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.
No, the possibilities are not endless. The fact that God is said to be One, and that Elohim is used of God means that plural or multiple 'god's' are not being referred to, but rather plurality in the Godhead. That is why Deut. 6:4 says,
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD (Yahweh) is our God (Elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is one (Echad).
Elohim is One. What kind of One? Echad!!! A united One. Not a singular One. Echad is used to express the fact that Adam and Eve are a United One. They are two people, but they are a united one. And this is true of God as well. But with God there are three who are a United One.
Preaching to the choir on here. I do believe that Elohim references the three "Gods." I am not making the case for strict Unitarian monotheism myself. But we both know that many very intelligent folks out there can and will come to a more absolute singular monotheistic conclusion. The Jews came to that conclusion and Jewish scholars can be quite slavish in there adherence to every nitpicky detail of scriptural text.
But both of us would agree that they came to the wrong conclusion there. Gods (Elohim) is one. There is only one Gods (Elohim.) And yes they used "echad" (unified) instead of "yachid" (numerically one). And we find echo after echo after echo of this in the New Testament. They are one in that they are united. I am not disagreeing with any of that.
To establish "one in substance" you're using the first chapter of Hebrews and it just doesn't get you there:
Quote:
Hebrews 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Hebrews 1:1-3 (NIV)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Hebrews 1:1-3 (ESV)
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,
Sure it says that they are identical, both in personality (nature) and physical appearance. Like father like son, as the saying goes. Indeed, it seems to imply that the Father has a physical body just like the Son does. If not, then Hebrews would not say what it says. That is something new that I'd not considered in my prior readings of Hebrews 1, so my thanks for helping me stumble on that bit of wisdom.
What Hebrews 1 entirely fails to do is actually say, "The Father and the Son are one in substance." Yes it says they are cut from the same cloth. No it does not say they are made out of exactly the same piece of fabric.
Quote:
No. God is one. Elohim while plural does not mean the the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different god's. They are One God united by the attributes of their nature.
Personally, I believe they do not see themselves as "three gods." They do not identify themselves as such. Calling them "three gods" as humans think of it must seem completely ridiculous and foreign to them. Their personalities, thoughts, intents and actions are as intertwined and connected as any three infinite people can be. Infinitely unified. This is not something that exists in any pagan pantheon of gods.
Example: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades are the Greek Trinity. They are the three brothers who are fathers to the rest of the gods. They feud and fight amongst themselves. They have their own separate agendas. Sometimes they sabotage one another, sometimes they work together. The Christian Trinity is infinitely dissimilar to that sort of Trinity. So "three gods" as humans tend to think of it doesn't even remotely make sense.
But at the end of the day, there are three: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They are not numerically one according the the Bible. Not by substance. Not by person. Not by being. Not by essence. If that means that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three gods (per the English "gods") then I suppose they are three gods. The Biblical record does not give us a passage that reads "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one substance." The church councils added that in, not God. I'd rather just stick with what the Bible does day in this case and accept whatever "scandalous implications" get thrown our way for it. Elohim is three and three is Elohim, but Elohim is united. That's the scriptural truth that I'm seeing here.
White Wings said in post #72 : You may like this translation:
3. Who, being a beam (radiance; effulgence; outshining) from the Glory, and an exact impress (as from a stamp or die) of His substructure (the substance standing under as a foundation) and continuously bearing (carrying) the whole (all things; everything; or, as a masc.: all men) by the thing which is spoken belonging to His power (the saying pertaining to His ability; in the spoken word of His power), making a cleansing (purification) of failures (of the misses of the target; pertaining to the sins), seated Himself within the right part of greatness resident within high places
Hi White wings, yes, I think that such attempts at mixing translating with commentary and/or other possible translations are quite nice. James Sanders (a well known biblical translator) discussed this at a meeting where, he said he did not think people who thought his bible (and other bibles) could stand to see the wide amount of differences between translators.
The problem is that the translation and commentary are both affected by the religious theory of the translator. Historians of the peri-c.e. era who know greek would translate quite differently than translators that only know a little history.
The current discussion regarding what "exactness" would have meant to a person living in 100 a.d. is just such a point. What does "exactness" in time or copying or manufacture etc, MEAN to a person living in Jerusalem at approximately 75-100 a.d.? The historian would say it meant something different than to a modern person.
Mike 555 said : You simply made a false claim in post #37 by saying that I believe that God's essence is bodily, chemically or materially based. The following is your exact statement; 'Regarding Mike555’s assumption that υποστασισ in this instance means "substance" or "essence" in a "bodily" or "chemical" or "material" sense of characteristics of "sameness" '. "
Mike555 Our discussion is turning into another rhetorical game. If you insist that I should apologize for incorrectly presuming what you meant by your unorthodox usage of the word "material", then I must insist that you must apologize for your incorrect presumption as to what I meant by the words "chemical" and "material".
This is silly Mike555
I am still at work and will be traveling from 10 pm until approx 4 am and will get back to you tomorrow regarding your claim that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that God and Jesus are EXACTLY the same "materially" as well as it's context for translation.
Preaching to the choir on here. I do believe that Elohim references the three "Gods." I am not making the case for strict Unitarian monotheism myself. But we both know that many very intelligent folks out there can and will come to a more absolute singular monotheistic conclusion. The Jews came to that conclusion and Jewish scholars can be quite slavish in there adherence to every nitpicky detail of scriptural text.
No, they are not three Gods, and I did not imply that they were. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are ONE God. Not three God's.
Quote:
But both of us would agree that they came to the wrong conclusion there. Gods (Elohim) is one. There is only one Gods (Elohim.) And yes they used "echad" (unified) instead of "yachid" (numerically one). And we find echo after echo after echo of this in the New Testament. They are one in that they are united. I am not disagreeing with any of that.
To establish "one in substance" you're using the first chapter of Hebrews and it just doesn't get you there:
Sure it says that they are identical, both in personality (nature) and physical appearance. Like father like son, as the saying goes. Indeed, it seems to imply that the Father has a physical body just like the Son does. If not, then Hebrews would not say what it says. That is something new that I'd not considered in my prior readings of Hebrews 1, so my thanks for helping me stumble on that bit of wisdom.
Yes, Hebrews 1:3 does 'get you there.'
And since I covered God's essence or nature in post #77 I am not going to go into it here.
Quote:
What Hebrews 1 entirely fails to do is actually say, "The Father and the Son are one in substance." Yes it says they are cut from the same cloth. No it does not say they are made out of exactly the same piece of fabric.
Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high
It says it right there. And again, Hebrews 1:3 and what it means is covered in post #77 and I will not go into it again here.
Quote:
Personally, I believe they do not see themselves as "three gods." They do not identify themselves as such. Calling them "three gods" as humans think of it must seem completely ridiculous and foreign to them. Their personalities, thoughts, intents and actions are as intertwined and connected as any three infinite people can be. Infinitely unified. This is not something that exists in any pagan pantheon of gods.
Example: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades are the Greek Trinity. They are the three brothers who are fathers to the rest of the gods. They feud and fight amongst themselves. They have their own separate agendas. Sometimes they sabotage one another, sometimes they work together. The Christian Trinity is infinitely dissimilar to that sort of Trinity. So "three gods" as humans tend to think of it doesn't even remotely make sense.
But at the end of the day, there are three: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They are not numerically one according the the Bible. Not by substance. Not by person. Not by being. Not by essence. If that means that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three gods (per the English "gods") then I suppose they are three gods. The Biblical record does not give us a passage that reads "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one substance." The church councils added that in, not God. I'd rather just stick with what the Bible does day in this case and accept whatever "scandalous implications" get thrown our way for it. Elohim is three and three is Elohim, but Elohim is united. That's the scriptural truth that I'm seeing here.
They are not One in Person, but they are One in nature, essence, or substance, and the Bible does say so. Just not in the way you want it to say it. They are three in Person, but because they are a united One, without separate existence, they are One God. They are distinct but not separate. What unites them are their attributes which make up the nature of God.
The Bible states that God is One, that Jesus is the exact representation of His (the Father's) nature (what you prefer to call substance. God's nature or essence is the sum total of His attributes (See post #77). The Bible ascribes to all three Persons, the same attributes which I listed in posts #5 and #77
You seem to want the Bible to say something in the way in which you want it to say it. And if it doesn't say it the way you want it to then you don't believe it.
Repeating yourself doesn't change a thing Mike555. The simple truth is, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" does not actually say,"They are One in nature, essence, or substance." (It also completely leaves the Holy Spirit out of the equation.)
You say, "Ah ha! Clearly this teaches one substance!" I say, "Like father like son." Twins look exactly alike and that seems to be the context of Hebrews 1:3. You even have an unfair advantage working in your favor: The translators of that passage are all absolute believers in the Catholic Trinity. Their doctrinal bias should help you here. And even with that working in your favor, the passage still does not actually say "the Father and the Son are one in substance." Taking several translations together (or we could go to the original Greek if that's your preference), we get the gist of the true intended meaning. "The Son is just like the Father in every way." Spitting image in the modern vernacular. A perfect copy. Twins, after a fashion. Twins in every way imaginable. But perfect copies though they might be, twins are not composed of the same material/substance.
And as you yourself already pointed out repeatedly, the verbiage used is, "Elohim is one." Not one numerically. One as in united. One as in how husband and wife are commanded to be one. You are the one who said "not one numerically" and now you want to flip that script and say "one numerically" but only apply that numerical oneness "one in substance."
If the intended meaning of Hebrews 1:3 is "Father and Son are one in substance/material" then why does the passage actually say that? I say you're reading something into it that simply isn't there and you counter by saying I'm reading it wrong. I think we've officially reached a dead end on Hebrews 1:3. That isn't surprising because I've been there before ever since I realized "one in substance" just ain't anywhere in the Bible. Hebrews 1:3 is just more evidence via "hints, allegations and things left unsaid."
You also seem to want the Bible to say something in the way in which you want it to say it. You quote scriptures, then you twist and turn and perform all sorts of acrobatics to get that passage to say what you want it to. And after it all, you don't like it when somebody points out the obvious. "That's not what it actually says."
It's been a stimulating discussion, but I think my stubborn inability to accept implications, hints, allegations and things left unsaid as unshakable evidence is bothering you.
White Wings said in post #72 : You may like this translation:
3. Who, being a beam (radiance; effulgence; outshining) from the Glory, and an exact impress (as from a stamp or die) of His substructure (the substance standing under as a foundation) and continuously bearing (carrying) the whole (all things; everything; or, as a masc.: all men) by the thing which is spoken belonging to His power (the saying pertaining to His ability; in the spoken word of His power), making a cleansing (purification) of failures (of the misses of the target; pertaining to the sins), seated Himself within the right part of greatness resident within high places
Hi White wings, yes, I think that such attempts at mixing translating with commentary and/or other possible translations are quite nice. James Sanders (a well known biblical translator) discussed this at a meeting where, he said he did not think people who thought his bible (and other bibles) could stand to see the wide amount of differences between translators.
The problem is that the translation and commentary are both affected by the religious theory of the translator. Historians of the peri-c.e. era who know greek would translate quite differently than translators that only know a little history.
The current discussion regarding what "exactness" would have meant to a person living in 100 a.d. is just such a point. What does "exactness" in time or copying or manufacture etc, MEAN to a person living in Jerusalem at approximately 75-100 a.d.? The historian would say it meant something different than to a modern person.
Mike 555 said : You simply made a false claim in post #37 by saying that I believe that God's essence is bodily, chemically or materially based. The following is your exact statement; 'Regarding Mike555’s assumption that υποστασισ in this instance means "substance" or "essence" in a "bodily" or "chemical" or "material" sense of characteristics of "sameness" '. "
Mike555 Our discussion is turning into another rhetorical game. If you insist that I should apologize for incorrectly presuming what you meant by your unorthodox usage of the word "material", then I must insist that you must apologize for your incorrect presumption as to what I meant by the words "chemical" and "material".
This is silly Mike555
I am still at work and will be traveling from 10 pm until approx 4 am and will get back to you tomorrow regarding your claim that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that God and Jesus are EXACTLY the same "materially" as well as it's context for translation.
Clear
ειτζτζειω
I plainly stated in post #77 that I am not interested in an apology and did not ask for one. I simply stated that you have not acknowledged that you made a false statement about what I, to use your word, 'assume'.
And I did not use the word 'material'. You falsely claimed that I did. Here is your false claim which you made in post #37.
Regarding Mike555’s assumption that υποστασεο in this instance means “substance” or “essence” in a “bodily” or “chemical” or “material” sense of characteristics of “sameness”.
Nothing I said implies that I assume that the word charaktér (essence or nature) in Hebrews 1:3 means substance or essence in a bodily or chemical or material sense. That is strictly your unwarranted assumption.
I think I'm sort of in agreement with you, but tell me please, what exactly is the name they have in common?
"No one knows the son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the son and whoever the son wishes to reveal Him."
To the true disciple the secrets of the kingdom of God are revealed, to the outsiders it is a mystery. They will look but they will not see, listen but not hear, unless they repent and are allowed to enter. Seek and you shall find, ask and you'll receive, knock and the door will open.
No one can enter the kingdom by the gate unless they are born of water and spirit.
"The Lord God does nothing without revealing His secrets to His servants the prophets."
"When the lion roars who will not fear it, when the Lord God speaks who will not prophecy."
"A king will reign justly and princes will rule rightly."
Anyone who offers praise as a sacrifice glorifies me and to him who goes the right way I will show the salvation of God."says the Lord
"Observe what is right and do what is just for my salvation is near to attain my justice about to be revealed, blessed is the man who does this the son of man who holds to it."
"Who has stood in the counsel of the Lord to see and to hear His word? Who has heed His word so as to announce it."
Repeating yourself doesn't change a thing Mike555. The simple truth is, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" does not actually say,"They are One in nature, essence, or substance." (It also completely leaves the Holy Spirit out of the equation.)
You say, "Ah ha! Clearly this teaches one substance!" I say, "Like father like son." Twins look exactly alike and that seems to be the context of Hebrews 1:3. You even have an unfair advantage working in your favor: The translators of that passage are all absolute believers in the Catholic Trinity. Their doctrinal bias should help you here. And even with that working in your favor, the passage still does not actually say "the Father and the Son are one in substance." Taking several translations together (or we could go to the original Greek if that's your preference), we get the gist of the true intended meaning. "The Son is just like the Father in every way." Spitting image in the modern vernacular. A perfect copy. Twins, after a fashion. Twins in every way imaginable. But perfect copies though they might be, twins are not composed of the same material.
And as you yourself already pointed out repeatedly, the verbiage used is, "Elohim is one." Not one numerically. One as in united. One as in how husband and wife are commanded to be one. You are the one who said "not one numerically" and now you want to flip that script and say "one numerically" but only apply that numerical oneness "one in substance."
If the intended meaning of Hebrews 1:3 is "Father and Son are one in substance/material" then why does the passage actually say that? I say you're reading something into it that simply isn't there and you counter by saying I'm reading it wrong. I think we've officially reached a dead end on Hebrews 1:3. That isn't surprising because I've been there before ever since I realized "one in substance" just ain't anywhere in the Bible. Hebrews 1:3 is just more evidence via "hints, allegations and things left unsaid."
You also seem to want the Bible to say something in the way in which you want it to say it. You quote scriptures, then you twist and turn and perform all sorts of acrobatics to get that passage to say what you want it to. And after it all, you don't like it when somebody points out the obvious. "That's not what it actually says."
It's been a stimulating discussion, but I think my stubborn inability to accept implications, hints, allegations and things left unsaid as unshakable evidence is bothering you.
No, I have not 'flipped that script' to say ''one numerically'' but only apply that numerical oneness ''one in substance.'' I have always said that God is three in Person, and One in essence. And in all my threads, and all my posts, you will never find where I said anything differently.
Again, you complain because the Bible does not say something in the exact way in which you want it said. It doesn't work that way.
I directed your attention to post #77. I doubt that you bothered to take a look. So I will bring the relevant part of post #77 here.
Here it is.
The word 'substance' is indeed part of the definition of hupostasis, and is translated as such in a number of Bible translations. As I said though, I don't really like the word, and prefer the term essence, or nature, both of which are also used in Bible translations.
Nor have I taken the word out of context or failed to exlain. Once again, I explained it at the bottom of post #5.
Dr. John D. Hannah in 'Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine' states;
Tertullian used the term ''substance,'' referring to that which the persons have in common. As later developed, it implied the community of equally shared attributes in the Godhead. God, being spirit (John 4:24), is without body or parts, so that the word can be misleading. ''Substance'' implies not corporeality, but His divine character or attributes (God is known to us through the medium and manner of His dealing with us). With all this stated, however, scholars believe that Tertullian's explanation of the Trinity contained hues of Subordinationism. The language of analogy or illustration betrayed him as it does all those who seek to describe the infinite with finite words and illustrations. God has revealed Himself truly to His people, though not completely. ['Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine, pp.78-79]
And those equally shared attributes again are, Sovereignty, Perfect Righteousness, Perfect Justice, Love, Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Veracity, and Immutability.
''You are in error in claiming that it is improper to translate the word charaktér as exact representation. The word charaktér certainly carries the meaning of an exact representation, a precise reproduction, the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing. These descriptions are given here, Strong's Greek: 5481. ???????? (charaktér) -- a tool for engraving
The late F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. Concerning Hebrews 1:3, he writes of the phrase 'and He is the exact representation of His nature' (as translated in the NASB). Bruce used the RSV.
He is the very image of the essence of God--the impress of his being. Just as the image and superscription on a coin exactly corresponds to the device on the die, so the Son of God ''bears the very stamp of his nature'' (RSV). The Greek word charaktér , occurring here only in the New Testament, expresses this truth even more than eikōn, which is used elsewhere to denote Christ as the ''image'' of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Just as the glory is really in the effulgence, so the being (Gk. hypostasis) of God is really in Christ, who is its impress, its exact representation and embodiment. What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see Christ is to see what the Father is like. [The Epistles to the Hebrews, F. F. Bruce, p. 48]
To the above which was posted in post #50, I will now add what the Expositor's Bible Commentary says concerning the word charaktér in Hebrews 1:3.
''The exact representation of his being'' is the fourth of the statements about the Son. ''Exact representation'' translates charaktér, a very unusual word (here only in the NT). Originally it denoted an instrument for engraving and then a mark stamped on that instrument. Hence it came to be used generally of a mark stamped on a thing, the impress of a die. It might be used figuratively, for example, of God as making man in his own image (1 Clement 33:4). In its literal sense it was used of the impression on coins; RSV's ''bears the very stamp of his nature'' brings out something of this meaning. Here the writer is saying that the Son is an exact representation of God. The word hypostaseōs, rendered 'being,'' is difficult. Its etymological equivalent in English is ''substance,'' viz., that which stands under a thing, that which makes it what it is. The Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God's real being is. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12, p. 14]
And so we see the F. F. Bruce, the Expositor's Bible Commentary, and Strong's definition of charaktér are in agreement with each other, and refute you.
Dr. John D. Hannah writes concerning Tertullian (c.160-c.225);
In his polemic Against Praxeas (12), he wrote:
Everywhere I hold one substance in three cohering . . . . All are of one, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity onto a Trinity, placing in their order the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three however . . . not in substance but in form, not in power but in appearance. [Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine, Dr. John D. Hannah, p. 78]
The first part of the quote is from chapter 12 of Against Praxeas, while the rest is from chapter 2.
This is a bit more of the quote;
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. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Tertullian in chapter 13 then speaks of ''the Unity (of the Divine Nature)'', and ''two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.''
Tertullian then, distinguished between the different Persons of the Trinity, and the unity of the nature or substance between the distinct Persons.
Now if you choose not to accept the above, that's your business.
If the only intended meaning of "one in substance" is that they are all exactly alike in "Sovereignty, Perfect Righteousness, Perfect Justice, Love, Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Veracity, and Immutability." then we completely agree. If we have two copies of "To Kill a Mocking Bird" printed on the same press on the same day with the same cover and everything ... I think we can agree that they are exactly alike. This expands to all the references to coins and stamps and so forth. Perfect copies. Got it. No disagreement there. If anything, I think your list of shared attributes is incomplete.
It is my experience that there is a lot more to it than that. The part where "one in substance" becomes non-Biblical is when the Trinitarian concludes that they are three individual persons, yet they are the same being. It is on this very point where Trinitarians seem to begin to vary and disagree on exactly what they mean when they say consubstantial. Some would say "one being" is exactly what they mean. A rough majority would say "one being" isn't quite what they mean, but that it is very close to right. In both cases, that is where I disagree. "Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same being, more or less" = not Biblical.
Sorry for being gone with no reply to this thread for so long. Had a LOT of things going on.
I see a lot of discussion has been going on.....but now let's focus two things before moving on; both of which are too long to be included in this thread and will need a thread of their own.
First let's look at what the Holy Spirit really is and second, HOW does Jesus describes Him and the Father being 'ONE'!
For these I will post scriptures in 2 different threads.
Hope you will continue to read, search and learn more of God's word.
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.
