Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clear lens said : Ancient Warrior : I have to agree with Mike555s specific point that a trinity of three individuals has always been a central doctrine in authentic Christianity. By this I mean that the earliest Judao Christians have always believed that the Lord God (also called “the father”) exists AND that he has a son who is also divine and that a Holy Spirit exists and that these three individuals make up the earliest model of the Christian “Godhead”."
Ancient Warrior responded : I agree with most of what you posted but not the above....
If you read the synoptic gospels and Acts of the Apostles carefully, you will find that the "Son of God" or "Son of Man" is believed to be the messiah, but not divine. This is clearly shown in a number of passages in which God works signs by his power through Jesus. Some of Jesus' own statement show he didn't consider himself divine.
I have seen many different theologies based on how one interprets these texts. I’ve even seen individuals use the biblical texts to support the theory that Jesus was NOT resurrected at all. My point is that you have no provided your specific scriptures nor how you interpret them to mean what you say they mean. I suspect your theory will end up being heavily dependent upon your interpretation. Whether You argue that Jesus either IS or IS NOT divine, it is clear that the earliest Christians themselves interpreted their sacred texts to mean that Jesus WAS divine.
Jesus was not the Father (i.e. the LORD God) to the earliest Christians, but they did believe him to be divine as the Son of God who was closely associated with his Father even during the creation. For example, during creation the New Testament Text taught, speaking of the Father : “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son." (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12).
Whether correct or incorrect, still that was Christian belief. The critical text also confirms this point “ IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.”. The earliest Judao Christians understood that this text referred to the Father and the Son.
John 1:18 for example confirms the earliest Christian belief , referring to Jesus the scripture reads :, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he declared him.
(In Greek for those who want to over read for confirmation : “ΘεονουδειςεωρακενπωποτεμονογενηςΘεοςοωνειςτονκολποντοθπατροςεκεινοςεξηγησατο.”)
For example, the apostolic Fathers (writings from the time when apostles still lived) indicated clearly this belief. An apostolic father Clement speaks about the earliest beliefs where he honors the Father (the LORD God) and Jesus Christ as God’s Chosen Servant. “2 ...that the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name. 3 Grant us, Lord, to hope on your name, which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know you, who alone is “Highest among the high, and remains Holy among the holy.” 3...from among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3) Remember, Clement is the Protégé and confidant of the Apostle Peter himself (and later was ordained a Bishop in Rome by Peter himself). These represent the earliest orthodox teachings.
I understand the confusion regarding the usage of the term, “the Son of man”, however, using the definite article, the gospel of phillip discusses the ancient usage. “There is [the] Son of man and there is [a] son of the Son of man. The Lord [God] is the Son of man, and the son of the Son of man is he who is created through the Son of man. The Son of man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget.” The gospel of Phillip
I think it is the close association of the Son to the Father and lack of historical context which causes so much of the confusion in modern readers of this term. And, given the multitudes of terms the ancients used, I cannot blame them.
For example, the ancient Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer #5:20 speaks of all the things which Christ did, UNDER the authority of the Father : “20 All of which the Lord’s day surpasses, showing forth: the Mediator himself, the Supervisor, the lawgiver, the cause of resurrection, the firstborn of all creation, the divine Word; 21 and Man, the one born of Mary along, without a husband; 22 who lived holily as a citizen, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and having died, is also (the one) having arisen from (the) dead.
I’m not sure why the resurrection of Jesus causes an issue with the doctrine of divinity / sonship to have Jesus be resurrected BY his Father. You mentioned in your post that we should “Note carefully, Jesus is"raised" from the dead by God not by his own power until we get to John.” The early Christians did NOT believe Jesus raised himself, but DID believe that Jesus was raised by the power of his Father. Even in John, critical texts were NOT interpreted to mean that Jesus raised himself but instead, Jesus was given whatever power and authority he had, by his Father. In this case then, I think you and I agree regarding Acts 2:22 as it relates to the Father resurrecting Jesus.
Regarding your last claim in your post that “The Holy Spirit was a term applied to God the Father and later to God the Son. Still later, about the end of the second century, he became a separate person and in time was added to a "trinity".”, I think there is simply too much evidence against this theory to give it any credibility in early normative Christianity (though some small group may have believed this...).
New testament hermas, in his teaching regarding the Holy Spirit and avoiding anger does not identify the holy spirit as God the Father. He taught : “For if you are patient, the Holy Spirit who lives in you will be pure, uncontaminated by some other evil spirit, living in a spacious room, it will rejoice and be glad with the vessel in which it lives and will serve God with much cheerfulness, for it is at peace with itself. But if an angry temper approaches, immediately the Holy spirit…seeks to leave…” Hermas 33:2-3 I've never seen any such descriptions interpreted as meaning the Holy Spirit Is God the Father (other than in the later Christianities)
The prophet Ezra does not confuse God the Father with the Holy Spirit when he speaks directly TO the Father, asking for the influence of the spirit. Ezra asks the Father : “If then I have found favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in your Law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live.” Fourth Book of Ezra 14:22;
None of the earliest texts demonstrate that the earliest Christians were confused about the holy spirit and it’s relationship to either the Son or the Father. The chronicler of Vibia Perpetua’s diary (a famous Christian convert/martyr) describes the belief of the holy Spirit of his day. “… new instances of virtue may testify that one and the self-same spirit is working to this day with the Father, God Almighty, and with his son Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom belong splendor and power immeasurable forever and ever. Amen” The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. however, when perpetual prays for knowledge from the spirit, she does not confuse the Holy Spirit with God the Father.
I am glad that we agree on a few points at least Ancient Warrior.
Mike555 said : Ignatius said “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Mike555, my point is that your quote by Ignatius (whom you seem to agree with me was a credible christian who taught 1st century "orthodoxy") doesn't show he believed in your interpretation of the Godhead. Ignatius did NOT believe in the “one essence is three Gods” or “three Gods is one essence” that you theorize. That is why I quoted ignatius belief that The Father and the Son were separate individuals.
Quote:
mike555 said : Before you attempt to correct others, you need to learn what you are talking about and what those who you would presume to correct are saying. The New Testament is absolutely clear that God is triune. That He is united in essence, not merely in purpose.
Though other Christians will claim that the New Testament is absolutely clear that God is NOT triune in the fashion you claim, Suppose we assume YOUR interpretation IS the interpretation the ancient Christians actually used.There should be SOME evidence of this if the earliest Christians actually USED and BELIEVED in your specific interpretation.(such evidence could include the earliest sacred texts; the apostolic fathers, or the earliest hymns, or in the earliest set prayers, or in the earliest Christian liturgies; the earliest Christian Diaries, etc)
Perhaps you can start by telling us in simple terms the actual relationship you think God the Father; his Son Jesus; and the Holy Ghost have. The OP video concludes that their version of the trinity is “incomprehensible”. Perhaps your version of the trinity is MORE comprehensible and completely simple to understand. Can you explain your specific belief regarding the relationship between God the Father, his Son Jesus, and The Holy Spirit?
Since you quoted ignatius as someone you seem to trust, do you find evidence that HE believed in a God where three share a single essence?
Can we take a look at the evidence for your claim that Christians actually USED and described your interpretation? (so we don’t have to simply rely on your claim that your interpretation is THE interpretation).
For example, you quoted ignatius in the context of your doctrine of "one essence". Tell us where Ignatius teaches YOUR interpretation of scripture regarding this "one essence" you believe in; we’ll compare your quotes to my quotes from ignatius and see where it leads us. Is this agreeable?
Clear
twacsiio
Last edited by Clear lens; 06-20-2011 at 12:55 AM..
All this confusion is an outgrowth of the ignorance extant at the time about such concepts as consciousness containing the "personhood" of each of us . . . including God. It was exacerbated by the inordinate fear of Spirits which necessitated the accommodations necessary in the "carnal milk" concepts and descriptions that were used.
I have seen many different theologies based on how one interprets these texts. I’ve even seen individuals use the biblical texts to support the theory that Jesus was NOT resurrected at all. My point is that you have no provided your specific scriptures nor how you interpret them to mean what you say they mean. I suspect your theory will end up being heavily dependent upon your interpretation. Whether You argue that Jesus either IS or IS NOT divine, it is clear that the earliest Christians themselves interpreted their sacred texts to mean that Jesus WAS divine.
Clear
RESPONSE:
First of all, are you seriously claiming that the Jews allowed the original Christians to remain a sect within orthodox Judaim if the first Christians were claiming that there were two Gods?
Note that about 80 AD, the Christians were anathmatized from the Jewish synagoguesas heretics. (See the 18 Benedictions, Jewish Encyclopedia on-line). (Christians were rejecting Mosaic law and claiming Jesus too was divine).
Secondly, Douay-Rheims Bible
"And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18)
" My Father is greater than I." - Jesus. (John 14:28) NOTE: There goes equality in the Trinity.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)
And Jesus admits he is lacking in divine knowledge (ie, isn't God)
Mike555, my point is that your quote by Ignatius (whom you seem to agree with me was a credible christian who taught 1st century "orthodoxy") doesn't show he believed in your interpretation of the Godhead. Ignatius did NOT believe in the “one essence is three Gods” or “three Gods is one essence” that you theorize. That is why I quoted ignatius belief that The Father and the Son were separate individuals.
No Clear lens. The point is that in post #13, I mentioned Ignatius, along with two or three other sources for one reason only. To refute the claim of another poster that Matthew 28:19 was a later addition. Ignatius used the phrase 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.' And since he lived and died well before the timeframe mentioned by the other poster, this shows that Matthew 28:19 was not a third century interpolation.
I know nothing of Ignatius and so have no opinion of him one way or another.
And you continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend things I have said.
I will make this as clear as I possibly can. There is ONE and ONLY ONE God. There are THREE Persons who are ONE God. God is ONE in that all three Persons of the Godhead have the same identical attributes which comprise the ESSENCE of God. The essence of God consists of His Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Love, Eternal Life, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Immutability, and Veracity.
There are not three God's who are one God. Is that clear enough for you to now understand.
Quote:
Though other Christians will claim that the New Testament is absolutely clear that God is NOT triune in the fashion you claim, Suppose we assume YOUR interpretation IS the interpretation the ancient Christians actually used.There should be SOME evidence of this if the earliest Christians actually USED and BELIEVED in your specific interpretation.(such evidence could include the earliest sacred texts; the apostolic fathers, or the earliest hymns, or in the earliest set prayers, or in the earliest Christian liturgies; the earliest Christian Diaries, etc)
As I keep telling you, the issue is not what the early church believed. Within the early church were those who held to the heresy of Arianism, or the heresy of Modalistic monarchianism. as well as other heresies. Modalism was the believe that God simply manifested Himself in three different modes.
Excerpt:
There are various forms of Modalism but all agree God is strictly one person. One version is that God was the Father who then became the Son, and then the spirit in different dispensations.(different periods of time ). Another version is that there are three manifestations of the one Spirit who is God. That the one person who is God shares the titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and as Spirit can manifest to be all three. While we agree that God is an eternal Spirit, the difficulty that arises is how he is that one Spirit and who is that one. The Oneness view denies that the distinctions are real, saying that they are only roles God plays for different functions. Oneness Theology
Quote:
Perhaps you can start by telling us in simple terms the actual relationship you think God the Father; his Son Jesus; and the Holy Ghost have. The OP video concludes that their version of the trinity is “incomprehensible”. Perhaps your version of the trinity is MORE comprehensible and completely simple to understand. Can you explain your specific belief regarding the relationship between God the Father, his Son Jesus, and The Holy Spirit?
Since you quoted ignatius as someone you seem to trust, do you find evidence that HE believed in a God where three share a single essence?
As I stated above, I have no opinion about Ignatius. I have made it clear why I mentioned him.
Quote:
Can we take a look at the evidence for your claim that Christians actually USED and described your interpretation? (so we don’t have to simply rely on your claim that your interpretation is THE interpretation).
I have already told you that the early church had different beliefs about the nature of God. I mentioned two heresies of the early church regarding that. The issue is not what the early church believed, but what the Scriptures teach.
Quote:
For example, you quoted ignatius in the context of your doctrine of "one essence". Tell us where Ignatius teaches YOUR interpretation of scripture regarding this "one essence" you believe in; we’ll compare your quotes to my quotes from ignatius and see where it leads us. Is this agreeable?
Clear
twacsiio
You continue to miss the point of my mention of Ignatius. I mentioned him with regard to his quotation of Matthew 28:19.
1) MIKE555, REGARDING THE OFFERING OF NON-EXISTENT QUOTES
Mike555 : I understand that you used Ignatius to refute another poster. Here is your claim (with lacuna)
Quote:
Mike555 claimed : “Here is what Ignatius wrote in chapter 9 of The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians: ... “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
However, part of my point is that your quote does not exist in chapter nine (I looked to read it for myself) and you cannot use a non-existent quote to refute ANYTHING.
I quoted the entirety of chapter nine to show your quote does not exist where you say it is. Not only should you not offer a non-existent, but Ignatius did NOT believe in the trinity model you are espousing.
Does it make sense that you cannot refute a claim with a non-existent quote? Find the actual quote and let us know (some of us actually look up historical claims to see if they say what we think they say or to refresh our own memories. ) Ignatius certainly might have made the statement.
2) REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF APOSTOLIC OPINION AND EARLY INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE WHO KNEW THE APOSTLES OR INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE CLOSEST TO THE APOSTLES
Quote:
Mike555 said : As I keep telling you, the issue is not what the early church believed.
And I believe it DOES matter what the apostles and prophets believed mike555 since they are the AUTHORS of the words we read (and which you are interpreting to support your opinion.)
Most of your claims are very heavily dependent upon YOUR personal interpretation. HOWEVER, your personal interpretations of scriptural texts are simply competing interpretation among hundreds, if now thousands of other possible interpretations.
Those who knew the apostles ALSO interpreted these same texts you interpret. But those who were close to the apostles did not interpret texts as you do. Their witness as to how one should interpret these text often will outweight in importance and clarity and logic, your interpretations.
For example, Clement was taught the Gospel by Peter the Apostle himself. Thus, if clement offers an opinion on how Peter interpreted a doctrine, then that specific witness has some weight and it makes sense to weight clement’s interpretations of what Peter the apostle meant against mike555s interpretation of a text describing what Peter the apostle meant.
3) THE DIFFICULTY WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION AND RESULTING DEFINITION OF THE GODHEAD
Quote:
MIKE555 SAID in post #45 : I will make this as clear as I possibly can. There is ONE and ONLY ONE God. There are THREE Persons who are ONE God. God is ONE in that all three Persons of the Godhead have the same identical attributes which comprise the ESSENCE of God. The essence of God consists of His Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Love, Eternal Life, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Immutability, and Veracity.
One difficulty lies in your usage of the term “ESSENCE” for these three separate individuals since essence refers to the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something that determines its character. You claim they have the same “essence” consisting of such things including “sovereignty” and “omniscience” when they obviously do NOT have the same “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.
GOD THE FATHER IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL OTHER BEINGS INCLUDING HIS SON JESUS AND JESUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME OMNISCIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE AS GOD THE FATHER HAS
1) JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER
When asked to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father :
Quote:
“ ...Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23)
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. [...] 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. (Mark 10:37,40)
Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE.'
Quote:
: “But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. ( John 15:31)
The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he will and they understood “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)
IT IS NOT JESUS WHO “RAISED HIMSELF UP” BUT RATHER IT IS GOD THE FATHER WHO RESURRECTED JESUS.
Quote:
“And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1
“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thess 1:9-10
Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “
It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys.
Quote:
: ...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3
JESUS HAS LESS KNOWLEDGE THAN GOD THE FATHER (their degree of omniscience is different)
Not only does Jesus have less authority than his Father, but he has less knowledge than his Father as well. In speaking of the future, Jesus admits : “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.(Mark 19:32) The father knows, but Jesus does not.
ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.
Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities. Clement, who was taught the doctrine of the nature of God by the Apostle Peter himself said : [quote] “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)[quote]
Clement spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)
The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;
This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.
Quote:
...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)
When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :
Quote:
“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV
A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.
Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father
Quote:
“... took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)
Jesus explains to the apostles : “And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”
Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but rather that Jesus was a subordinate TO God the Father.
To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense.
IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)
In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :
Quote:
... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)
The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense.
In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus (referred to in the euphamistic term "Iaol"), speaking to Abraham says : [quote]“I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) [quote] Again, and again, throughout the earliest text, one finds the consistent pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. Jesus is “ordered” by the Father to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.
The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;
It is for these reasons and others that your theory that “...all three Persons of the Godhead have the same identical attributes which comprise the ESSENCE of God. The essence of God consists of His Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Love, Eternal Life, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Immutability, and Veracity(mike555 in post #45)”
Obviously they do NOT have the same Omniscience, nor the same level of authority or sovereignty.
Ancient Warrior claimed :
1) “If you read the synoptic gospels and Acts of the Apostles carefully, you will find that the "Son of God" or "Son of Man" is believed to be the messiah, but not divine. This is clearly shown in a number of passages in which God works signs by his power through Jesus. Some of Jesus' own statement show he didn't consider himself divine.”
2) The Holy Spirit was a term applied to God the Father and later to God the Son. Still later, about the end of the second century, he became a separate person and in time was added to a "trinity"
Ancient Warrior offers : ‘...are you seriously claiming that the Jews allowed the original Christians to remain a sect within orthodox Judaim if the first Christians were claiming that there were two Gods?” No, I’m not sure what I said that made you think I claimed this.
What does this have to do with your two claim that New Testament texts show Christians did not belief Jesus was divine or that they applied the term “Holy Spirit” to God the Father OR to Jesus?
Ancient warrior further adds :
Quote:
Note that about 80 AD, the Christians were anathmatized from the Jewish synagogues as heretics. (See the 18 Benedictions, Jewish Encyclopedia on-line). (Christians were rejecting Mosaic law and claiming Jesus too was divine).
Yes.
What does THIS have to do with your two claim that New Testament texts show Christians did not belief Jesus was divine or that they applied the term “Holy Spirit” to God the Father OR to Jesus?
Ancient Warriors third point was :
Quote:
"And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18)
" My Father is greater than I." - Jesus. (John 14:28) NOTE: There goes equality in the Trinity.
But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)
And Jesus admits he is lacking in divine knowledge (ie, isn't God)
Right, Jeus is NOT his Father, they are NOT equal and Jesus lacks knowledge that his father has.
So what do ANY of the points you made have to do with your two claim that 1) New Testament texts show Christians did not belief Jesus was divine or 2) that they applied the term “Holy Spirit” to God the Father OR to Jesus?
Please Ancient Warrior, focus on the two claims you made and offer us data regarding THEM. Thank you in advance for any information you might offer on those claims.
1) MIKE555, REGARDING THE OFFERING OF NON-EXISTENT QUOTES
Mike555 : I understand that you used Ignatius to refute another poster. Here is your claim (with lacuna) However, part of my point is that your quote does not exist in chapter nine (I looked to read it for myself) and you cannot use a non-existent quote to refute ANYTHING.
I quoted the entirety of chapter nine to show your quote does not exist where you say it is. Not only should you not offer a non-existent, but Ignatius did NOT believe in the trinity model you are espousing.
Does it make sense that you cannot refute a claim with a non-existent quote? Find the actual quote and let us know (some of us actually look up historical claims to see if they say what we think they say or to refresh our own memories. ) Ignatius certainly might have made the statement.
Instead of going into the link I provided, it seems that you preferred to go to a short version of Ignatius' Epistle to the Philidelphians, instead of the longer version.
I have posted 3 times now --- posts #13, 28, and 45, the link to chapter 9 of 'The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians'. Here it is a forth time...
And here is the quote from chapter 9: “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles,”963963 Gen. xlix. 10. have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (emphasis mine).
2) REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF APOSTOLIC OPINION AND EARLY INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE WHO KNEW THE APOSTLES OR INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE CLOSEST TO THE APOSTLES
And I believe it DOES matter what the apostles and prophets believed mike555 since they are the AUTHORS of the words we read (and which you are interpreting to support your opinion.)
No Clear lens. I am not talking about the apostles and the prophets who wrote the Bible. I am talking about the beliefs of the post apostolic fathers and the beliefs of believers in the early church in general. I have already told you that many heresies existed in the early church with among other things, the nature of God. Which of the heresies are you going to believe?
Quote:
Most of your claims are very heavily dependent upon YOUR personal interpretation. HOWEVER, your personal interpretations of scriptural texts are simply competing interpretation among hundreds, if now thousands of other possible interpretations.
Those who knew the apostles ALSO interpreted these same texts you interpret. But those who were close to the apostles did not interpret texts as you do. Their witness as to how one should interpret these text often will outweight in importance and clarity and logic, your interpretations.
For example, Clement was taught the Gospel by Peter the Apostle himself. Thus, if clement offers an opinion on how Peter interpreted a doctrine, then that specific witness has some weight and it makes sense to weight clement’s interpretations of what Peter the apostle meant against mike555s interpretation of a text describing what Peter the apostle meant.
No again Clear lens. I have (in post #30) already shown you from Phil 2:5-8 that Paul showed that Jesus Christ is of the same nature as the Father.
That Jesus Christ was in His very nature, and not just in purpose, equal with the Father is made clear by Phillippians 2:5-8.
The 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Facility; on pages 653-654 says the following about Phillippians 2:6-8. 'The word translated nature (morphe) in verses 6 and 7 is a crucial term in this passage. This word (trans. ''form'' in the KJV and NASB) stresses the inner essence or reality of that which it is associated (cf. Mark 16:12). Christ Jesus, Paul said is of the very essence (morphe) of God, and in His incarnation He embraced perfect humanity. His complete and absolute deity is here carefully stressed by the apostle. The Savior's claim to deity infuriated the Jewish leaders (John 5:18) and caused them to accuse Him of blasphemy (John 10:33).
Quote:
3) THE DIFFICULTY WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION AND RESULTING DEFINITION OF THE GODHEAD
One difficulty lies in your usage of the term “ESSENCE” for these three separate individuals since essence refers to the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something that determines its character. You claim they have the same “essence” consisting of such things including “sovereignty” and “omniscience” when they obviously do NOT have the same “sovereignty” and “omniscience”.
You are sadly in serious error in making that claim. All three Persons of the Godhead do in fact have the same sovereignty and omniscience.
Quote:
GOD THE FATHER IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL OTHER BEINGS INCLUDING HIS SON JESUS AND JESUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME OMNISCIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE AS GOD THE FATHER HAS
1) JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER
When asked to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father :
Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE.'
The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he will and they understood “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)
As I told another poster who is quilty of the same thing, you fail to distinquish between the nature of God and the plan of God. But this was explained in the following Bible lesson which I already referred you to. Here it is one more time: //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...d-persons.html
Quote:
IT IS NOT JESUS WHO “RAISED HIMSELF UP” BUT RATHER IT IS GOD THE FATHER WHO RESURRECTED JESUS.
Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “
It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys. JESUS HAS LESS KNOWLEDGE THAN GOD THE FATHER (their degree of omniscience is different)
Not only does Jesus have less authority than his Father, but he has less knowledge than his Father as well. In speaking of the future, Jesus admits : “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.(Mark 19:32) The father knows, but Jesus does not.
There is no Mark 19:32. Perhaps you meant to say Mark 13:32.
No. Jesus has the same authority as the Father. It is only with regard to their plan of salvation that the Second Person of the trinity agreed to become a member of the human race and submit Himself to the will of the Father. Again, refer to the following thread: //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...d-persons.html
Jesus Christ was and is in hypostatic union. And while on earth during His first advent, He restricted the independent use of His deity (doctrine of kenosis). He chose not to access His deity with regard to the issue of the precise moment of His return. Jesus was speaking from the standpoint of His humanity. As a man Jesus had to learn just like anyone else.
Quote:
ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.
Jesus Christ and the Father ARE separate Persons, but along with the Holy Spirit are ONE God. This also has already been explained to you.
Quote:
Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities. Clement, who was taught the doctrine of the nature of God by the Apostle Peter himself said : “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)
Clement spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)
The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;
This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.
When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :
A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.
Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father
Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but rather that Jesus was a subordinate TO God the Father.
Why do you keep making an issue out of the fact that Jesus Christ is not the Father when I have repeatedly told you that Jesus Christ is not the Father?
Again, in their nature -- their essence, all three Persons of the Godhead have the exact same essence. The exact same authority, the exact same sovereigny, the exact same eveything. It is ONLY with regard to the eternal plan of God that each Person of the trinity assumes their respective roles. And for Jesus Christ, this means that He agreed to become a man and submit Himself to the will of the Father in order to provide salvation.
Quote:
To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense.
IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)
In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :
The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense.
In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus (referred to in the euphamistic term "Iaol"), speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17)
Again, and again, throughout the earliest text, one finds the consistent pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. Jesus is “ordered” by the Father to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.
The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;
It is for these reasons and others that your theory that “...all three Persons of the Godhead have the same identical attributes which comprise the ESSENCE of God. The essence of God consists of His Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Love, Eternal Life, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Immutability, and Veracity(mike555 in post #45)”
Obviously they do NOT have the same Omniscience, nor the same level of authority or sovereignty.
Clear
dracfuil
Your whole argument is based on not distinquishing between the essence of God and the plan of God.
God is God and as such has no limitations aside from not being able to do anything which is contradictory to His nature. Since Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, they are by their very nature, infinite in the attributes of their essence. Each of the Persons of the Godhead is co-equal and co-eternal with the other Persons of the Godhead. Again, it is ONLY with regard to the pre-designed plan of God that Jesus Christ --the Second Person of the trinity assumed a position of subservience to the First Person of the trinity.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-20-2011 at 02:31 PM..
Concerning the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the trinity, The terms 'Father' and 'Son' are anthropathisms -- lanquage of accommodation within a plan. The deity of Jesus Christ is eternal along with the 1st and 2nd Persons of the trinity. I have provided this link which explains the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
I have often read the phrase "God the Son" in Trinitarian writings. But the phrase is nonscriptural or even ascriptual, as it is not mentioned in Scripture.
I have often read the phrase "God the Son" in Trinitarian writings. But the phrase is nonscriptural or even ascriptual, as it is not mentioned in Scripture.
Neither are the words 'Trinity' or 'Rapture' found in the Bible. Yet they are taught in the Bible. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity. Since Jesus Christ is God, the phrase 'God the Son' as it describes His relationship to the First Person of the Trinity relative to their eternal plan of salvation, is perfectly valid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
