne'o] him.”—Matthew 2:2, 11. 

Clearly, then, the word pro·sky·ne'o, rendered “worship” in some Bible translations, is not reserved exclusively for the type of adoration due Jehovah God. It can also refer to the respect and honor shown to another person. In an effort to avoid any misunderstanding, some Bible translations render the word pro·sky·ne'o at Hebrews 1:6 as “pay him homage” (New Jerusalem Bible), “honour him” (The Complete Bible in Modern English), “bow down before him” (Twentieth Century New Testament), or “do obeisance to him” (New World Translation). 

Jesus Is Worthy of Obeisance 
Is Jesus worthy of such obeisance? Most decidedly, yes! In his letter to the Hebrews, the apostle Paul explains that as the “heir of all things,” Jesus has “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.” (Hebrews 1:2-4) Thus, “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:10,11.

As for our history being traced back to the Apostolic Age and or the Pre-Nicene Creed is true. Because during those days, before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), majority of Christianity were Subordinationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism), including us Unitarians, hence why I quoted "Unitarianism traces their roots back to the Apostolic Age".

An example is St Irenaeus, Clement, Trurellian, and many many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age), but to focus on where we trace our history as Subs we can look into what, since I will be focusing on St Irenaeus, on what he says in some of his writings, examples being:

Irenaeus speaks of both the Word (LOGOS) and Wisdom, for us today it is the Son Jesus Christ and and Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is like God's hands, in which he uses to bring this universe and the living creatures on land and sea, as well as the sky into existence, by his hand the heavens were also made, even the Angels, Sons of the Most High (Bene Elohims who are/come into existence because of El Shaddai).

We know clearly that human being as the image of God (came into existence because of God/called Sons of God).

We also know that The Word of the LORD is the one who brought forth the teachings of God so people may learn about God and they have a choice to take to heart these teachings or to ignore it, for no one is forcing them.

And we know that the Father is capable of creating humanity and all living things for everything came into existence through his LOGOS. Angels were also created by the Father through the Word, as for the Holy Spirit is God's power or force that he uses to create things, his breathe, his hands, his fingers, as to what the bible compares said Spirit to. That same spirit can be used/bestowed among others as well as those who follow God, in short used on behalf of his servants, if that makes better sense, in addition to operate in a variety of ways in all persons (examples being, Mary becoming pregnant, Zechariah being able to speak, the list goes on).

 

Quote

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. (AH 4.20.1)

 

Other quotes

Quote

Wherefore I do also call upon thee, LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, though the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.   Against Heresies III.6.4, p. 419.

…neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in his own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and Son; but naming no other as God [than the Father], and confessing no other as Lord [than the Son]: and the Lord Himself [i.e. Jesus] handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; – it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. …[Jesus] did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham… There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner [i.e. John the Baptist]; and His salvation – that is, His Word – He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate…  Against Heresies III.9.1, p. 422.

Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord [Jesus] had known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, and to call Him alone Father? But He did the rather distinguish those who by word merely (verbo tenus) are termed gods, from Him who is truly God, that they should not err as to His doctrine, nor understand one [in mistake] for another. And if He did indeed teach us to call one Being Father and God, while he does from time to time Himself confess other fathers and gods in the same sense, then He will appear to enjoin a different course upon His disciples from what He follows Himself. Such conduct, however, does not bespeak the good teacher, but a misleading and invidious one. The apostles too, according to these men’s showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown – if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore, will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should be called Father, thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has been pointed out. Against Heresies IV.1.2, p. 463.

Later in the book:

Both the Lord [Jesus], then, and the apostles announce as the one only God the Father, Him who gave the law, who sent the prophets, who made all things; and therefore does He say [in the parable in Matthew 22], “He sent his armies,” because every man, inasmuch as he is a man, is His workmanship, although he may be ignorant of his God. For He gives existence to all; He, “who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust.” [Luke 15:11]   Against Heresies IV.36.6, p. 517.

During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.

Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html

Difference in Socinianism/Unitarianism to Arianism:

Quote

The term Socinianism has been applied quite indiscriminately over a large body of anti-Trinitarian doctrine. The Godhead is the central issue of Socinianism. From both the Catholic and the Unitarian point of view, they rightly held that God is absolutely simple. They concluded that distinction of persons is destructive to that simplicity. From this logic, they denied the Trinity is unsound. The distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is that homage to Christ is in view of his relationship to the Father and of a secondary type, whereas the Trinitarians hold it is of the cult of the latria, where he is in fact God as the Father is God.

You also see that:

Quote

The Trinity did not come into existence until it was defined at the Council of Constantinople in 381. At Nicea in 325 the Trinity was not formulated. Only the foundation of the Binitarian structure was laid down here. All the Catholic Church was Unitarian until the Modal structure entered Rome from the worship of Attis in the beginning of the third century.

 

I can pull up even more if you want. But I see this is starting to term from Jehovah's Witnesses to Unitarians.

So the claim as we, also Christians don't have history that traces back to the Apostolic Age, is false. Our views pertains to those days, and we as well know the difference between an Arian believe and what isn't. I will gladly post even more information if that isn't enough for you.

 

As I stated in my TL;DR, I always comment you, but now I ask you something.

"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?"

Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents?

 

Well I gotta admit, you like putting people to task,huh.

[Shiwiii]

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

For me, glorying God is an everyday thing (24/7/365 non-stop), the same for my relatives, the same for our family in both Belize, the Virgin Islands and in the US, time is taken out each day to speak of God, who Jesus is, people who followed Jesus and various things, examples being those in Jesus' genealogy as well as the not so much talked about two female ministers mentioned in the New Testament, in doing so we show we truly love God by talking, learning, applying what we've learn and so forth, build up faith, the thing that makes us Christian.

of course we give glory to God daily, as did the Jews, but there are also separate festivals/feasts in which we can elaborate or worship. I also agree with you on not allowing outside influence to slip into what we choose to do for our festivals. 

 

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

We must also take into account that the only one capable of judging is God himself

Yes, however it has been said MANY times by jws that "true christians" do not celebrate  this or that. Those are judging statements and as I said are in direct contrast  with scripture. 

[Space Merchant]

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

of course we give glory to God daily, as did the Jews, but there are also separate festivals/feasts in which we can elaborate or worship. I also agree with you on not allowing outside influence to slip into what we choose to do for our festivals. 

 

I do agree that Festivals should be all about worshiping the True God and he alone. For people in those ancient days have done things such as Passover, Weeks (Pentecost), Trumpet Blast in the Month of Ethanim, Festival of Dedication and Festival of Purim, etc. However, these festivals/feasts pertain to the worship of God, never has there been in the bible that such also pertains to the celebration of one's birth. Unless I am missing something and as well as what Solomon had said.

 

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Yes, however it has been said MANY times by jws that "true christians" do not celebrate  this or that. Those are judging statements and as I said are in direct contrast  with scripture. 

If I'm not mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses have stated that true Christians do not celebrate said Holidays due to believing such Holidays displease God, they make a case in their articles, probably more (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-christmas/ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/birthdays/), which is actually true, therefore, God will be the judge as in who is doing what is right in terms of avoiding/partaking such traditions and the like or anything that deviates worship to God, since Christmas tends to collide with an alleged Birthday regarding those who think Jesus was born on that day.What is incorrect it wasn't said many times by the JWs, it was said great number of times by Christians in the past who did take action at times, long before they existed as bible students, long before most denominations, like ages ago, into the very days of even John's students and the early Church Fathers.

The celebration of one's birth is up to question Christendom and has been debated over and over among Christians, so them, the JWs, as do others, will say that in regards to True Christians, that those who really stick to true worship will ignore and or abandon those things. It doesn't contradict scripture because the one whom you show genuine worship to will be the judge of each of us individually, especially when it comes to the history of both Christmas and Birthdays, or any Holiday for that matter (that was also an issue with Christians in 3rd century and onward.)

In short, The Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations will consider such as something that displeases God. We have seen in scripture of how God reacts to what displeases him and we seen how that turned out when he judges those people on the spot.

You can take the vile things out of Christmas, which is very good unlike some Christians who don't, however, you still got the celebration of one's birth (alleged).

But there is chance, some Christians do is not only get out all the Christmas antics, they also cease celebration of one's birth and they choose to worship to God on that day.

Examples being spreading the gospel to those who on't know God, learning about what Jesus did, what his Disciples did, what God's followers in the Old Testament did and take example, sing to God, teach the family and or friends about God and thanking God for the one sent who has sacrificed himself to provide us amnesty, a chance of redemption to repent for our sins. I know some who use the Holidays to read a really large portion of the bible, like a reading marathon/bible book club type of thing (reading to your pace verses/chapters in the bible), getting through a an X amount of gospels in a span of a day kind of. In short, these Christians make the day 100% spiritual since they have more free time.

---

End to first comment

---

dual post (because I'm feeling lazy and I just wanna put this here for others)

Since I feel someone may bring up Christmas and Holidays, JWs and Christmas/Holidays,  or Christians and Christmas/Holidays, I will just post this here just to shed "some" history and the fact that not celebrating holidays wasn't of JW origin.

(more of a to whom this may concern kinda thing, a dual post)

What people don't know was way back before the Jehovah's Witnesses ever existed, the belief that Christmas and or the celebration of one's birth is of pagan customs. I will just post information just to debunk that this is merely a Jehovah's Witnesses belief (JW-only belief), which will tread into Birthday territory too.

1855 Christmas was not just illegal in some parts, but considered Satanic. In the 1560s, Christmas was in fact banned, by Christians (Protestants) as well as Puritans English Reformed Protestants in the 1600s. Anyone caught celebrating it, even if a Christian was caught celebrating it, they'd have serious consequences ahead of them, as well as a financial consequence.

Quote

The Scottish Kirk, which was itself fiercely Protestant, had abolished Christmas as long ago as the 1560s and, although James I had managed tentatively to restore the feast in his northern kingdom in 1617, it was banned there once again after his sonÂ’s defeat by the Scots in 1640.

Quote

1647 England

The English Parliament passed a law that made Christmas illegal. Oliver Cromwell, Puritan leader, believed feasting and revelry on what was suppose to be a holy day was considered immoral. Thus, he banned all Christmas activities. Anyone caught celebrating would be immediately arrested. The ban was only lifted when the Puritans lost power in 1660. However, the Puritans in America banned Christmas as well between 1659 and 1681.

If you go further back in ancient days, like way back 3rd century, you have Origen of Alexandria (185 AD-254AD). Despite the fact he was not part of the Church of God, the writings of the early 3rd century Catholic theologian shows us that even that late Orthodox Catholics were against the celebration of birthdays. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday (Martindale C. Christmas, 1908).

He wrote:

Quote

...of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below (Origen, in Levit., Hom. VIII, in Migne P.G., XII, 495)

Said Holidays of birth celebration and Christmas eventually became intertwined with Christianity around the 4th century, even becoming common among those who profess Christ, in addition to Infant Baptism being introduced. The Romans, especially Emperors, tend to have these celebrations of their birth (wild parties as they call it, while the Romans have started to accept Christianity. Romans also partook in Sol Invictus, even as Christians.

 

Other Info:

Quote

The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.

So in short, festivals of worship and the like is okay, however things that pertain to yearly celebration of one's birth and or Christmas based celebration (wild partying, Yule Tree/Sun God worship, Satuernila, etc). Yes these things can be taken out of Christmas and make it free of those things, but then you got the yearly celebration of one's birth part.

The Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, back in their bible student days did celebrate Christians and I assume Birthdays too, in fact they are open about it too, but they have come to the realization that Christmas or these Holidays are not Christian at all. Years before them, Christians consider the Holiday pagan, even when they have members of theirs migrate to America, they still hold things view, and even before them, you have both Christians and Catholics who oppose these celebrations, some have given in, but others held on to these views still, that such acts displeases God.

So today, you will have Christians who will say True Christians don;t celebrate those things, they can say it, some will tend to judge one who does celebrate it, others will take both a physical and verbal approach that can lead to minor to major situations. As I said, God himself will judge and biblically we have seen him react to some festivals that displeases him or festivals that do not have anything to do with worship to him.

No one is able to go either way. But you do have a choice. But since you said that you use the for worship and talking about God, that is a good thing and respects t you for that, but as I said about being careful about including things into worship, examples being celebration of someone's birth even though the birth date itself is unknown,  is some murky-water type situation.

I already told Cos that us Unitarians, as do most Christians, have roots back to the Pre-Nience days, The Apostolic Age, and like our early Christian counterparts if we have to make change to make sure our faith doesn't mix in with what is not good, we have to really pick ourselves back up, should we stumble a bit or should we fall.

In the end, each and every one of us have time to adjust ourselves, for we are all imperfect anyways, JWs are also imperfect, for we all have flaws and think something is right/wrong when it is the opposite. We do what is best to build our faith, or as my pop's tells me, be strong physically, mentally and spiritually, and to keep ourselves clean with a Christian based lifestyle and attitude.

As for God, he will be the judge for each and everyone one of us. He will judge us Unitarians, The Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptist, Muslims, whatever denomination, he will judge.

 

check out my sources if you want (3 of 11 ):

http://www.cogwriter.com/birthdays.htm

https://rcg.org/articles/abcc.html

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

 

One thing I'd like to add is out of 2 billion Christians, 27 million plus Christians (the only recent statistic I can find, the other was Halloween-only): https://www.theodysseyonline.com/christians-groups-that-dont-celebrate-christmas

 

[Cos]

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. <>< 

[Space Merchant]

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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).

You will love my next post then.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos 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….

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

 

Quote

Old/New Testament (shachah/proskyneō)

Lot "worshipped" two angels (Gen.19:1-2),

Abraham "worships" the Hittites (Gen.23:7, 12),

Isaac blesses Jacob to have everyone "worship" him (Gen.27:29),

Jacob "worships" Esau (Gen. 33:1-4),

Joseph's brothers will "worship" him (Genesis 27:9-10),

Ruth "worships" Boaz (Ruth 2:10),

Abigail "worships" David's servants (1 Samuel 25:40-41),

Saul "worships" the dead man Samuel (1 Sam. 28:14),

Mepibosheth, the son of Jonathan, "worships" David (2 Sam. 9:6-8),

A man "worships" David (2 Samuel 1:1-2)

A woman "worships" David (2 Sam.14:4),

The sons of the prophets "worship" Elisha (2 Ki. 2:15),

David "worships" the Temple (Ps.5:7)

However one is not to "worship" anyone else as his God but our Jealous God. (Ex. 20:4-5, Lev. 26:1)

King of Israel, King of the Jews.(Matthew 2:2)

Israel worshiped both God King David/Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:20-23)

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”.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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).

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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?

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)

 

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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)

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)

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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 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).

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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?

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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?

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).

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

“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).

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

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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!

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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;

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

(J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 107).

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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?

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

“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?

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).

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

 

“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)

 

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

“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)

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".

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

“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)

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.”

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

Does any of what Tertullian say above sound anything like Unitarianism? Nooooooooo!

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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!

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

(Nicene Creed Contemporary Version),

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:

Quote

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

While many post-Nicene Christians asserted Arius's death as miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views—several recent writers mention that Arius may have simply been poisoned by his opponents. Even with its namesake's demise, the Arian controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades—or centuries, in parts of the West.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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

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.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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.

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 4^th 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.

Quote

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, in some extent, even Trinitarians as well, all of Christendom. But apparently, it is too hard for you to believe this, but I will leave that information up for the others, even so that our Jehovah’s Witness friends here can see, so they know where majority of Christianity originated from before the Council of Nicaea.

 

 

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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. <>< 

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:

Quote

“Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally Subordinationist. Theology almost universally taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father,” -Robert M. Grant

 

Quote

“the Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. ,” -Robert M. Grant

Quote

Also, in the late 100s – Birth of Irenaeus, who taught a subordinationist Unitarian theology: that the Son and Spirit are “hands of God.” (Unfortunately, Irenaeus is also the father of much speculative apocalypticism that confuses and conflates various images from different scriptures.)

Quote

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 Trinitarian "three in one" God.

 

[Space Merchant]

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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).

Lucky for you, I know the Shema quite well, ironically enough you never mentioned ANYTHING regarding Jesus and the Shema, allow me to show you:

"The LORD our God, the LORD is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Before we start, let's talk about Paul:

Paul would be a sinner if he had altered the Shema at all. It's against the Shema to alter or change the Torah, Deuteronomy 4:2 It's clear in the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is only using Psalm 110:1 and contrasting the Christian view against that of the world/pagan/Gentiles. The Gentiles have many gods, the Christians have one God, the Father. The Gentiles have many lords, the Christians have one lord, Jesus Christ.

Paul affirms the Shema in 1 Cor 8.4-6.

 

Now then,

Shema requires what of God’s people?

• To love God to the fullest, with all of one’s being (Deuteronomy 6:5)
• To take to heart the Word of God and His commandments (Deuteronomy 6:6)
• To teach the Word of God, and speak about His commandments to one’s children during daily affairs (Deuteronomy 6:7)
• To bind the Word of God as a sign upon the arm and between the eyes (Deuteronomy 6:8)
• To affix the Word of God to the doorposts of the house and upon the gates (Deuteronomy 6:9)

 

We, us Unitarians as do ALL Christians, believe that God is one and true (YHWH alone), and to what you said it isn’t just us Unitarians only who believe this, clearly we have others who will say the exact same thing, and so there is no question about that, but obviously some will try to go around as to what the Sehma met to the Jews and what it met to Jesus. We understand exactly what Deuteronomy 6:4 (also 5-9), the Law of the Jews at the time, and how Jesus observed, recited and understood the Law of the Jews, The Shema (Sh’ma/Shema Yisrael) included, for he was born a Jew under the Law, for he himself was a born Jew.

The core of the Shema is based off Deuteronomy 6:4-9, but we will just focus verses 4 and 5, as to what Jesus said to the Scribe in the gospel of Mark.

Deuteronomy 6:4 - “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (5) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” -  ESV

We see in verse 4 the simplest form of the Shema/Shema Yisrael, in addition, the Hebraic form of this verse, literally says, "YHWH our God YHWH is one" (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד | "Hear O Israel, YHWH our God YHWH is one.") In English, mainly in the NKJV and KJV “LORD”

 In some translations as well as to other scholars and or those who study the scriptures, they translate the Hebraic word “YHWH” to what we normally see in pronouncing the name, Yahweh (YHWH), Yahveh (YHVH), Jehovah, (JHVH), Jahweh (JHWH), usually depends on the translation as well as the language used.

We know Jesus was a Jew, born of a woman, born under the law, because of what Paul says in Galatians 4:4 – “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,” - ESV

Even the Jews acknowledged clearly that they have one Father, God, who is one (in addition to them claiming to be children of God, as well as children of Abraham, whose God and Father is the same God as the Jews) when they were speaking to Jesus in John 8:41, we also see that Jesus validates this in John 8, going on to even telling them “It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God”. So we know from the Jewish prospective we, as do others today, know that the Father was their God, that He alone is One, the God of Israel, who is also our God .

It's obvious that Jesus' Father, his God, wasn’t any different than the God of Israel, the God of every Israelite because the God of Israel is the one God, as well as the Father of Lord Jesus Christ. As a Jew under the Law, he was obligated to obey the Law and Jesus' God and Father could not be any different than the God of Israel who is identified at Deuteronomy 6:4 as "Our God." Jesus' God and Father “was one person, one person alone”, his Father alone, and nobody else but the Father. If his God was one person then so was the God of Israel, one person.

When Jesus was young he read the Old Testament scriptures and he read about all the things God had done, his God. Who did Jesus have in mind with this he read these things?  Was the young Jesus thinking about the days when he himself led Israel out of Egypt or did he suppose that his God and Father, the one who is the God of Israel, was he, Jesus, himself? The answer is quite obvious. I don’t think he was, as do many and it wouldn’t make any sense either. What makes sense is that the young Jesus thinking about his Father and his Father alone, his God, the God of Israel and knowing this information by reading of it.

Jesus declared that the Jews worshiped what they knew, we see this in John 4:20-22.

(20)Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” (21) Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. (22) You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. - English Standard Version (ESV)

Some people tend to nullifying Jesus' words for the sake of “their” tradition or teachings, which is evident. Not only so, they fail to see the meaning of Jesus' words, “WE worship what WE know”. Jesus is including himself among all Jews and saying that all the nation of Israel knew exactly what they worshiped just as he himself knew what he worshiped. Jesus knew who he worshiped, as it was said before, the God of Israel, his Father alone and Jesus used the word "We" indicating that ALL Jews also knew this and not just Jesus himself.

Jesus also taught that “the foremost command of the Law was The Shema (Sh’ma/Shema Yisrael) command”, that is, Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

Since we already know what verse 4 in Deuteronomy says, we now look to verse 5, which reads: “You should love Him, your True God, with all your heart and soul, with every ounce of your strength.” - ESV

We see this in Mark 12:28-34 when Jesus and the Jewish Scribe were talking to each other:

(28) And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” (29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (31) The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (32) And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. (33) And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (34) And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. - English Standard Version (ESV)

As a born Jew under the Law, Jesus was “required” to keep this command just like every other Jew who also keeps this command. Something that is very important that we must always keep in mind and appreciate, rather than ignore.

Jesus and the scribe (still on Mark 12:28-34) agreed that the Shema is the foremost command, they also agreed that the words "the Lord is one" (YHWH is One in Hebraic) meaning "He is one and there is no other but He”. Jesus makes it very clear and shows us that the Shema means "the Lord is one He/Him." So we know for certain that Shema means that “the Lord is one He”, one “who”, while most people today commonly read the notion, "the LORD is one what" in terms of divine nature into the text ignoring and nullifying the words of Jesus concerning the meaning of the Shema. To Jesus and the scribe, YHWH (Yahweh) is only and one single He and or Him and there is no other but He for He is the only one alone that is God. Jesus and the scribe accepts that the words "the Lord is one" mean exactly what is means, that their God is one single He. Jesus shows us that the Shema is referring to one person, evident that Jesus obeyed the Shema as well as recognizing and serving his Father alone who is the one God of Israel. He observed the Shema command by recognizing and serving only one person, the God of Israel, who is also his Father alone, the He or Him that is mentioned, hence Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4.

The God of Jesus = the God of Israel: "OUR God"

Throughout entirety of the New Testament, we find that the God of Lord Jesus Christ is one God and one alone, who is also his Father. The God and Father of Jesus is one person, the one true God.

With what has been presented in regards to The Shema Yisrael we know that:

(A) Jesus taught the Shema was the foremost command of the Law.

(B) Jesus clearly agrees, as well as the Scribe and the Jews, with the Shema command "the Lord (YHWH) is one" meant that God is one single He and that single He is the True God, the God of Israel.

(C) Jesus was a Jew, as just like every other Jew, he born under the Law. Examples being that he, like every other Jew, was circumcised into the Law and not only instructed, but also required to keep this command of the Law.

(D) Not only we know that Jesus (Luke 2:21), as well as the Jews (Genesis 17:10, 12; Leviticus 12:2, 3), were circumcised after the 8^th day (some translations will say on the 8^th day), in verse 22 of Luke 2, after purification, Jesus was brought up to Jerusalem to be presented to YHWH (Yahweh), the one True God of Israel, according to the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:2, 4) as well as to what the God of Israel’s Law stated (Luke 2:23-24).

(E)  The command was a command to ALL of Israel’s inhabitants to serve Our God, Israel's God, the True God.

(F) Jesus not only observed, but he also obeyed the command to serve the True God, our God, therefore, by recognizing and serving only Him who is one person, He who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in addition, Jesus himself clearly shows us, even proving to us what the Shema means by not only reciting, but by his actions as a Jew born under the law.

(G) Jesus shows us that his God and Father is also Our God and Father and that one must love the God and Father of Jesus with all his heart, soul, and strength. We see this clearly in the NT as well in Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27.

(H) Jesus' obedience to the Law he was born under, and his obedience to observe the Shema command to serve the one True God, Our God, demonstrates that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the God of Israel, The same God of whom Jesus and the Jews have known about.

(I) Jesus, in scripture, The New Testament, makes it even clearer that he indeed has a God, the one he, by Law as a born Jew, serves, the one who is his God and His Father, the same God the Jews served, the same God we today serve,  Our God, the One True God. Examples being John 20:17, which reads: Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” – ESV.

In addition, early followers have acknowledged that Jesus has a God, as we see in Ephesians 1:17 and Colossians 1:3, Paul included, based on Galatians 1:1 acknowledging both Lord Jesus and God, who raised him (Jesus) from the dead, in verse 3 he acknowledges them both again for we are to take example from both God and Jesus in regards of Grace (undeserved kindness) and peace.

(J) When Jesus was tempted by The Deceiver (Satan the Devil) in the Wilderness. Satan came and had taken Jesus to a very high mountain and said to Jesus that he will give Jesus all the Kingdoms of the world, only if he do an act of worship to him (Mathew 4:8, 9/Luke 4:6, 7), in response, Mathew 4:10/Luke 4:8, Jesus answered him by saying, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.”

For what Jesus have said in response to Satan is actually “written”, just a few verses from the Shema and first foremost commandant, is also something the Jews follow. For what he has said is from Deuteronomy 6:13 (also in 10:20), in addition to that Jesus has acknowledge, once again the God and Father, who is YHWH is but one and it shows us just exactly of “who” Jesus is talking about. Aside from that, with each temptation The Deceiver tempts Jesus with, the response is the same, for Jesus speaks of what is written, pretty much says that he will not do what the he (The Deceiver) tells him to do, but he will do what his God and his Father tells him to do. Everything written is under Law, the Law of the Jews.

So one would have to question who do you think the LORD is to Jesus in Det. 6:4? The answer is pretty evident, don’t you agree? It is the Father. In Matthew 11:25: “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;” - ESV

In some Translations it is “I praise you” or “”I thank thee”, regardless, of whom Jesus is referring to, just like the Jews who recognize YHWH has the one and true God. The Shema to Jesus, as a Jew, those words met something to him.

As Christians we follow and walk in the footsteps of Jesus, and by doing so we take into account of the things he says, and what he speaks of, including this and if such means something to Jesus, it should mean something to us as well, this including understanding what The Shema Yisrael is all about. If you want to consider Jesus’ understanding of the Shema and how he followed it, considering that ii is unfounded, hence my understanding of Jesus and the Shema, then I ask you, what kind of Christian are you?

One of the reasons I ask this question to some people is to see if they even mention Jesus’ understanding of Jew Law, The Shema Yisrael, etc. Not one of them speaks this, only “few” who tend to have a bit of an understanding of it when they bring up Jesus and the Jewish Scribe.

But I guess it is too “Arian” for you, as well as the fact that I, Unitarian, a Christian who is always learning something and maintaining what I have learned even from my mistakes, and always trying to do what is right no matter what, as well as following in the steps of The Son, conforming to his image, so that I, as well as others Christians who are on this same path, may be close with the Father, who is God. Our Jehovah's Witness counterparts would defiantly agree to this, as well as others. But people who twist what the Shema is don't know anything about what it means to those who follow Jesus.

You assume I wouldn’t have known exactly of what the Shema or the Law of Jews is about, even though I was the only one to have mentioned it, perhaps the only one in this thread who has brought it up. That being said, now you know my understanding of the Shema in regards to Jesus Christ, for it is based of scripture with a Hebraic prospective, not from how some Christians tend to view it without even really trying to study of what it is about, therefore, it isn’t unfounded nor is it an Arian/Unitarian concept, of which you claim.

In the end, one would have to really think and question exactly “Who” to Jesus is that one “LORD”, that is mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:4, and eventually those who actually took the time to listen, to research, and having an understanding, they’ll come to one simple conclusion: “Our God”, “The God of Israel” who is “The Father alone” (The LORD Our God, YHWH, of the Shema).

 

Compound Unity

Quote: The very last word in the Shema is the Hebrew word Ehhad/Echad. That word is rendered as “one” in most English translations of the Bible; some translations use “alone” instead. In either case, the straightforward, common-sense understanding of Ehhad/Echad in the Shema tells us that only one person is Almighty God – and that one person is our Heavenly Father, Yahweh. - B.K.

There are a lot of people who bring up things in regard to Deuteronomy 6:4, especially when it comes to the word “One” in Hebrew referring to “compound unity”, in a different context it also seen as “Composite Unity”. To make it short and sweet, it just means “One”, it is the same as English word “One”. For instance if I were to say “one” Horse, it just means “one” Horse. What if I were to say “one” herd of Horses? It is still “one” herd, even though it is a “compound unity”, a group of Horses.

The word "one" in any language is used for compound unities. Compound unities reflect that of "categories" or "groups" of multiple things and when we refer to a group of multiple things we all recognize it is "one" group of "many" things. For instance, kind of like the example I gave seconds ago from this point in my message; one herd, one flock, one team, one cluster, one constellation, one family, one company, all refer to groups of things which can be said to be "compound unities" not because they are qualified by the word "one", or אֶחָד (Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259), but because we have these words in our many languages to identify "one" group of these things. The Hebrew word Ehhad/Echad does not itself ever imply anything but the numeral "1." That being said, both Biblically and Scripturally, Ehhad/Echad points to simply "one". You can ask a Jew in our modern day and age about it, or perhaps a Muslim, you'd get the same answer for they know the Shema very well, but Muslims don't take kindly to (A) People who don't know their bible and (B) Any Christian who thinks God is a 3-in-1, Trinity (May be the same with Jews, the way I see them talking on other forums).

Of course, the reason why this alternate understanding of Ehhad/Echad is important is because it, sadly, allows some groups to “spin” the Shema – into an endorsement or to push a certain Doctrine. In other words, some groups state “The Shema tells us that God is one, which is indeed true, but that “one” refers to a “compound/composite unity”. So, the Shema is telling us that there is only one God, but this one God, that is He, is comprised of multiple persons.” I can say with confidence those who bring these claims are false.

This concept is usually expressed in English translations with the word “one”; but the words “single”, “unique” and “first” are used as well, depending on the context itself. Here are some examples of Ehhad/Echad (not using the feminine version of it, therefore pushing evidence) meaning a simple, unitary one can be seen based off several biblical verses (ESV):

Quote

Genesis 1:9a - And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one (ehhad /echad) place

Genesis 2:21a - So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one (ehhad /echad)

Genesis 42:11 - We are all sons of one (ehhad /echad) man. We are honest men. Your servants have never been spies.”

Ezekiel 37:24 - “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one (ehhad /echad) shepherd.

Zechariah 14:7 - For it will be a unique (ehhad /echad) day which is known to the Lord

Genesis 2:11 - The name of the first (ehhad /echad) [river] is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

Genesis 8:5 - And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first (ehhad /echad) day of the month

We can clearly see, all of the above examples refer to “one” single person, a place or a thing, and you can clearly see what is seen is not subjected to one group of item(s).

Modern day expositors make blunt assertions, whenever they discuss the Shema, they will jump to say that Ehhad/Echad means a compound unity, and nothing more, being ignorant of the facts and what it truly means regarding one person, one place, or one thing. The suggestion of such assertions, of course, is that ehhad/echad only means a compound unity. In other words, that assertion implies that in every case where ehhad/echad is used, it always refers to one group of items as oppose to one single item. However, in various cases, ehhad/echad actually refers to just one single item, in short, “one”, therefore, the implication that ehhad/echad always refers to a “compound unity” is demonstrably false, and there is a load of examples in scripture.

In addition, even in the minority of cases where ehhad/echad does refer to a compound unity, the meaning still doesn’t conform to any supposed doctrine or special belief. Cases where ehhad/echad refers to one group of items, it is clear that each member of the group is only a subset of the listed “compound unity”. Examples being scripture stating that a husband and a wife, together, become “one flesh”, the verse can be found in ANY bible Translation (Genesis 2:24), even the NWT, despite that phrase making your head spin every time you hear or see it.

This indicates that the husband and wife are each “subsets” of the “one” (ehhad/echad) flesh, but that together they comprise in “completion” “one” flesh.

In that same sense, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit,  but out of the 3, there is still just “one” God.

In many other passages in scripture state that only our Heavenly Father is Almighty God and that it is “ridiculously” an obvious find, if you are familiar with the scriptures, that is.

That tells us that ehhad/echad in the Shema refers to just one person: our Heavenly Father, Our God, He who is one and alone. Note that “God the Father” does appear in Scripture, many, many times in many places, but the phrase “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” doesn’t even appear anywhere in scripture, perhaps not even there at all for that matter. What actually appear in scripture are phrases like “Son of God” and the “Spirit of God”.

Let’s look at 3 passages in scripture.

1st, we have the Son of God, he, Jesus himself states that at John 17:3 that our Heavenly Father is “the only true God”, in addition to Jesus making acknowledgement, verbally, that he was “sent by God”.

Similarly as the 1st, the 2nd passage we will look at what Paul said, for Paul informs us that there is “one God, the Father” and that there is” one Lord, Jesus Christ” (like bosses, masters, etc). We see this in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

3rd, Jesus explicitly denied that he was/is God the Father, informing the man “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18) and he stated that his Heavenly Father was his God, for our Father is also Our God (John 20:17).

So, to understand The Shema, you have to  understand Deuteronomy 6:4 as well as the laws of the jews, which also applies to Jesus, since he observed, recited, etc. Ehhad/Echad (Compound/Composite Unity) applies to one person, one place, and one thing. Finally, scripture alone teaches us that the one who is HE Himself is the one who is alone, this one, is Our God.

And if that isn’t enough, I got some information of my own that supports such.

Quote

Following the example of the scholar-martyr Rabbi Akiba (2nd century AD), the Shema has been uttered by Jewish martyrs throughout the ages as their final profession of faith in the one God of humankind and their love for him. Pious Jews hope to die with the words of the Shema on their lips.

Quote

To support their claim that there are multiple persons within the godhead, missionaries insist that the Hebrew word אֶחָד, (echad), meaning “one” at the end of Deuteronomy 6:4 does not mean an absolute one. Rather, they argue, this verse can only signify a “compound unity,” or many things in one. They will often cite two verses to support this assertion.

The word echad in the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as the word “one” does in the English language. In the English language it can be said, “these four chairs and the table make up one dinette set,” or alternatively, “There is one penny in my hand.” Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word “one” can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny.

Although the Hebrew word echad functions in the exact same manner, evangelical Christians will never offer biblical examples where the word echad means “one alone.” Thus, by only presenting Scriptural verses such as Genesis 1:5 and Numbers 23:13, it creates the illusion to the novice that the word echad is somehow synonymous with a compound unity. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

There is a question that immediately comes to mind: If the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad) can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse?

The answer lies in the context, which is always determinative. In the exact same way the word “one” is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. “Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set” is a compound unity, and “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” is unsullied monotheism.

 

Quote

J.H. Hertz: “At this stage in history, only Israel recognizes Hashem as One, thus He is our God; but in time to come, after the final Redemption, all the world will acknowledge that HASHEM (God) is One (Rashi)….[T]he Torah says that Hashem is the One and Only—there is an inner harmony for all that He does, though human intelligence cannot comprehend what it is. This, too, will be understood at the End of Days, when God’s ways are illuminated.” - Nosson Scherman, ed., et. al., The ArtScroll Chumash, Stone Edition, 5th ed. (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2000), 973.

Also, JPS is correct The Shema as Declaration of Allegiance. Because it is, by law, something the Jews have done, and even to this day, as they say it, they recite it from when they are a child and continue to say it until their death. This declaration are like legal terms used validate agreements, legally: We solemnly affirm that the obligation we have just recited is valid and binding on us in every way. This makes of the Shema a daily affirmation of allegiance to God and to the covenant obligations that allegiance entails.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:06 AM, Cos said:

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).” 

That is half correct. The Hebrew word for 'one' in the Shema is אֶחָד (Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259), the word Ehhad/Echad (noun) comes from the verbal root אָחַד (Ahhad/ Achad) meaning "to unite". Ehhad/Echad is commonly translated to or with the word “Unit”, something that is part of the whole, a unit within a community or just one thing by itself (compound unity). In a Hebraic prospective everything is, or should be, a part of a unity. For instance, like my other example from many, many words ago: there is not one bush but a bush composed of units within the unity. Having berries, small branches, roots, and vegetation, and leaves. A bush is also in unity with the other bushes.

Another example: a daughter/son is a unit within the family and or household.

From this we can conclude that the Shema is not speaking of Yahweh as a “one and only” but as a unit of the whole.

In regards to Psalm 133:1, אֶחָד Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259 isn’t being used in that verse. In fact, it is יַחַד (ya-hhad/ yakh'-ad Strong’s #3162). Anyone can find the strong’s to that verse quite easily. If I may add, you also have to take into account the parts of speech of said words, despite if the word looks the same in a different verse (masculine, feminine, neuter).

Anyways,

"One ([is] One)", the word used in this verse in interpreted to mean, even show us that there is only "One" God, for YHWH/YHVH is “One”. That word also to pertains to the scriptures in general to the word “ehhad/echhad. The Hebrew word, with a Hebraic prospective, (אחד /ehhad/echad, Strong's #259) can mean a "unit" within a unity. This verse is stating that YHWH (Yahweh) is in unity with himself and He himself alone. An example of this is the “pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night”. A cloud and fire are opposites, one, being the cloud provides shade and coolness. The other, fire, being both light and heat. Yet, they work together to preserve the people during the day and during the night. Both the cloud and fire also helps the people to travel, by day and by night, Exodus 13:21-22.

Love, the Hebrew verb אהב (Aheb/A.H.B) it is no emotion, but rather it is an action. The context of this word in the text tells us that we are to "love" God with our “actions”, not with our emotions.

Our Heart, לבב (Levav). The thoughts in of our mind. The passage in that verse, we are informed how to "love" Yahweh, by keeping our thoughts on him.

The Soul, for the Hebrew word נפש (nephesh) is literally the person (whole of the person). First we are told to love Yahweh, our God with our minds, now with all of our own selves.

Might. The Hebrew word used here is מאד (me'od, Strong's #3966) and is a very interesting word, especially in the way that it is used in this context. This word is used throughout the Hebrew text as an adverb, intensifying a verb, and is usually translated as very, greatly, or much. This is the only time this word appears as a noun and is best translated as "muchness." This idea of muchness is expanding on the previous two ways we are to love Yahweh, first with our mind, then with our body, and now with everything we have.

 

Re-Translation, the meaning:

Israel, pay careful attention and respond: Yahweh works in unity with himself: and you shall act upon your love to YHWH with your thoughts and mind, with your entire body and with everything that you possess.

Quote

The phrase "heart, mind and soul," as it is translated in the RSV, is generally interpreted to mean that we are to love YHWH with "three" things, but the reality is that this phrase is a form of poetry that is using three synonyms to show that our love for YHWH is to be all encompassing, beginning with our thoughts, then our bodies, then everything we possess.

 

And in regards to both Jesus and the scribe, they agreed that the Father is one He and there is no other than He Himself (The Father) for there is no other but the Father.

 

And as to what Jesus and the Jewish scribe conversed, as well as their agreement with each other. I can 110% agree with them, no question, no hesitation, for I am all for what they said.

 

Don't you agree with the saviour, King of Israel, as well as The Jewish Scribe?

 

Also if you want to bring Irenaeus into the fold, here is one of his other quotes (At least he had some understanding of Compound Unity):

Quote

If you continue to read further into Chapter 28, “Compound/Composite Unity” is mentioned and this is what Irenaeus had said:

Not only he mentioned that the Father; “Himself is Alone called God”, Irenaeus objects to making God a “compound being”. Although, he objects to it on grounds different than Trinitarianism, he objects to the concept nonetheless, when you take the time to read Chapter 28.

He [The Father], therefore, who speaks of the mind of God, and ascribes to it a special origin of its own, declares Him a compound Being, as if God were one thing, and the original Mind another.

It continues to say in the conclusion of the paragraph:

So, again, with respect to Logos, when one attributes to him the third place of production from the Father; on which supposition he is ignorant of His greatness; and thus Logos has been far separated from God. As for the prophet, he declares respecting Him, Who shall describe His generation? (Isaiah 53:8) But you pretend to set forth His generation from the Father, and you transfer the production of the word of men which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God, and thus are righteously exposed by your own selves as knowing neither things human nor divine. - (Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 28, 5)

Pretty powerful, huh. But truly I say to you, this is what Irenaeus has written.

 

[Cos]

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 4^th 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. <><

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

WOW!

I hope you have a voice to text software program like "Dragon Naturally Speaking", ( version 12 is excellent!).

That is a LOT of stuff to type by hand, that nobody will read.

[Space Merchant]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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.

I had to, from the beginning because everything I said you quoted as well, so just to make sure everything has a response underneath yours, I had to quote everything you stated. They’re merely responses to what you have brought up. In my mind, it is as if you want a response to everything, as do others who make comment to me, either here or elsewhere.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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:

What you missed entirely; before Jesus ascended:

(A) Jesus said to them before he ascended. (B) Why the Disciples were joyful, which was mentioned before Jesus left. (C) The two men who stood in the sky, telling the Disciples as to why they still remain (Acts) (D) Why the Disciples were told to remain in the City. (E) To whom the Disciples were giving praise to while they waited until receiving what Jesus had spoken to them about before ascending to Heaven. (F) Who gave them “what” Jesus spoke of.

This is what happens when you don’t read in context. The Disciples did do such an act, but it a religious act, especially if you read in what Jesus had said to them in that same chapter, as well as what we read in the book of Acts, which explains to us in greater detail of what took place prior to Jesus ascended into Heaven (The two men, the angels of God, in the sky, Jesus was lifted up; a cloud caught him from their sight, etc). A few verse before 52, Jesus instructed them to wait on his Father, even telling his followers to go into the city and wait, he didn’t tell them to wait for him because Jesus made it clear to them already of when he will return.

You said originally that: 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 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

“it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus”.

You make it seem as such, especially when you bold the word “Worshiped Jesus”, in addition to that you said before, that: [Cos – was worship in the religious sense because of the fact that He was no longer there. This is only done for true Deity] when the reality is when you look into scripture, you see as to what enabled them to praise God, I can give you a hint, it is based on what Jesus said to them. One cannot assume the Disciples immediately forgot what Jesus told them moments before he had ascended in regards to his Father, God, or as to why they must stay in the city? That being said, they were not a religious act of worship to Jesus Christ himself, reading Acts explains everything clearly.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

Of course it does for the simple fact that Jesus had separated from them!

That is all? It is best you read what I have stated before. Re-read Luke 24 and read Acts 1. Oddly enough, I never heard the term “Holy Spirit” from you when it comes to why the Disciples began praising God after returning to the city.

Examples as to why people perform an act of proskunéō in those days, as well as today. In the bible, we know that Kings and such authority have people bow down to them, honor, and the like. In some translations, these acts are rendered into “Worship”, others have used homage, obeisance, etc. (I gave an example of this regarding my last post on Hebrews 1:6) these acts are not a form of exclusive devoted worship and complete servitude to said one receiving such worship, for such deserving worship of such is reserved for God the Father alone. In modern days, such as are done towards higher ranks, for one is a subordinate of the other, thus said subordinate must show respect and honor to his/her superior and or authorities and the like in both honor and respect, as well as it being embedded in one’s very culture.

Now regarding Jesus himself, there is no problem with showing such reverence and respect for him. For instance, we can take the word of one of Jesus’ earlier disciples, Nathaniel. In John 1:49, he called Jesus “Son of God” and “King of Israel”, for he already came into the realization of whom he is speaking to, a fisherman before a the Son of God, before a King, as for the title “King of Israel”, for in the bible, Jesus applied what was said in Isaiah 61:1 to himself in regarding those this title, for he is anointed to do God’s Will and that the Spirit of God is upon him (Luke 4:18), prophesied in Psalm 2:2, as Jesus is God’s anointed one (His Christ).

Another example would be Sim’eon, who didn’t see death, for he wanted see the Christ who is from God the Father. During that time, he was filled with Holy Spirit and met with and spoke of the child, even holding baby Jesus as he spoke, praising God the Father for the very means of Salvation, the child (Luke 1:25-35). 

So we can clearly see of how important Jesus was.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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!

Believe or not it does, for everything points back to the Greek word from the Septuagint “proskunéō” and into its root Hebraic word, שחה (Sh.Hh.H/Shahhah/Shachah Strong's #7812). It act has nothing to do with Jesus leaving them or not, the word means what it is, regardless if you replace the word with reverence, Honor, etc.

Now if it was a religious act, then they would not have gotten what the Father was going to give them, according to Jesus; who addressed his Father in a couple of verses before verse 52. For if they had showed that type of worship to Jesus, they wouldn’t received what was to be given to them because Jesus specifically said that The Father will give them a helper.

You seem to forget about God the Father and how he reacts to exclusive devoted worship and service to him. There is no issue in honoring the Son, or showing reverence to him, for in doing so, you honor the Father, but when it comes to exclusive worshiping a highly religious form, coupled with total service to anyone other than God, then my friend, you are signing a check you won’t be able to cash, luckily, the Father is impartial and open to forgive by means of his Son’s sacrifice.

Jesus himself was anointed by the Father via Holy Spirit, Jesus was already called the Horn of Salvation and or, in Sim’eon’s words, “means of Salvation”, Jesus bares titles such as Prophet, High Priest, and King, whereas when one of Jesus’ first two disciples, Nathaniel, even calling Jesus The King of Israel. He is also the Firstborn of the Dead and the Firstfruits of the new creation; in addition to that, he is the Son of God. Clearly someone with such status can and will be honored, at the same time, no one would ever think of putting him above God the Father, i.e. making scarifies to Jesus, praying to Jesus, calling Jesus Almighty God, giving oneself in Holy Sacrifice in sacred service to Jesus etc, things of that nature, that will cause God to feel differently of said person who did such.

 

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

You say; “nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship”

I am right on what I said as well as what the scriptures tell us, and I hold strong conviction to that.

Because anyone one of us here can easily turn to this passage in the New Testament of ANY bible to read Luke 24:52. Nowhere in that verse does it say “Exclusive Devoted Worship” and or “total servitude” to Jesus Christ, which scriptural fact. The word used, be it worshiped, honored, obeisance, whatever, it points back to both the Greek/Hebrew words, and all of the words used in whichever translation of the bible is a rendering of root words.

Unless there is something in that very verse you would like to share about “Exclusive Devoted Worship” and or “total servitude”, you are free to express yourself in regards to that.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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.

Ok then, I will say it again, where in Luke 24:52 does it say anything along the lines of “Exclusive Devoted worship and or complete servitude” to Jesus himself?

 

Pertaining to your response, very, very unlikely, let’s find out why.

 

As for what they did “after” I suggest you take a look at what happen exactly in full detail in Acts 1. Even in Acts regarding Jesus ascending, “Exclusive Devoted and or to serve said person” is unfounded in chapter 1, let’s check it out, for I will list both Luke and Acts below:

 

The Gospel of Luke

Jesus Appears to His Disciples (41-49)

Quote

 

(41) And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

(42) They gave him a piece of broiled fish, [N. and honeycomb]

(43) and he took it and ate before them.

(44) Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

(45) Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (C. John 12:16)

(46) and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,

(47) and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

(48) You are witnesses of these things.

(49)  And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

 

The Ascension (50-53)
 

Quote

 

(50) And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.

(51) While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

(52) And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

(53) and were continually in the temple blessing God.

 

Acts 1:1-12

The Promise of the Holy Spirit (1-5)
 

Quote

 

(1) In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,

(2) until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

(3) He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

(4) And while staying with them he [Jesus] ordered them [Disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he [Jesus] said, “you heard from me;

(5) for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

 

The Ascension (6-11)
 

Quote

 

(6) So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

(7) He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.

(8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

(9) And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

(10) And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,

(11) and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

(12) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

 

Acts 2:46, 47 (connected to Luke 24:53)
 

Quote

 

(46) And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

(47) praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord [YHWH] added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

 

After this event, still overjoyed, they had departed from Jesus, with knowledge and the information given to them, for they returned to Jerusalem and remained there, for they were told to do so by Jesus.

The reason as to why they were commanded to remain in the city is very easy to see for Jesus spoke of what they [the disciples] will be receive within a few very soon, The Holy Spirit; baptized in the Spirit, as Jesus said.

After what they had seen, still in joy for what they marveled at with their own eyes, being witnesses of what they had saw, while in the Jerusalem, continued to give praise to God in the city and waited it out until they received the Holy Spirit, thus the start of Acts Chapter 2 (Acts 2:1-47) That tells us about:

 

Quote

[A] The Coming of the Holy Spirit (1-13)

Peter's Sermon at Pentecost (14-41)

14-36 – Peter’s Speech

37-41 – Crowds respond to Peter’s Speech

41 – 3,000 Baptized

[C] The Fellowship of the Believers (42-47)

42-47 – Christian Fellowship

Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas

 

Other things to note:

Quote

We also see in Luke 24:41, not only they were in disbelief, but they were had great joy at seeing Jesus before them, especially in his Spirit State (lacking Flesh and Bone, but miraculously is able to eat).

We know they received Power from the Holy Spirit because in Luke 24:49 Jesus, who appeared to his disciples, said to them that: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

In contrast, it is brought up in a similar manner in Acts 1:4, 5, which is already highlighted above in the same color as what is right above this very sentence.

That being said, no one in their right mind would ignore God the Father and show “Exclusive Devoted and total servitude” to The Son. Such would prove quite catastrophic for such when the end times and tribulation starts, onward into The day of judgment.

We read in Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:14 - Do not worship [proskunéō] any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

We continue on into the New Testament and see what Jesus himself says to the Devil:

Matthew 4:10 – Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship [proskunéō]  the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Luke 4:8 - Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship [proskunéō]  the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

Romans 12:1 - I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship [proskunéō].

Now if Jesus was to have “Exclusive Devoted” Worship and “To be served to”, he would have told The Deceiver to worship and serve him, and He alone, but he did not say that because, once again: Jesus was a Jew, born of a woman, born under the Law (Shema Yisrael). When he says “It is Written” you should recognize as to what Laws he is referring to.

That being said, even those who come to Christianity by learning or conversion will have the common sense to differentiate “Exclusive Devoted” Worship and servitude God the Father vs. not of anyone else. Plus, the only people who tend to worship Jesus as a God are Modern day Arians and those who claim Monotheistic belief, but do the complete opposite.

For people do ask these questions, even younger people who want to learn about the bible, for the truth about God the Father and the Only-Begotten Son of God should not be complicated and or hidden from such people, for one may be held accountable for knowingly not teaching such truths.

The issue here is when it comes to proskunéō (worship, reverence, obeisance, honor, to bow down, etc) there is NO issue with using said word, for all of it reflects what the Greek meaning is about, proskunéō. The BIG issue here is assuming that Jesus takes the position of God and or somehow is above God and deviates true worship from the Father, who is the one and true God to receive exclusive and devoted worship, as well as total servitude, which is only exclusive to God the Father.

We know that in scripture that the Angels have not changed total exclusive worship/servitude from God to Son, for they honored Jesus because God commanded them to do so, nowhere did God himself state that Jesus will take his place in such high glory, in addition to that, God does not condone the exclusiveness of worship and servitude be done to others than He himself, hence the term “Jealous God” and we know how that turned out for some who chose to ignore it. You have to come to the realization that God can FEEL just like us who can feel. For he has feelings and emotions.

The Disciples themselves only honored Jesus, bowed down and that was it for they now have knowledge of what is in scripture; you are free to say worship or use any translation using said word if you want, but to take away what God, putting Jesus in his place instead of him, is pretty much not the best thing a Christian should be doing, especially of how mainstream Christianity does in claiming they are worshiping exclusively to God.

 

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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.

They’re not “my claims”, it is exactly what the meaning and word implies, and that is absolute fact. For “proskunéō” means exactly what it means, even with Strong’s information points to it, as well as its Hebrew counterpart. It is used to honor someone, it use used for religious acts, it is use to show respect to higher authorizes, it is used in a Master to Slave based relationship, etc. Regardless of how you try to paint it “Worship” will always be traced back to proskunéō and back to שחה. proskunéō (προσεκύνει) (Strongs Number: G #4352)

Orig: from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship. G4314

Note what is says for the New Testament: 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 3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank.

 In the New Testament various words are used for worship. The word proskuneo "to worship" means to bow down to gods or kings, as well as showing honor and respect to others. Examples being, King David, he was worshipped, it does not make him the true God, however if such was done to God the Father, true religious worship and serve would be devoted to Him and it is required.

You need to really think about what you said when it comes to religious acts of worship, who you do this to:

God The Father? Jesus, The Son of God? Or The Holy Spirit?

The bible tells us to worship “one God”, yet you put yourself in a really bad position, with that in mind, I hope you realize what is right and what is wrong. Everyone else here will surely know what the right thing to do is.

As for what you stated: Notice that in 1 Cor. 14:25, part of worship includes falling down on one’s face or knees in humility and (Matt. 4:8-10, 1 Cor. 14:25 etc).

As I said not too long ago, well a couple of sentences ago, you can’t paint over the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew word.

1 Corinthians 14:25 and Matthew 4:9 and 10 points back to proskunéō.

Worship, now to its Greek/Hebrew roots can’t be changed no matter what.

Quote

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?

 It is not because of Jesus ascending to the Father, the word means what it means and I gave the definition and its root meaning for such word a number of times. You think a word would be something else because of Jesus’ ascending? No, for the word “Worship”, will always and forever point back to both Greek and Hebrew words mentioned sentences ago, is critically telling and it will inform the reader of the Bible of what it really means and what Greek and Hebrew word it originated from.

If you look at the Strong’s for proskunéō, it will reveal as such to you, I even post such above, but I guess I rather just link it to you: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre4352.htm

You also need to realize that in scripture, when it comes to Kings, Lords, Masters, High priests, etc. Those of a higher rank than the common man, even in today’s day and age, these men/women show such adoration to these kinds of people, it is clear as day and blue as the sea, green as the grass outside, thus making it fairly obvious.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, Cos said:

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.

I believe I made myself clear from the responses above. As well as taking the time to point Luke 24 to Acts 1, which results in what takes place in Acts 2, as well as putting information out in front of you of proskunéō, repeating myself by saying: What it is define as in Greek and Hebrew is what it is, you can’t change that.

The disciples wouldn’t dare change their position on deserved worship and servitude from God the Father to the Son of God, Jesus, when they already knew who God was, and they knew and waited on the promise of what is to come. In addition to that, the disciples were already joyfully before Jesus had ascended.
 

Quote

 

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”

 

For Deuteronomy 4:24, you may want to look at connected verses in comparison: Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Numbers 25:11, Luke 10:27. Not only they tell us to worship the one True God, but it also shows us that this One True God deserves “exclusive, devoted worship”, in addition, it is said to be “required”.

In Short, Almighty God, the only God to cause things to come into existence for he is the original creator, required exclusive and devoted religious worship and praise. To not do what the bible says on this matter would put you in subjection to God’s judgment, and we all know how that turns out for those who choose to show “exclusive, devoted religious worship” to other gods.

Quote

To your two Scriptures I’d add also, Rev. 4:11.

Not sure if you noticed, but it is referring to God the Father in that verse. The same applies to what we see in Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelations 14:7 and connected verses that are in comparison to the both of them, well in this case, make it all 3 verses, with dozens more verses that connected to them, especially if one fully understands what Revelations is all about, as well as John’s visions and a bit of what Isaiah’s visions are about.

Quote

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.

A). John 1:1-3, 10

 

I can tell you this, this isn’t the first time someone will throw in John 1:1 and think they already made a case. But you are highly mistaken. Plus what I find telling is previously, you stated: “three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - who together are One God.” and now here you stated: “Lord Jesus is the very One who created everything for Himself; He is our Creator” If He is alone is God as you claim, then what of the other 2, suddenly Jesus became above YHWH himself?

 

That then, anyone will know that the beginning of gospel of God is an “introductory chapter” He explains bits of the very beginning of Genesis, into the creation of man, as well as what this “Light” is, etc. Some you and many others seem to ignore in John 1, and knowingly focus on just the first 3 verses.

 

(1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

It is easy enough to understand that the proclaimed Word was pros God (1:1b), but what did John mean when he said, "the Word WAS God?" In John1:18, John tells us plainly what he means;

and the Word was God the only begotten in the bosom of the Father he declares* Him

 

*Greek exēgeomai - unfolds, expounds, explains, expresses. See Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19

 

The Word proclaimed through Jesus was the declaration of God the Father Himself - "the Word was God." No one has ever seen God but John tells us that Jesus came so that we might have understanding of the Father and so that we might know the Father, the only true God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20).

 

John's words, "the Word was God" refer to the fact that the Word proclaimed by Jesus revealed God the Father Himself to us. Although no one has ever seen God the Father, Jesus teaches his disciples they had indeed seen the Father, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

 

Jesus also immediately explained to them how they had seen the Father. They had seen the Father in the words Jesus spoke and the works Jesus did. Jesus testified many times in the Gospel of John that his words were not his own but the Father's who sent him. In the same way, his works were not his own but the works of the Father which he did in his Father's name. The proclaimed Word is not simply uttering a verbal message. Jesus proclaimed the Good News in Word and Work/Deed. The Word of God was all the things God did through Jesus His Anointed.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me wherefore He anointed me to proclaim the Good News to the poor.

He has sent me to herald release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18).

Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst (Acts 2:22).

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth in the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38

The Father who dwells in me does his works (John 14:10c).

(2) He was in the beginning with God.

(3) All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

If we carefully consider John 1:5, "the Light shines in the darkness," it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus (John 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36). In John 1:4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be plain here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation (Time Frame as mentioned before). The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (John 1:9).

With these facts in view, it is very obviously that John 1:3 is not referring to the “Genesis act of creation”, but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, "It is finished" upon his crucifixion just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation. Jesus' ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, the new heavens and earth, where our risen Lord is the firstfruits of the new creation.

Your next problem here, which you missed, verse 3 starts out by saying “All things were made through him” We see here that when God the Father began his creation, there was already someone present “with him”. You claim Jesus is the creator, however there is a "someone" with said God, whereas the reality here is, The Father himself was with Jesus, which is evident in Genesis 1:26 an compared verses that prove it, in addition, the light that was mentioned in the beginning was in regards to Jesus, for the Son himself is considered the "Light" in John 1 and several times in scripture, reasons why Jesus said what he said in John 8:12 that points back to John 1:5, for verses such as Matthew 4:16, John 12:35, which are also connected. I think I went in detail about it a couple of sentences above, probably below too, these long posts can get messy.

The verse tells us in scriptures tell us that the “Genesis creation” was accomplished by means of “God's spoken Word”.

(10) He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him

He was in the world;The world was made through him: To understand John 1:10 we have to take the everything from John 1:1-18 with all seriousness, that means not ignoring everything between John 1:4-9 and everything from 11-18. This verse is already telling us that Jesus was already in the world. We already know that Jesus was in the world for we can easily connect John’s introductory verse to John 1:14, notice carefully, it doesn’t say Jesus became flesh, it says The Word became flesh. For Jesus as a man, who is flesh, was the one who proclaimed The Word/LOGOS; for The Word is spoken through from flesh, a man, Jesus.

Some people are guilty of reading their doctrine into the text concerning this verse. John 1:14 is usually interpreted to mean that the so called “Second Person or God himself” became a human being when he descended into the womb of Mary, however, the text itself says nothing of the sort.

God's Word is something which is expected to be fulfilled. For example, Paul said, found in 1 Timothy 3:16, the mystery of godliness was manifested in flesh which means that a human being of flesh named Jesus manifested godliness during his ministry.

In the same way, "the Word became flesh" refers to the fact that the Word of the Father was manifested in all the things that flesh said and did. The Word came to be flesh when the Spirit descended upon Jesus and he began to walk according to that Word, that is, the Good News of the Kingdom which God Anointed him to proclaim.

Theses verses John 1:4-5, as well as 6-9 would prove fatal to what you believe because they indicate a “Time Frame”. Something that those who believe Jesus is God avoid knowingly.

Verses that shouldn’t be ignored:

Quote

 

(4) In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

(5) The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

(6) There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

(7) He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.

(8) He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

(9) The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.

 

B). Col. 1:15-18

Pretty much pertains to what I said above. God the Father is the created and this come into existence through his spoken word. For when this man named Jesus Christ walked the earth, God's Word is expressed through him, the light of this world that is flesh, the one who is The Word for he speaks the word of the Father.

C). Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12

 

Hebrews 1:2-3 and 10-12 doesn’t help you here. For if, as you said, Jesus is God, then who was his anointed Christ, Chosen One whom he had place above the Angels, as well as so and so sitting by Jesus’ right hand, who has all enemies placed under his feet?

 

See how confusing and messed up that sounds? Everyone knows what the word “CHRIST” means.

 

CHRIST meaning is rather simple: The Anointed One (Chosen One). It comes from the word: Khri-stos, which is equivalent to the Hebraic word Ma-shi-ach, meaning Messiah aka Anointed One. It is an official title.

 

With that in mind, you can’t say that God Anointed himself for it is unfounded in scripture. What is does that in regards to The Father and Son is this: that Jesus Christ (Messiah, Anointed One, Chosen One) was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit to spread the Good News and free those who have been held captive by sin (Luke 4:18-19; Acts 10:38).

Now then let’s start:

Heb. 1:2-3

Quote

 

(1) Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

(2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

(3) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

 

For verses 2-3, you shot yourself in the foot here, for you, Cos, stated the following “Lord Jesus is the very One who created everything for Himself; He is our Creator”.

Yet you mentioned Hebrews 1:2-3 when those verses tell us that it is God the Father who spoke of his Son, it is God the Father who has appointed (The appointed heir) the Son. Hebrews 1:2c takes us back to John 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Nowhere in Hebrews 1 in its entirety states that “Jesus created everything by himself and for himself” as said. Plus we have to bring up the word “CHRIST” again because it seems you do not know what the meaning of that word actually is.

For verse 2 (Hebrews 1:2), the writer of Hebrews is referring to "these last days". When God raised Jesus from the dead and seated him at His right hand, He made him "Lord" (Acts 2:36) and placed all things under his feet. A new ruling administration and reality was established.

For verse 3 (Hebrews 1:3), any thinking man, woman or child will see that if Jesus is in the image OF God, it necessarily means he is not God. It doesn't matter how exact the image is. An exact image of an president on a dollar/coin is not the president. An exact image of yourself in s glass mirror or a reflection of yourself in the water is not you, it is an image of you. The risen Jesus is the image of God because God is Spirit. For Jesus’ crucified body had ceased by the Spirit so that his body became a spiritual body (Example, Luke 24:36, 37) and for that reason we no longer know Christ according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

What you didn’t mention is verses 4-5 (Hebrews 1:4-5), which explains to us that Jesus has become better/above the Angels, that he has inherited a name above and or more excellent than their [the angels] names. It continues on to say that “to which one of the angels did God ever say: You are my son; today I have become your father? As well as: I will become his Father, and he will become my son?

Now we get into Hebrews 1:6 (yet again), speaks of the “Firstborn” who has inhabitant the earth and God goes on to command his angels and say to them: “Let all God's angels worship him.”

Why has God done this? Very simple:

Hebrews 1:6 tells us that God has put Jesus above the angels, exalted him [Jesus] (Acts 2:32, 33, Philippians 2:9, prophesized in Isaiah 52:13), and made him superior to the angels.

We also know this because the bible even states, in Jesus’ words: All authority and power (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20.21, Philippians 2:9, 10) has been given to him. Pretty much the context of those verses, as well as the majority of Hebrews 1:5-14.

The kicker here is verse 13 (Hebrews 1:13), which pretty much tells us that:

God is the one who will deal with said enemies and place them under Jesus’ feet; this has been stressed in other connected verses in conjunction with those verses, let alone the entirety of Hebrews 1.

That verse is also compared with both compared with Psalms 110:1 and Matthew 24:44.

Heb. 1:10-12
 

Quote

 

(10) And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

(11) they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,

(12) like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

 

Hebrews 1:10, it is not God who is speaking, nor is it Jesus who is speaking, anyone who really dives deep in regards of interpretation will find evident that it is the Writer of Hebrews who is referring of God the Father. G

An example, for Hebrews 1:10-12 in its entirety is a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. The claims some people make is shown to be obviously false when it is realized they are interpreting the speaker in verse 10 as God the Father. However, if we just go back and actually read Psalm 102, it is clearly evident that God is not the speaker of these words.

The scriptures show us beyond any doubt that God is not the speaker of the 3 psalms quoted at Hebrews 1:7, 8-9 and 10-12. The writer of Hebrews uses the Greek verb λέγει (Strong’s G #3004), hence “He says/ saith” at Hebrews 1:7, which must either be translated as "it says" to refer to what Scriptures says, or if translated as "He says," these words must be interpreted as "the Psalmist says" since God is not the speaker of these words.

There are several contrasts in this chapter between what God does for Jesus vs. what God does for the angels. In Hebrews1:13, we find that HE asks Jesus to sit at his right hand, something he has never asked an angel to do. Who is this HE but the Lord of Hebrews 1:10? And that is very the point of Hebrews 1:10-12, that is, in all the history of creation, from beginning to end, God the Father has never ever asked, and never will ask, an angel to sit at His right hand, however, he did ask of the Son to do so. The heavens are the works of the Father's hands and He has not appointed an angel, Hebrews 2:5, over His works by seating an angel at His right hand. He has appointed a man, the son of man, Jesus, over all the works of His hands by seating Jesus at His right hand crowning him with glory and honor.

The writer's words at verses Hebrews 2:5-8 leave absolutely no doubt who he had in mind at verse 1:10-12. The Father in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth; the heavens are "the works of His hands" (Hebrews 1:10) and He has now appointed Jesus over these "works of His hands" (Hebrews 2:7).

Quote

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)

As for the other verses, anyone who knows their bible will know the context of the following verses you have listed just now. Especially with what I had explained above in greater detail.

Quote

Can I just say that everyone who follows online debates chooses sides (and champions) based on their theological perceptive.

Kind of ironic coming from a Trinitarian who is on a Jehovah's Witness forum. That being said, you can say that, I follow my scripture very closely. Some people will just coin something for me so I can look into it with pure depth and research when I have the time to do so. Reasons why I look into debates is to see who is telling the truth, who is telling what is from the bible and scriptures, who knows what is really written in the manuscripts, etc. Because some of these debaters will go out of their way to speak of what is in scripture, even if it means refuting another Christian who holds strong conviction to false scripture and or teachings.

One of the reasons why I had discovered that James White had twisted the scriptures, as well as his ignorance to what the Shema is about.

I also found out that some bible verses were NOT inspired by God and originated from man, for such things is unknown to majority of Christians, as well as you yourself, for you won’t  have known what bible verses are were either added, forged or changed, such as the “Man-Made” that tend to “added on or change” what God had the original authors write down.

An example being Mark chapter 16. I believed that Mark 16:1-8 was and will always be true  “Bible Canon” meaning it was in its originality from the oldest and most reliable source, and has not been altered or changed. But you will probably bring up verses 9-20, which many Christians to this day, from critical research, see it as FALSE, added by men and not of God, while most Trinitarians will go out of their way to defend and state why such verses are necessary to be in the bible, let alone become Bible Canon, even going so far as to assume the Apostles and or any follower of God actually did write such.

It wasn’t until I began to look into debates, talked with others, heard from both sides, etc regarding inspired Bible verse and non-inspired Bible. Because of that, I was able to find out that dozens of bible verses that were said to be “Bible Canon” weren’t inspired from God, in addition to that, I came to the conclusion of my research that Mark 16 had only 8 verses (Mark 16:1-8) and didn’t have the additional 9-20, as with other verses, which the “KJV-Onlyist” refuse to see their error in accepting what wasn’t even in any of the 4^th century manuscripts. It didn’t stop there either, it turns out there is a dozen of Bible verses that had been “forged” in some way, changing the meaning of what the verse really met, others have been added, examples being Acts 8:37 (added), 1 John 5:7 (forged), as well as 1 Timothy 3:16 (where the title “God” was added to make it seem that Jesus was God).

One thing that can be certain, several Bibles, including the Bible used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, The New World Translation, were in the right to removed and or revert back some verses to their original state, the same could be said for the several bibles I own, namely NIV, ESV, etc.

Totaling to up to 16 bible verses, possibly more in terms of diminishing scripture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

Because when you seek truth, you look to what is true and It doesn’t make us a laughing stock to, I don’t know, perhaps the groups that bash Christianity, those who assume all Christians follow the Trinity and deny resurrection, replacing it with immortal soul doctrine, only to be shocked that Non-Trinitarian Christianity is a thing.

 

From there, I began to look to scripture and look to actually Christian history or said things.

 

The thing is, you don’t learn much if you choose to ignore scriptural facts, but I assume you yourself are not aware of missing bible verses and or bible verses that have been added or forged, not even using root words to Greek or Hebrew. Only Christians who are aware of scriptural facts and evidence know this, hence, why some Bibles had removed those verses, and revert some verses back to its original Bible Canon state after reviewing the manuscripts.

 

As for you, I know that you are in no position to defend forged and or added bible verses, but clearly, you do not know this, thus you, as majority of Trinitarians will go out of their way to defend 1 John 5:7 as it is written in the KJV or NKJV when the oldest manuscripts do not contain them, you will go out of your way to defend John 7:53-8:11 regarding Jesus saving an adulterous woman, to defend Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, Mark 15:28, etc. The same goes for Street Preachers, who have proven themselves to be an even greater nuisance to both Non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians, as well as Muslims and Jews, despite our difference. As for any Jehovah’s Witness reading this part, Street Preachers favor going for you guys included, so consider this a heads up if you are one of the preaching missionary types. For any Muslim or Jew who reads here (I know you guys tend to do reconnaissance work on various Christian forums), Street Preachers will target you when they see your appearance.

 

As stated before, I watch for these things and I do the research. As a Christian, we must be aware that Satan has played his part, for he is the Wile E. Coyote to your Road Runner, when it comes to scripture and faith, to throw people off guard and to pin Christian against Christian, thus the endless “infighting” that is tearing the very fabric of Christianity today (it is declining) and the rise of Anti-Religion groups. Not only it puts you at risk, but me, and our Jehovah’s Witnesses friends on this forum, for the JWs have already been made an example of in Russia, with events taking place that is far worse than the last, Jerusalem with issues on religion, political Evangelicals suppressing others, and eventually this will touch down hard on the US mainland when things get out of control. For if one does not see the errors have entered into scripture, then how do you suppose you are still a Christian if you cannot see such things for yourself? For those that remain ignorant of such, will be the ones to play into the hands of the Deceiver, thus, we ALL have to be careful and tread carefully.

 

Reasons as to why I am very vigilant and aware as a Christian, for I hold in my mind that I can only reach the Father by going through the Son, and to reach the Father I do what is necessary, for I would not have gotten such a chance if it weren’t for the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ.

 

Reasons why I view such things, including debates, I don’t take sides; I don’t consider others as “Champions” as you claim. I take to account of what a Christian, be it man, woman or child says regarding scripture, thus my position on my previous post involving the former JW, he was right to say such when it comes to the Greek word proskunéō.

 

I leave these 3 Bible verses at the end of this response for everyone here to see, for those that are not aware of such. I know the Jehovah’s Witnesses are already know this for quite some time, but others who are not JWs, those who are clearly not aware of uninspired scriptures and forgeries, they at least get the idea as to “why” I tend to see others speak on such matters.

1 John 5:7

Quote

 

Real Translation: For there are three that testify / For there are three witness bearers

In Hebrew: הֵן שְׁלוֹשָׁה הֵם הַמְּעִידִים:

In Greek: Διότι τρεις είναι αυτοί που δίνουν μαρτυρία:

False Translation (Forged): For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Note: Under high suspicion of forgery and actually written by someone else at a later date.

 

1 Timothy 3:16

Quote

 

Real Translation: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

False Translation (Forged): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Note: For to fit the narrative of “Jesus being God made in the flesh” the word “God” has been added to this verse by someone at a later time. Such addition has mislead many people, specifically in Christianity itself. This verse was also under high suspicion of forgery.

 

Deuteronomy 4:2

Quote

 

How this verse should read: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands [or commandments] of YHWH [Yahweh/Jehovah] your God that I give you.

In Hebrew: לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־מִצְוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם׃

YHWH replaced with LORD: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands [or commandments] of the LORD your God that I give you.

Note: For God’s name has a meaning. 6519+ times has been diminished by being removed and or replaced with the English word LORD/Lord.

 

Perhaps you should start looking at what is inspired in scripture and what isn’t.

Quote

 

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;

 

You seem to have, for you left out a good amount of what Irenaeus has written. Especially when you assumed in one chapter (to be specific: Against Heresies Book 2, chapter 13, paragraph 8) that Irenaeus was talking about God, when the reality of what he wrote was referencing that of Gnostic Teaching of their God and their Word/LOGOS (The Twoness Doctrine), such teachings he was against, beliefs that were indefensible. This is why taking the time to look at what Irenaeus has wrote is very crucial.

That being said, I am very aware of the Nicene Creed, but you failed to realize what the true intent for why the Creed was used. Groups had joined together by this Creed to seek and destroy their target: Arius and his belief, Arianism. This resulted in the exile of Arius, as well as Theonas and Secundus.

3 bishops, Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Maris of Chalcedon, remained believing, still believing the Arian view of the Godhead. They chose to sign the Nicene Creed anyway, out of respect to Constantine. In the end, all 318 bishops in attendance signed the Nicene Creed, out of all of them; only 3 bishops chose to sign without fully believing the Creed themselves. There were only three people exiled, and those, only to another province in Rome.

That being said, Constantine had only made Christianity legal. Afterwards, Emperor Theodosius decreed Christianity to be a state religion after being instructed by one of those who adhere to the Nicene Creed, in addition to that, Theodosius decreed everyone follow the Nicene Creed otherwise they’d be branded as unchristian, for such a thing came by force, not by settlement; for pain of punishment that the Emperor saw fit to exact was something one would have been subjected to.

Quote

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.

No, because I “took the time” to read a great deal of all the books contained in Against Heresies, something of which you didn’t do, hence the above claim of one of your assumptions. Plus what I posted was of Irenaeus’ writings, not of mind, I merely paraphrased it (putting in bold what is written in his work) so you have a better understanding of it, but I insist you go and read what he has written, or if you care to read it.

Quote

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?

Are you even aware of what he wrote about the Gnostic teachings, let alone the belief of the Gnostics? I can say to you with 100% certainty that they didn’t believe Jesus as God or a god; they had something quite outlandish, thus making them the biggest form heresies of them all. Their belief had nothing to do with what Irenaeus believed and or the common Christian in those days. And no it isn’t the “same idea” as you stated.

That being said, it didn’t stop Irenaeus, in his works, from calling Jesus “a deity” (a god), now did it?

When you read such things, you have to put yourself in the mindset of a person that lived in those days, that is how I interpret of what Irenaeus has said.

Quote

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!

Never stated that Irenaeus said “creature” in regards of Jesus in his writings, let alone God’s Spirit, which is his power.

Once again, Irenaeus was a Christian with Subordinationist views. If you read all of his works to its entirety, including Against Heresies, such a view is ridiculously “evident”.

You can be in sheer disbelief all you want, but Subordinationist/Unitarianism is one in the same. Even today we are still called Subordinationist, so you pretty much have no ground to stand on here.

The “Gnostic Idea”, since you think you know of them, is the belief that Jesus was never a man and was never resurrected, but a Spirit, seeing him as a Spiritual Being, that never became Human and or flesh to begin with (in denial of Jesus becoming a man and or born from a woman). In addition to that, they believe that Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, was in fact a hero of some sort, and that Jesus spoke to him more over his own disciples, especially when it came to the night where Jesus was captured. Gnostics also had some vile and sick practices that if seen to today, will make someone very disgusted.

That being said, Christians in those days, Irenaeus included had a strong hatred of heretical teachings of Gnosticism, for he says in his writings, what these people teach is indefensible, for it cannot be justified.

I assume you do not know what Gnostic belief consist of is, let alone the denominations that formed from it.

Quote

As I stated in my last post and above, I totally agree with what Irenaeus says.

I find it hard to believe because even with his writings presented to you, you seem to ignore what Irenaeus is telling us, as the reader.

Quote

But when I asked you if you do, all you can say is that I probably don’t know the headings of the chapters.

Not really, because I posted what Irenaeus has said, but you are ignoring it. The reason I posted the header of a chapter show you what the chapter is about before I go into commentary about said paragraph in a specific chapter for the response.

A recent example being you assume that, quoting you:

Quote

“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).

When the actual paragraph of where that was from speaks of the indefensible practices of Gnosticism. Therefore, I posted the title, followed by what that actually paragraph in Chapter 13, Book 2 speaks of.

For you had assume Irenaeus was talking about God and Jesus, when the reality was, when you read it, he was talking about Gnosticism practices regarding God and The Word. The same thing applies to other chapters throughout his books, which tells the reader what to expect.

Plus I do this for any onlooker who reads what I say, can go and find this information on his or her own time; to see exactly what I am saying in regards to Irenaeus’ writing.

Quote

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.

I am concern about the content, and content only. The question is are you? The overview from Irenaeus’ belief was from a source, I posted that at the start of my responses against you regarding Irenaeus.

Once again, I post the heading, “followed by” the information from said chapter. Especially when you assumed that Chapter 13, paragraph 8 of Book 2 was about God and Jesus the Christians follow, when it was really Irenaeus informing us about the belief of heretics. He doesn’t really get into what Christians believe until a few paragraphs later, anyone can read book 2 and see it for themselves.

For Irenaeus’ argument was against: school of Basilides, and to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians) have adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book.

Quote

 

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.

 

My Unitarian perspective? It is not of my “perspective” as you claim. I go by what Irenaeus says in his books, reading them all, all chapters, from book 1 to book 5. Can't see the forest for its trees, huh?

I have already answered this, not sure why you brought it up again, especially to someone who has “read the whole chapter”. The as what I said before Jesus is called those things, but he is also called, in the same chapter, Son of the Living God.

This just shows to me and others you ignored everything before “God, and Lord, and King Eternal” and after it, especially with what Irenaeus has stated in paragraph 1 in the same chapter.

You can go with what “you think”, but I choose to side with what Irenaeus has stated about Jesus: 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.

Regardless if he used God or god, he still sees Jesus as the one and only Son of God. Try being in the mindset of a Christian in those days to actually understand what people like Irenaeus is trying to tell us, especially from a man who uses “God” and or “god” to describe the Father, the Son, or a Christian.

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 do pull portions from his books, like what you stated “Jesus in book 3, chapter 19 that Jesus is “God, and Lord, and King Eternal”?” ignoring of what Irenaeus said about the Father in that same chapter, let alone the one before and after it.

It is only right to get full context of Book 3, Chapter 19, and paragraph 2, especially when in his book, Irenaeus differentiate God as a Deity and Jesus as a deity. Just because he says God in terms of Jesus does not automatically conclude that he believes Jesus is God the Father, if that were the case it would contradict every work he has ever done. To assume he thinks that Jesus is a literal God (above his Father) is like assuming that a Christian can also be God.

That being said, on to your next claim, my response was regarding you previous claim, which you said:

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).

I never made such a claim, for I have stated that Irenaeus never stated that the Holy Spirit was or is an “Eternal Person”, as you said, not Irenaeus. I also went on to say that Irenaeus in this chapter explained how God’s power, Holy Spirit (also known as Spirit of God; His [YHWH] Wisdom); things made by God, in addition to what is said about Jerusalem.

If you are feeling bold, I invite you to show everyone here, me included, here as to where exactly in Chapter 20, Book 4 that you claim Irenaeus stated the following from your claim: Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos.

Quote

 

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 sitehttp://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.

 

Not quite. Plus a bit silly on your part because I took the “WHOLE” paragraph from this book already that tells the reader of what the early churches have taught, what “SHE” (the church) believed in. “She” believed in The Father and the Son. “She” believed that The Father has anointed the Son in Spirit, The Holy Spirit. “She” believed in the economy of our redemption both Son and Father.

In addition to that, this book, “Apostolic Preaching”, was actually written by Irenaeus of Lyons, the same Irenaeus we are discussing about right now. Go to paragraph 47, what I took from this book (as well as the footnote in what he thought of Christian(s) from God are also God(s) according to him) is exactly what you will find there in regards to what the early churches believed and preached. Surely you could have done better than that.

The book even brings the following of: God’s anointed one (Jesus), which was even prophesized, as well as various biblical accounts.
 

Quote

 

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?

 

I did read it, heck, I even quoted it. And no, it isn’t a Unitarian viewpoint; it is a Non-Trinitarian Christian viewpoint.

A viewpoint that doesn’t get Christians like me mauled by those who hunt down Trinity believers for thinking God has a symbolic bride and anointed himself, or that Zechariah’s vision of two mountains was just one. Trust me, beyond these forums I have seen a lot worse.

As for being together, yes, he is seated at the right hand side of the Father as we speak, and will return soon, not to bring peace, but a sword, Matthew 10:34.

I find it quite telling that you missed something in that portion of paragraph 2. But allow me to show you (again):

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).

We can see here that Irenaeus is referring to one person as “The God of the Living”, and that is the Father himself. We already know of The Word/His Word is, the one who became flesh, yada yada yada, and we know the song to that dance already.

Irenaeus states that Christ himself is together with The Father[,] is the God of the Living. That title belongs to “one” person and even the bible says so, so Irenaeus is already aware of who this title belongs to.

If you want to get biblical about it, such a title is exclusively referring to God the Father.

In general, Every Christian who really knows their bible knows who “The God of the Living” is and who this very title points to in scripture, and such a thing is elementary in terms of Christian belief, to Irenaeus himself this applies to for it is known of how he envisions God. You attempt to make others see wrongly of what Irenaeus is telling us here, the same as others who try to use that small quotes in this book to push ideas, when the reality is he made it well known for us readers of who he is talking about, God the Father, and is together with His Word that was spoken through the man known as Jesus Christ.

That being said, is God having a symbolic bride a Trinitarian viewpoint let alone an anointed anointing himself? Who takes the specter if Jesus is God? Or the usual if the bible says God can’t become man, then what of Jesus things like that I usually deal with.

When questions like that arise, I usually see one bible verse that pops up, time and time and time and time again….  1 Corinthians 14:33. I had to pick up for Trinitarians at times, correcting them, as well as go for those who mock Christianity because of them.

It is stuff like that where others tend to be wowed at the fact that there are Non-Trinitarian Christians, especially those who defend the scriptures with what is true.

Quote

If that is a Unitarian teaching then I’m Unitarian!

You clearly do not know what Unitarian teaching is, especially since you keep attempting to paint Jesus as God the Father. Irenaeus belief is very clear; anyone who takes the time to read his books, as well as his other writings will know this.

As for you, you, a Trinitarian, who may or may not know how to interpret scriptures properly (Hebrews 1:2-3, 6, 10-12 being examples).
 

Quote

 

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.

 

Simplest test? Of course I know I am a Christian with Unitarian belief, since when has that been unknown to me regarding what you have said?

I spent 2 days reading ALL of Against Heresies everything from Book 1 to Book 5, and have started reading his other works, which I am still finishing up. Irenaeus’ belief was purely Subordinationist, as some may call it today Subordinationist Unitarianism, which is a fact, and I had posted the beliefs of both Subordinationist and Unitarians and how identical they are, for the Unitarian belief have originated from Subordinationism.

I agree with what Irenaeus says, but I don’t agree with what you say or your attempts to make an early church Father’s Subordinationist belief look like something else. Next thing I may have to worry about is a defense coming form you for uninspired bible verses.

Quote

I can’t emphasis this enough, if Irenaeus were Unitarian you’d have to agree with him on all count not just one!

I agree with him. As for you, you agree that a Christian who is from God is also God regarding what was written by Irenaeus?

If you understood how he wrote, you’d know exactly of what he is trying to say.

Quote

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?

The thing is here, you don’t agree with him. Especially when he called Jesus a deity (a god), you stated he never said that and never will, need I remind you?

Cos: 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 has used God and god multiple times, but his views of The Father and of the Son remain unblemished. Unless you can point out where a Subordinationist Christian has stated that “Jesus is God the Father” or “Jesus is not the Son”. Finding such information is like chasing something that doesn’t exist.

FYI, Irenaeus never believed Jesus was/is “Fully God” nor was that term EVER said in his work, Against Heresies. If he had believed as such, he would have stated that Jesus was Almighty God or God of Israel instead of making clear distinctions of the two in a majority of most of his chapters in all 4 books, let alone revoke his Subordinationist view of the Son to the Father, resulting in loads of contradictions in his writings that will spark controversy today if that was the case.

 

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, Godshall 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?

 

I read the whole book, I even posted Against Heresies book 3 chapters 1, paragraph 1 for you in my pervious response. I even stated that (don’t see why you are ignoring what the chapter says). The Father is the one who does the anointing, and the Son is the one who is anointed because the word “CHRIST” means anointed one, The Messiah (Chosen One), not sure if you knew what it met. Irenaeus even wrote that he is referring to “The Father and the Son” as well as others who received the adoption in regards of the church, etc. I believe in what Irenaeus wrote, not what you are trying to assume he is saying.

 

I agree with Irenaeus, That God the Father who is one and true, that He anoints the Son, Jesus Christ, who is the anointed one.

 

Also what I can’t help but notice that you made another error. The information you pulled is from Book 3, Chapter 6.Not to mention you are merging several different  sentences together from 2 paragraphs into one to make it fit what you are trying to claim.

 

You are mixing both paragraph 1 and 2 of chapter 6 together to make yourself seem you are in the right or believing differently of Irenaeus. The term “I AM THAT I AM” is from paragraph 2, not from paragraph 1. Just as the term “…. For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God” is from paragraph 1 and not paragraph 2. I may be sleepy at times, but I got eyes to see and to read.

 

Just to show you that I see this little trick of yours, I will post both paragraphs from Book 3, Chapter 6, and I will mark in RED of where you pulled this information, and I will mark in Green the entirety of said paragraph. Just to show you, and others, that taking parts of a paragraph and mixing them together does you no justice here:

Quote

 

1. 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: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool. 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. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. Genesis 19:24 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: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Your kingdom is a right sceptre. You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Your God, has anointed You. 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. For she is the synagogue of God, which God— that is, the Son Himself — has gathered by Himself. 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, who came manifested to men who said, I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not. Isaiah 65:1 But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, I have said, You are gods, and all sons of the Most High. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father. Romans 8:15

2. 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 thus shall you say to the children of Israel: He who is, has sent me unto you; Exodus 3:14 and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, I have come down to deliver this people. Exodus 3:8 For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.— As also Esaias says, I too am witness, he declares, says the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that you may know, and believe, and understand that I am. Isaiah 43:10

 

So we see here you take apart the things you “like” and try to merge them all into a single makeshift paragraph, not cool, man. You pulled information from paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 and put them together, another dead giveaway was “Godshall”, missing the “space” so it can read out to be “God shall”, was never an error in the actual book.

That being said from all that is in red I explained already in my previous post with most of my responses on it. So I will say it again:

We know God the Father is truly Lord because in scripture it says so, and even in Irenaeus’ book, it is said. We know Jesus is also Lord because he has been anointed by the Father.

Remember, Jesus had been resurrected, and place above higher above the other angels, given the name above every other name, and seated at the right hand of the Father. Plus if you understood the word “CHRIST” it would have been cake for you to recognize that.

The Spirit has appointed them both by name (if you read all the books, it points back to the followers proclaiming God and Jesus via Holy Spirit; acting out God’s will and examples of Jesus).

For the God the Father is the one who does the anointing and Jesus the Son is the one who is anointed, The Christ.

For God comes openly for he is proclaimed by the Son, who is a man, for the Son speaks The Word of God, and the spoken Word is proclaimed through the Son. For God the Father is the God of gods (the Elohim of elohims).

God the Father is God and Lord, everyone knows this. He is the one who spoke to Moses by means of one of his messengers (Angel of Yahweh/Angel of the Lord). We know these words are of God because in scripture, we can see God Exodus 3:2 that the Angel of the Lord appeared via the bush that is on fire, and when Moses got closer, God began to speak through said burning Bush, Exodus 3:7 and onward. For Almighty God himself was the one who said the following “I AM THAT I AM (I will become what choose to become).

That being said, we all make errors, but some errors made by some is quite obvious, specially the bit about mixing 2 paragraphs together.

Quote

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.

Yes, indeed it does. Because the last I heard of JND Kelly was like a couple years ago, I remember the name when a college Theologian was talking about Patristic Scholars to me and several others, this was during a time where I still believed that the forged bible verses were inspired by God, only finding out later on it is not, pretty much a novice Christian at the time. Another thing is I take issue with some Protestants, for a majority of them accepted the Reformation, especially the one that took place recently in late October 2017, which, religiously is a bad sign, and for us to be vigilant.

Another thing to point out is that JND Kelly is a “Patristic Scholar”, for most of these scholars will pretty much assume majority of early church fathers believed that the idea of 3 Gods in one, Trinity, was a centralized belief.
 

Quote

 

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)

 

When you look at with context, JND speaks of the invisible Father that is in the Son. We know this because in scripture, for Jesus’ own words states the work is not of his own, but of the Father who lives in the Son, for God’s spoken word is expressed through the flesh, that is Jesus. For the Son reveals the Father by speaking the Word of Father, for this is evident in Jesus’ ministering work, the gaining of disciples, and teaching them and the followers so they do the same, even continuing after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

We can’t see the Father at all for he is invisible, and even if that was possible, man would not live, Exodus 33.20, however we can see Jesus, who is in the likeness of God, or as the scriptures also say, the image of God.

Quote

 

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”?

 

I met 108,110 by the way, for I only have access to pages, in the hundreds, 102, 103,107, 108, 110, 111, 120 and 121. In his book he mentioned Tenets of Monotheism, the monotheistic views of Irenaeus (to which I agree; going with JND Kelly on for this is true), that of which you missed and understanding of what that means, as well as such a term paying homage to Irenaeus’ work. The belief of One God and One God alone, a single personage. For there is no one equal to him, or above him. Those with a monotheistic view believe that Jesus himself, the Son is a subordinate of God, hence Subordination, as well as the Spirit being separate, all involved according to God the Father’s Will. In contrast to that of a Trinitarian view, the belief that God, Son and Spirit are 3 Gods in one, for we see regards to the Holy Spirit, nowhere did Irenaeus ever said that the Holy Spirit is God, however, it is read in this book that God’s Spirit wells from his being, the same could be said in biblical scripture too. I believe earlier on in a couple of pages it speaks of the Spirit also being acts like a vehicle and or His hands. In scripture, among things, the Holy Spirit is referred to as God’s power, his fingers, his hands, breath, etc.

As for Economic Trinitarianism, it is mention doesn’t automatically make one a Trinitarian or one who believes in the Trinity Doctrine, especially if you know what the term Economy of God (Divine Economy/Economy of Salvation) means.

This term points to the activity of God, derives from Divine Economy, for God is the source of everything, especially on what he does on behalf of his creations, mankind for example, for what he does is also distributed to the Son, for his Spoken Word is expressed through the Son. The other two is the immanence and ontology of God; these same two terms are taken by those who believe that Jesus is the creator and simply changes the two into immanent Trinity and ontological Trinity. In regards of Irenaeus's economy is grounded on relating the human race to what God has done for man. The same idea of said economy followed by Hippolytus and Tertullian.

 for Irenaeus, in JND Kelly’s writings; he wouldn’t make that mistake either. He makes us know that Irenaeus’ views follows that of monotheism still stands the belief of one God, monotheism (despite other groups who derive from the monotheism view).
 

Quote

 

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?

 

Why wouldn’t I know? I am the one who said that it to begin with, I even stated the following “Scholars strongly believe it was written [Against Praxeas] after he became a Montanist”. What you fail to realize is Tertullian had more works of his that can easily be read today, even before Against Praxeas or his conversion to Montanist, in addition that, his works clearly shows us that showed the reader how he views God and how he views Jesus. However, even after his conversion, he still maintains his views.

Quote

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”.

Clearly you are in disbelief. Yes I did say this because a Subordinationist belief, today, is a Unitarian belief or that of Non-Trinitarianism, for that is what we, as do most Christians originated from before the Council of Nicaea. For such individuals hold the monotheistic view of God being one and that Jesus is a subordinate to God the Father, the one who speaks the Spoken Word of the Father, thus The Word becoming flesh, a man, named Jesus who speaks the Word of the Invisible Father. He is still, to this day considered as a such, as with most Christians in the Pre-Nicene Era. It is like you want to NOT BELIEVE that Christians were predominantly Subordinationist, holding said view nearly identical to Unitarians today.
 

Quote

 

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!

 

Yes they do, and they have been for a very, very long time. James White is an example, the Muslims tend to keep an eye on Mr. White 24/7.

Anyways, it doesn’t stop at Tertullian either.

It is made clear that Trinitarians will say such. For whether they are aware that God the Father Yahweh/Jehovah/El Shaddai, they also see say that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah/El Shaddai and they say the Holy Spirit is Yahweh/Jehovah/El Shaddai, therefore, all 3 of them being the same person, regardless of the title Father, Son, and Spirit, a 3 persons Gods in 1 God, also stating that they are, as one, are all Almighty (reasons why some shout to the top of their lunges that Jesus is God Almighty), for they not only state The True God is God, which is indeed right, but they also state that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, something that Tertullian wasn’t for, hence “selfsame” in what I had posted from his work earlier.

I have known people who still believe in the Trinity, as do others who later became Anti-Christian because of it, realizing they have been wronged they become quite the a hassle for Christians of both sides because of what they formerly believed. This isn’t the first time I speak of Church Fathers because I would also have to go out of my way to defend Christians from Atheist and Anti-Christian who mock all of Christianity because of the Trinity, cleaning up the damage it has caused, so to speak.

Quote

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.

I know what my other response says in regards to Tertullian. You may say you believe in one True God, but you will go out of your way to state that Jesus is God (Almighty God) and or assume he is God the Father, examples being when it comes to exclusive and devoted worship vs worship as in honoring, bowing, and the like. There is a major difference, and then you have the Shema, which Trinitarians brush over as if it isn’t nothing, which has been said and has been done, James White did it and so did those who have the same view of a Trinity Godhead.
 

Quote

 

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”.

 

And? “if” doesn’t really change anything in regards to Tertullian’s work. You should check out what the old church father said about Genesis 1:3 in regards of Jesus.
 

Quote

 

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.

 

Once again, Subordinationist/ Subordinationism.

The belief that there is One God (YHWH), One Son (Jesus), One Spirit (Holy Spirit).

For such a belief is that God alone is One (Uni) and Jesus is the Subordinate (Sub) to the Father (not equal to Him or above Him), for Jesus is not Almighty God, and the Holy Spirit is NOT Almighty God. God’s economy through his works of what he does and it shows God’s ontology, for his works proves his existence.

The Father who is the grand creator does his works “through” the Son as well as makes use of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the scripture to what it has been used for, examples being causing Mary to birth Jesus (Mt.1:20,Luke 1:35), Zechariah, who was unable to speak for he was silenced (Luke 1:20), but later was able to speak; being filled with Holy Spirit, he began to praise the God of Israel (Luke 1:68), Jesus being baptized in Spirit; being anointed by it, giving Jesus’ disciples to do what they do, followers of God doing miracles themselves, to cast out demons, etc.

As for God the Father, Yahweh, He is one alone, Jesus himself is the only-begotten Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is God’s power or force personified, which is used to bestow upon his followers, to bestow upon his Son and his disciples, to act as a guide and or helper, comforter, etc. For the Spirit of God is used by God to take action that goes according to, or to accomplish His Will.

In addition to that, even in scripture it states that the Holy Spirit as God’s hands and or fingers, also described as breathe or wind in scripture as well as other things.

What did Tertullian believed? That God the Father was one. What of the Son? That Jesus was a subordinate of the Father and is the only-begotten Son, The Son of God (Father to Son/Son to Father). The Spirit? God’s power, the helper, the very thing that empowers God’s followers as well as Jesus’ disciples, as he described in Tertullian’s writings.

Quote

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.

No, I don’t create claims for myself, never have since I been here or any forum for that matter, unlike what you are doing, you don’t even take into account of what is even written by church fathers, let alone the scriptures in either Greek or Hebrew. Because I actually try and take the time to see what some of these church fathers have to say by going through their work instead of assuming to the obvious.

I go by what is written by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, who were among the early Christian Subordinationist, as well as what the scriptures tell us, and nothing more. I have enough sense to see there is a clear distinction of whom to show exclusive devoted worship to. While you, an obvious Arian opponent ascribes to “Jesus worship”, and probably worshipping of the Holy Spirit when you should show devoted worship to God the Father only.

Unlike you who assume everything right off the bat without even reading to the full Irenaeus’ work or that of Tertullian. You even assume “Economical Trinity” when the reality was this points back to the Divine Economy, which is what “God Does” (Economy), for they just throw in the “Trinitarian” part to fit what they believe.

Quote

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.).

Early church writings never stated that The Father, The Son, and The Spirit all together are “one God” (or 3 Gods in one God) nor did any of them assume that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is Almighty God, especially in the realm of Subordinationism/Monotheism.

I 100% agree with you on the “some” attributes of God the Father, but to say that all these attributes applies to Jesus, as well as the Spirit of God as well, is rather telling.

Yet the Bible clearly tells us that Jesus is not greater than the Father, nor is he equal to the Father and nowhere in scripture does it bring about attributes of the Holy Spirit, it only tells us what it “does” and read of “what it can do”. So how is Jesus equal in Power to Almighty God, let alone All-knowing?

Omnipresence – We read in scripture that God has eyes everywhere God can perceive and do anything, anywhere, at any given time, without being present.

The Almighty God is able to see everything and to act anywhere he chooses for what we read in Proverbs 15:3, Hebrews 4:13, nothing is hidden from his sight. He has a place of dwelling (1 Kings 8:43, 49; John 16:28; Hebrews 9:24), as well as where he is seated (Isaiah 66:1), we obviously know where that is and it isn’t Earth. We can also take into account Jesus’ own words (Matthew 6:9, 18:10), for he speaks of the Father’s dwelling place being in Heaven, he even speaks of going back to his Father, who dwells in Heaven (Spiritual Realm), on multiple occasions, John 16:28 being an example. For no place is too remote for God for his eyes to see and watch over all from upon his throne. For all things are in sight and naked in his view, you can’t hide from him, nor can you do things in secret, for he sees you and what you are doing, his eyes see that of animals as well as what the smallest insect is doing. As for God himself, it is never said in scripture of him leaving his throne or leaving heaven itself, but we know for certain, he looks on to each and everyone one of us.

The Holy Spirit is usually sent by or put into action by the God the Father; designated. There is nowhere in scripture that the Holy Spirit goes to so-and-so on its own, nor does it take action on its own. BUT, the Spirit of God has no limits on reach, for it is ubiquitous (Psalm 139:7). The Holy Spirit is like God’s fingers, or his hands, as I stated before and what it says in scripture (Psalm 8:3, 19:1, Luke 11:20). For when he designates the Holy Spirit, the reach is extending down to support his children, it can extend to any part of the physical or spiritual plain in order for God’s will and purpose to take place and or be accomplish, for God’s reach from where he dwells is that great and that powerful (Psalm 139:9, 10).

In Jesus’ case, he isn’t omnipresent, especially when he was on earth. For he had to travel from place to place just as any other man and he had do things as a man would, in addition to that, he doesn’t have eyes all over the place, nor is he “All-Knowing” which we will find out in the next nature you mentioned. Not even the angels, the demons or the deceiver himself has such nature.

Omniscience – God the Father is All-Knowing, but Jesus isn’t, no mention of the Holy Spirit being omniscience either. This is evident in examples such as:

The Fig Tree, whereas Jesus had no idea what was going on with the Fig Tree, an example of Jesus not being Omniscience (All-Knowing) regarding in the gospel of Mark (Also read in Matthew). Mark tells us as follows: “The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.” (Mark 11:12-13). First we see that, he [Jesus] did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he [Jesus] did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees. Jesus also curses the Tree and have said let no one eat from said tree (Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:14).

In the gospel of Luke, Jesus did not know who touched his garb/robe, only for the sick woman to reveal that she was the one who did it, even before that, Jesus said something along the lines of: “Who [was it that] touched me” and “Someone touched me, I know that power went out of me” (Luke 8:40-49).

Regarding The Day of Judgment (Har’Mageddon), we see in the Gospel of Mark, again, that Jesus is not All-Knowing (Omniscience). In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that: he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (compared to Matthew 24:36, Acts 1:7). Jesus could have said that he knows, but he does not wish to tell. Instead, he said that he does not know; and we must believe in his words for he met what he said, for Jesus is no lair.

The Holy Spirit is never said to know something or know of something in scripture. Nor was it ever said that the Holy Spirit knew anything that the Father knows, or what the Son knows.

Holiness - What I do agree with is Jesus, Just like the Father, Jesus Christ is Holy. For Jesus, as well as his Father, are both Holy and Pure (Holiness/Pure). For Jesus was called the Holy one of God in Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34, The Holy Spirit itself is clean, pure, and sacred, for such is from God.

Omnipotence - In the gospel of Mark, Mark informs us that Jesus was unable to perform powerful work in his hometown besides minor things he was able to do: “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” (Mark 6:5). Mark continues on to tell us that when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26). Therefore, although we hold a great love and respect for Jesus, as do everyone in this thread, we need to understand that he is not the omnipotent and or All-Powerful, when in comparison to God; God the Father is indeed omnipotent and All-Powerful. Plus other followers of God was able to do miracles as well, they are not omnipotent. Just like Jesus, they were able to perform these miraculous deeds because of God the Father.

The Holy Spirit, yet again, is God’s Spirit and or Power that is usually bestowed upon people or used in action to accomplish God’s Will.

Another things you may have missed

Incorruptibly – God is incorruptible, a simpler term would be immortal, and cannot die or can become mortal, something that sets him apart from others, Jesus, as well as the angels, demons, and even Satan, as well as animals, and us humans.

The expressions “immortal” or “immortality” (incorruptible/incorruptibly) do not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, which do show, however, that Almighty Yahweh, as the Source of all life, is not subject to death, hence, is immortal. This fact is also emphatically stated by the Christian apostle Paul in referring to God as “the King of eternity, incorruptible.”

1 Timothy 1:17 – To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

In the same gospel, 1 Timothy 6:16, the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen.

6:16 refers to ONE being immortal, and that ONE who is the originator of life being God himself.

Note: Incorruptible or Incorruptibility means [not susceptible to corruption, especially by bribery, not subject to death or decay; everlasting.] In other bible translations the word, Immortal/Immortality is identical to the pervious definition [living forever; never dying or decaying.] Moral and Immortal are two different things, cannot mean the same thing.

Other verses inform us that:

 Psalm 36:7, 9 – (7) How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge. (9) With you is the source of life; by your light we can see light.

The people take refuge in God for God is the source of life itself.

Habakkuk 1:12 - Are you not from everlasting, O [YHWH] Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O [YHWH] Lord, you have ordained them as a judgment, and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.

God the Father is Everlasting, he CANNOT die nor can be become corruptible (moral).

God by definition has certain attribute that set him apart from man, thus this one being quite obvious.

The Holy Spirit is never said to have such nature, for the Holy Spirit itself is projected by God the Father.

Jesus on the other hand was never immortal at all. The fact that Jesus was about to die, soon subjected to death, followed by being dead, proves that death and or dying is not nature of God, for the Father is the complete opposite. For God’s nature is being Immortal/Incorruptible. However, The Son of God did not stay dead forever, for he had gain immortality upon the time God the Father had raised him out of death, for he had been given the gift of immortality, which can be described when we read Romans 6:9, which is connected to Revelations 1:17, 18. Reasons why it is proper to say that, Lord Jesus Christ is the Firstborn from the Dead, as it is seen in (Revelations 1:5), as well as the high importance of what that term means.

But these are just the number of examples in regards to the Nature of God, compared to that of the Holy Spirit and Jesus. You can list more, I’d be happy to use scripture.

Quote

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.

Jesus’ subordination was more than just “submitting willingly”. We see in scripture that Jesus repeatedly showed that he was subordinate to God the Father, Matthew 27:46, John 17:3. For anyone who is a Subordinate would show such expression to or referring to someone else, clearly assuming that he is under God the Father, examples being like an student referring to his Teacher, or that a Teacher, as well as a student, is referring to the Principal, who is the Boss, higher rank than both the Teacher and Student combined. Even the definition of “Subordinate” gives one a clear idea as to Jesus’ position and the Father’s position (A Father to a Son; a Son to a Father). Therefore, one can’t be equal to or above someone of a higher rank if they are deemed a subordinate.

Christians today speak many things; you cannot speak for the majority. I have talked with Christians of all types, even those who believe in the Trinity. Instead of saying Jesus is a subordinate; they will say that Jesus is God the Father, for the Father has no subordinate at all. As for Non-Trinitarians, they hold steadfast to the monotheistic view of the Father and the Subordinate view that Jesus’ position is and will always be The Son, apart from the Father. Even among Non-Christians, they will state the obvious that Jesus is the Son and God Yahweh is the Father, for they will take examples from basic scriptures on how Jesus’ praise and acknowledgment of God the Father is evident, revealing the Son’s clear positional rank when compared to the Father, outside of Christianity, even those among Islam and Judaism will say the same thing in contrast of those who think that Jesus is God and Father.

Thus our belief, for we don’t believe Jesus is equal to/above God the Father in terms of power and status, etc, however we believe that Jesus is below the Father, a subordinate, which Jesus makes it evidently clear in scripture.

Quote

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.

Me, understand? Last I checked I am the one that was talking about Subordination, even knowing what it means regarding the Father and Son.

The scriptures don’t say anything about of what you just said “but is equal in nature because she is made of the same stuff as the man.” Buddy, you are mixing things together here, it is indeed true “what was from a man created a woman (Genesis 2 :22)”, but it has nothing to do with subordination. Another thing to note here is that a man’s and a woman’s nature are one in the same, differ from animals as well as Spirit Begins, and it is not for what you suggested when it comes to the creation of man and what was taken from man to make a woman. But, when it comes to not a man, not a woman, but us as human beings, our nature is the basic makeup or constitution of something, referring to what a person is by birth, hereditary qualities along with general practices; the physical urges, in this case, us, as human begins. Examples being as to how Paul speaks of his fellow countrymen (those having an inherent nature).

What the scriptures do say is this:

Ephesians 5:21, 33 tells from 21-33 that Wives are to submit to their husbands, as well to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. The church itself submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands and so forth when you read the rest of this passage, which can also be seen in Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1.

Since a husband and a wife share a union of love and take care of each other, one isn’t a subordinate of the other; in fact, the husband and wife are, subject to one another, mutually subordinated to one another.

In terms of creation, a Man and a woman equally share what they bare, God’s image.

That being said when it comes to examples (non marriage partners) such as a woman as a boss, regarding place of employment, and a man being the employee, this man is subordinate in rank, bosss to employee. Some women may have a rank that surpasses you, thus making you a subordinate. I assume you male, if not, the example still applies regardless of sex when it comes to one being above or higher than the other, and or below said person.

Quote

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!

 Someone who is a subordinate is not equal to one who is higher in rank. We are not referring about Husbands and Wives; this is referring to a Father and a Son. Another thing to note is Jesus said his Father is Greater than him, so how do you define that as equal in Deity?

For Jesus stated, in his words: “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Jesus stating saying, to the woman that not only her God is also her Father, but God is also his Father (John 20:17)

The head of every woman is a man, the head of every man is Christ, but the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Says that Jesus, the Son subjects himself to the “one” who subjected all things to him, for God is all things to everyone (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Jesus who is an image of God is not equal to God, for it was expressed by Jesus and the early Christians (Philippians 2:5,6,)

So if Jesus says that God the Father is greater than him (informing that he is not on the same level as God), he tells a woman that the Father is also his God (thus making him a subordinate), Jesus himself; for the head of Christ is God (again proves Jesus’ position), that he is in subjection to God the Father who has subjected things to him (for God has given Jesus things, i.e. authority, power, and granting immortality to Jesus), and the early Christians knowing Jesus as the image of God, Jesus also knows this, for him and the early Christians never considered that the Christ was equal to God (again shows us what is Jesus’ position to the Father)

I ask you, where in scripture does it say that Jesus, the Son, is equal to God Yahweh, the Father? You can also point to where in scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit is also equal to God the Father, pertaining to your “equal in Deity” claims?

You can also place what you stated about your comment “the divine order of the submission”; care to share scripture about the “divine order of submission” as well?

Quote

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.

Not really, you are just saying things without reading to the full of what Tertullian or Irenaeus has to say; what they are telling us through their work. Just to make it a treat for our Jehovah Witness counterparts, I will do them the favor of actually linking the books and works of both of these church fathers so they too can see what is said by them.

Quote

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.

Not like you did the same, for my claims are even boasted, it is quite evidence. For you think the Father, the Son and the Spirit are “selfsame”, but when one reads Tertullian’s work, especially in chronological order, they will see for themselves which one of us is in the right.
 

Quote

 

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)

The same link I posted before, stated this, the same one you attempted to use.

But now you admit that binitarianism is a late fourth century invention, see your own quote from Gerhard Pfandl.

 

Close, but no cigar. If you paid attention, I placed what I said and both my quotes in order.

I stated the following in my own words: 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.

Then I quoted (a small bit of it): Modalist and then Binitarian from the beginning of the fourth century and from the Council of Nicaea.

Then: 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.

Finally: 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.

So what we know is: Binitarians, that has its roots from Monotheism, have started around the 4^th century, onward into the Council of Nicaea and after it. We also know that the Cult of Attis, Adonis and Osirus actions.

So how is it exactly I am admitting something that took place AFTER, as you stated I claim this, when I clearly stated the start of the 4^th century and into and after the Council of Nicaea?

 

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.

Not quite, the source of which I got this information from says it all:

Plus what took place was indeed to target the Arians specifically, let alone the mysterious death of Arius.

http://www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2017/11/04/The-Original-Nicene-Creed-Is-Not-Trinitarian

Other sources will say the same thing, the primary goal of the creed: Target Heresies, but more importantly, Target Arians
 

Quote

 

Then MORE quotes without any references….

And then there is your threats regarding Eusebius and church history…really?

 

You consider that a threat? You are quite a soft one, and quite the triggered one, I give you that. I stated I know quite a bit of Eusebius (both of them) and wouldn’t mind speaking of him, for I tend to, for some time now here on this forums speak of him, even elsewhere I speak a great deal of Eusebius. And I will say it again, if anyone is willing to take the chance to speak of him, I am always up for it, for he is the 1^st church Father I had read up on the most, status in the church, his excommunication, taking the side of Arius, and what he spoke of when it came to Matthew 28:19, and a whole lot more.

Quote

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.

So you assume that the church fathers never knew what Binitarianism was?

No belief that resembles Unitarian belief you say? God is one, Jesus is the subordinate of the Father that is what we believe, and so how is it no early Christians or church Fathers that didn’t believe this? Take the time to read books, don’t become another James White.

You can deny the information that is out there all you want, thus you remain in denial about it even with the information that is in front of you, you refuse to read any of Irenaeus’ work or that of Tertullian to the full and take into account what they made reference to in scripture.

If you are forgetting ALL Christians have their roots from those ancient times, including us, you should look into the Pre-Nicene Era more, but I doubt you will because you will keep assuming that the modern day Non-Trinitarian Unitarian belief doesn’t exist, but it did, in addition to the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in their respects thus proves a Unitarian view of God being one and that the Son is a subordinate.

Quote

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!

To say that is to make him look as if he was completely oblivious to the heresies in the early days of Christianity. He knew about such practices that the Binitarians have done even those who twist said practice to that of pagan practices, the belief in Two powers, personas, affiliations, etc. For Binitarianism originated from Monotheism as did other faiths and practices, some who even deny that the Holy Spirit actual exist, therefore, thinking of it as nothing speical.

 

Quote

 

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?

 

From Monotheism, the Binitarian view was among the many beliefs that were around during those ancient times among other faiths and beliefs. As for Binitarianism itself spawn several beliefs such as dualism, duotheism, ditheism, bitheism, Montanism. Those who practice such tend to their own pagan beliefs in a similar fashion, not believing in God the Father or even believing that he sent his Son. Some of the Binitarians at the time believed in Phrygian Mother Goddess, soon spawning a great deal of cults, including the Cult of Attis, these guys beliefs revolve around mythological gods.

Back in Eusebius’ day, there were those who had such practices of whom he spoke of. He talked about the practices of a few, namely the Montanists the false Prophets of the Phrygians.

The enemy of God's Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus. (Church History, 5, 14)

Fragments of this is found in Eusebius’ work and a brief summary of Montanus can be found here: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Montanus-religious-leader

Asia and Phrygia is also known to house several Sects and cults, including the Cult of Attis (Cybele-Attis believers), whom worship both the goddess Cybele, as well as Attis, in addition to false gods such as Adonis and or Osirus emerge in Christianity whom other sects follow, or so called cults and or mystery religions. Such practices tend to intertwine Christian faith with that of pagan practices and or beliefs, which in itself, is something that is to be against than for it, Montanus being an example, a group soon Tertullian found himself to be a convert of after works were finished and had done Against Praxeas after (believed to be after) being converted: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Montanism But unlike them, Tertullian proved what he believed in his Against Praxeas. Other examples being the Pneumatomachoi/Macedonians, for this sect was this sect could be said to have been binitarian or dualitarian.

For the believe of a God has spawned a lot of things and even mystery religions. Eusebius would most definitely not sit on the sidelines as such things happen in his day and it is quite evident in his work and the epistles that is seen in his work.

Scriptural-wise, the beliefs, doctrines, practices and the like that came out of Binitarianism violates biblical teaching says, that there is only one God, let alone teach what is in opposition to scripture (the additions of false gods and goddess, etc.) (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 45:5).
 

Quote

 

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.

 

All I did was add a minor quote at the end of what I had to say, it was done on “my” part and it didn’t pertain to any of your questions nor any of my answers, but if it causes you so much frustration….

The Sacred Writings of Saint Hippolytus, pg. 258 (not easy to gain access to the full book online)

The Sacred Writings of Eusebius Pamphilus, pg. 14

Against Praxeas chapter 9

The dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines by William Smith, Vol. I, p.700.

Several other books from both kinds of scholars, Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian cite the quotes mentioned.

Quote

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.

I didn’t expect copying the quote and putting it in a search bar was that much of work for you. I had to do the same when you quoted something; it wasn’t that big of an issue or difficult.

I don’t quote randomly. I took those quotes, copied it from my comments elsewhere, specifically of what I had said in regards to Robert M. Grant, in addition that, you kept insisting that Unitarianism has no connection to Suborinationsm, even though the belief between the two are very much identical, yet you refuse (even afterwards) to believe this, and I assume you still do, especially in regards to the majority of Christendom being Subordinationist out of the other faiths during that time, thus making me repeat myself, time and time again.

That being said, the quote was a minor one and I pulled it directly from a comment I made to an Atheist Youtuber who took issue with not just Christians, but early Christians, about a month or two ago, hence, I recalled Robert M. Grant those were the exact quotes I typed. I take it you want a screenshot of the argument too? Probably not, for what was brought up by said Youtuber was quite vulgar in half of what he had said.

Anyways, the quotes came directly from Robert’s book, “Gods and the One God”, the first quote from page 160.

The second is from “Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy” by Paul Gilliam III, who quotes Robert M. Grant, p.39, which is pulled directly from the book “Gods and the One God”.
 

Quote

 

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!

 

That didn’t stop you the first time; I only did it a few times, especially when I had to make 2 full posts dealing with your response, and only your response it seems. But unlike you, I actually had the nerve to post “full versions” of paragraphs to draw in context, especially when it came to the books of Irenaeus, for one has to understand that this man even referred to at times as a Christian as “God”, one would have to tread carefully when understanding what the writer is telling us, which I have taken the time to do instead of cutting paragraphs apart.

One thing that can be said is outside of Irenaeus, Eucebius, and Terullian, there were dozens more beliefs that existed, even some deemed to be called a heresy, some beliefs that persist to this day, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, Binitarianism/ Monotheism, Luciferians/ Ophites (Today’s Satanist), Macedonians, Pneumatomachians, Apollinarism, Ebionites, Sabellianism, etc.

As for Christianity itself, there are merely 2 factions, Non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians, regardless of belief both has originated from Subordinationism, some have broken off to Binitarianism. But ALL has a sole origination that is traced back to the ancient days.

At the end of the day, it comes down to scripture in combination with manuscripts as well as Textual Criticism. There are those who are close to the truth, and there are others who are far from the truth, and there are others who just want to see Christianity go down in great numbers, which is taking place right now.

Aside from being here on the forums, I am elsewhere dealing with Anti-Religion groups.

It all comes down to biblical canon and understanding, taking the time to interpret instead of assuming or cherry picking.

As for Hippolytus:

For You are God, and we knew not; the God of Israel, the Saviour, In you, therefore, says he, God is. But in whom is God except in Christ Jesus, the Father's Word, and the mystery of the economy? And again, exhibiting the truth regarding Him, he points to the fact of His being in the flesh when He says, I have raised Him up in righteousness, and all His ways are straight (Against Noetus, paragraph 4).

As for your little paragraph snippet, here it is in full:

Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. 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. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills. What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose (Against Noetus, paragraph 8).

Lastly, I will say this, for everything I say I have a reason to say it because I read it somewhere, recall it, heard of it, etc. I come to conclusions after taking time to read something from start to finish, I don't cherry pick portions of a paragraph, I take and see key elements and see how they stick with other passages in a book, epistle and or the scriptures itself. An example is how you take the bible verse Luke 24:52 and just accept "as is", someone who reads the bible will look at these key verse, and see if there is any connection elsewhere in scripture, therefore, I mentioned Acts 1 and the gift the disciples will receive, Acts 2.

Surely you would have known that, but I guess someone had to tell you as to why the Disciples were joyfully and exactly why they were celebrating in praise to Almighty God the Father.

I invite you to read Acts  chapters 1 and 2 after reading Luke 24 from start to end. Then you will see why your "as is" assumption of the verse is incorrect, let alone "thinking" the Disciples will trash God for Jesus devoted servitude and worship which would deny them of what is received in Acts 2 if they didn't consider the one true God, the Father, of whom Jesus mentions in Luke 24. Also take the time to revisit John 1, take into account ALL of John's introduction to that chapter, not the 1st 3 verses, you can easily be countered with the Time Frame of Genesis, if you had did that elsewhere without really going in depth in study of that chapter, you wouldn't find people who are nice and forgiving.

[Space Merchant]

On 1/27/2018 at 9:34 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

WOW!

I hope you have a voice to text software program like "Dragon Naturally Speaking", ( version 12 is excellent!).

That is a LOT of stuff to type by hand, that nobody will read.

That would be awesome to have right now lol. But hey people leave behind things for others to look into themselves, at least it gives some people to see who is in the telling what is true.

But for me, I am use to it and way too mild in temperament, you should see the madness I and several others get from Atheist or anti-Christians. It is far worse there than here Â Like an angry mob throwing in what they want to say;my only safe haven is the CSE.

That being said I am a fast reader and typist.