Jesus Christ is Eternal God (traditions, Gospels, gnostic, Old Testament)
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.
First you must believe that Christ is God, then through that act of faith, your salvation is cemented through your works and grace provided through the Holy Spirit.
Read the chapters in their full and contemplate them, and research their relevance to the rest of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit will guide you.
I believe UR is an error, however I don't see it being damnable, but through the acceptance that Christ is the manifestation of God in the flesh, you will be released form this error, in time.
You know.. I just spent the last hour reading Ireneaus, who as you know was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John.) And after reading a description of the heresies, he denounces what sounds to me like the trinity or a number of variations of the trinity, which is any number of manifestations of God (a tetrad, ogdoad, etc.... in fact he states that any deviation from the truth is of the devil and not taught by Jesus nor the disciples. In fact he uses examples of scripture that is twisted similar to those you use, such as John 1.. here is what he says that the absolute truth is:
"Chapter XXII.-Deviations of Heretics from the Truth.1. The rule(275) of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth."(276) And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."(277) There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal(278) things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,-He who formed the world (for the world is of all),-He who fashioned man,-He [who](279) is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,-He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove. Holding, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry,-thus proving themselves ungrateful to Him that created them."
Now to me that means that God is ONE and his son is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not God and did not form the world and is not the Word but carried the word of God to men.
Here is the link so that you may read it yourself Book I - Writings of the Early Church Fathers.. or perhaps you will read it in the original language.. either way.. what you believe is the trinity is a fallacy created by those who were decieved.
You know.. I just spent the last hour reading Ireneaus, who as you know was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John.) And after reading a description of the heresies, he denounces what sounds to me like the trinity or a number of variations of the trinity, which is any number of manifestations of God (a tetrad, ogdoad, etc.... in fact he states that any deviation from the truth is of the devil and not taught by Jesus nor the disciples. In fact he uses examples of scripture that is twisted similar to those you use, such as John 1.. here is what he says that the absolute truth is:
"Chapter XXII.-Deviations of Heretics from the Truth.1. The rule(275) of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth."(276) And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."(277) There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal(278) things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,-He who formed the world (for the world is of all),-He who fashioned man,-He [who](279) is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,-He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove. Holding, therefore, this rule, we shall easily show, notwithstanding the great variety and multitude of their opinions, that these men have deviated from the truth; for almost all the different sects of heretics admit that there is one God; but then, by their pernicious doctrines, they change [this truth into error], even as the Gentiles do through idolatry,-thus proving themselves ungrateful to Him that created them."
Now to me that means that God is ONE and his son is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not God and did not form the world and is not the Word but carried the word of God to men.
Here is the link so that you may read it yourself Book I - Writings of the Early Church Fathers.. or perhaps you will read it in the original language.. either way.. what you believe is the trinity is a fallacy created by those who were decieved.
It is as I said before. You are intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter how clear something is made to you, you will simply deny it. And then you presume to offer some evidence that you think disproves the Deity of Christ. It it like I said before. Mud Bricks would understand from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is God. I am done with you.
Ennoia (Greek) (from en + nous mind, as contrasted with the object or act without)
The divine mind spoken of by Simon Magus as coequal with the supreme (the Father), and as being the mother of all the archangels and angels (aeons or emanations). Ennoia had descended through the lower worlds and finally become imprisoned in gross matter, where she was subjected to abuse; but the Father manifests himself as the Son and rescues Ennoia to reinstate her on her original throne. Simon used the first person in giving out this teaching, and in the same symbolic way called Ennoia his wife Helena, and speaks of her degradation as prostitution; this has been the occasion of misunderstanding on the part of scholars, ancient and modern. Ennoia is paired with Ophis (the serpent of divine wisdom) to constitute the creative Logos.
I think Ireneaus' writing shows that he believed that Jesus Christ is God.
Quote from your link
For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.
It is as I said before. You are intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter how clear something is made to you, you will simply deny it. And then you presume to offer some evidence that you think disproves the Deity of Christ. It it like I said before. Mud Bricks would understand from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is God. I am done with you.
Yet you have nothing to say about how Ireneaus denounces the heresy that there is more than one manifestation of God.. that he states the word and spirit are just God and not separate persons.. and that God the father.. the maker of all things has a son named Jesus? He denounces that Jesus was emptied and Christ (the deity form of the son of God) came in to fill him making him divinely Christ Jesus then at his death on the cross, Christ left Jesus alone returning to heaven... Does this not sound like the doctrine you espouse? I am not being at all dishonest. I want to know why it is that these are heresies denounced yet you espouse them.
I think Ireneaus' writing shows that he believed that Jesus Christ is God.
Quote from your link
For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.
Now that is what I was trying to find and I had skimmed up to this point and then I read the whole thing over because as you can see that this is under the heading "Chapter VIII.-How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions." so that it is the perversion of this scripture he is talking about. We see that because before that which you quote Ireneaus states:
"5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,-that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things."
Such that these Valentinians are using John's words to say there is more than one God or more than one part to God... Just as you said. That is the perversion and the heresy that Ireneaus speaks of.
The trinity uses the same passages to prove the same thing that the Valentinians do (although with a greater number of parts) and yet Ireneaus denounces that as heresy and a perversion of scripture...
Now that is what I was trying to find and I had skimmed up to this point and then I read the whole thing over because as you can see that this is under the heading "Chapter VIII.-How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions." so that it is the perversion of this scripture he is talking about. We see that because before that which you quote Ireneaus states:
"5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,-that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things."
Such that these Valentinians are using John's words to say there is more than one God or more than one part to God... Just as you said. That is the perversion and the heresy that Ireneaus speaks of.
The trinity uses the same passages to prove the same thing that the Valentinians do (although with a greater number of parts) and yet Ireneaus denounces that as heresy and a perversion of scripture...
I think you might be mistaken about which parts he is arguing against and which parts are actually statements of his own beliefs. When he says "Further, they teach...expressing themselves in these words: " it is not clear how far "these words" go and where his own statements begin. There are no quote marks.
I think he is not arguing against Christ being the Word in John 1 or the the Creator since he says this:
The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,-these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements...
He is arguing against some strange doctrine about there being other saviors of some sort...
...maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced...
I think you might be mistaken about which parts he is arguing against and which parts are actually statements of his own beliefs. When he says "Further, they teach...expressing themselves in these words: " it is not clear how far "these words" go and where his own statements begin. There are no quote marks.
I think he is not arguing against Christ being the Word in John 1 or the the Creator since he says this:
The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,-these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements...
He is arguing against some strange doctrine about there being other saviors of some sort...
...maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced...
Yes I also came to that conclusion until I read this:
"He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth."(124) (But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."(125) ) Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Aeons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.(126)"
And then the next chapter with the heading:
"Chapter IX.-Refutation of the Impious Interpretations of These Heretics."
Actually refutes the claims in the previous chapter. So Ireneaus is actually just reciting the many differing views that are wrong!
Now if you read book two, he really goes into it...
Here is an excerpt:
"Chapter I.-There is But One God: the Impossibility of Its Being Otherwise.1. IT is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.
2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? "
So that there is nothing (including a human) that can contain his immensity. Then he goes on and on about God creating things rather than angels or any other begotten being (I would suppose that would include Jesus)... So we come to where he is describing the four-fold being that is said to contain pairs of united beings that all unite as one... (similar to the trinity that all are separate yet still only one God):
"2. Next, with respect to the first production Ennoea, whom they also term Sige, from whom again they describe Nous and Aletheia as having been sent forth, they err in both particulars. For it is impossible that the thought (Ennoea) of any one, or his silence (Sige), should be understood apart from himself; and that, being sent forth beyond him, it should possess a special figure of its own. But if they assert that the (Ennoea) was not sent forth beyond Him, but continued one with the Propator, why then do they reckon her with the other Aeons-with those who were not one [with the Father], and are on this account ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let us take this also into consideration), there is then an absolute necessity, that from this united and inseparable conjunction, which constitutes but one being, there(51) should proceed an unseparated and united production, so that it should not be dissimilar to Him who sent it forth."
So he is saying that it is impossible for that which is sent forth from God to remain separate from him. And not only that but they cannot then be said to be one and the same.
He is definitely arguing that three (or two or eight) cannot equal one yet remain separate. That in fact, they are then worshiping three or two or eight separate gods...
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The trinity is truth.
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.
