Yes.  I know you have quoted from them, but I challenge your interpretation of what they have said by and extrapolation of their writings.

 

"If he were made a temple of God - now I ask you: of what God?  Of the Creator?  But that is not possible, because he does not believe Him. Of Christ?  One who denies that Christ is God cannot become His temple. Of the Holy Spirit?  Since the Three are One, how were it possible for the Holy Spirit to be reconciled to him that is an enemy of either the Son or of the Father?" - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 73,12, 254 A.D.

 

 

You know, Mr. SB, I seem to recall that the JWs utilize this Encyclopedia to support their doctrines. I wonder if that is a coincidence.

 

 

Well, you said you were not a JW, but this group repeatedly refers to this text in selectively and fallaciously quoting against the Catholic Church so I find this coincidental - that's all. As for the source itself, it's adequate - although I really don't appreciate it's Darwinian bent by passing on the theory of evolution as fact.

 

 

Great. I'm glad you don't have a truncated approach to the Bible. Oral tradition is as important to the true Christian faith as the defined canon, which of course the Catholic Church determined. I know why I believe those books to be inspired and Apostolic. Why do you?

 

 

Harmony?  I would think the Book of Psalms would be more "harmonious" with the Book of Wisdom (which Protestants reject) than it would be with Leviticus. But then again you no doubt have a special gift at discerning the harmony between all the books of *your* Bible. How wonderfully convenient!  I'm sure Joseph Smith has lit the flame in your bosom.

 

Of course, I do not subscribe to such a facile and patently subjective methodology. (At least, Prof. Beduhn was honest to admit that inspiration was outside his field of expertise.) I prefer the historical account offered by Eusebius in 325 A.D.: "Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called 2 and 3 John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name. Among the spurious books must be placed…the Revelation of John…Some have found place for the 'Gospel of Hebrews.'"

 

Perhaps you could share you "harmonious" methodology with poor ol' Eusebius? 

 

 

 

Yes. I am familiar with the Didache. I find your assessment here quite unacceptable. No where in your reference does it deny the Trinity.

 

 

No. I do not refer to The Didache as supporting the Trinity - although I guess you could make an argument that it does just like Matthew 28:19, but that is not the issue here.

 

The issue here, Mr. SB, is that you are saying, "See, the Didache says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom." And I am saying that that proves nothing because it is an argument from sufficiency or a "mixed hypothetical syllogism" - as I have repeatedly alluded to in this post.

 

I am not saying what you suggest I am saying: The *reason* I said, "No where in your reference does it deny the Trinity" is to show you:

 

1) that you ironically reject the same argument that you, yourself, make;

 

2) that the argument from sufficiency can be used both ways - it settles nothing.

 

Re: Matthew 28:19

 

The reference, if anything, *favours* the Trinity. Notice that the "name of the Father" is put *along side* the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, just when does God share the same stage and level with anyone else other than Himself?  If indeed Jesus is subordinate to the Father, then he should not be put on the same plane with the Father, as this phraseology suggests.

 

 

Sufficiency is a matter of personal opinion. For some people, the evidence of someone being cured of terminal cancer after being immersed in the waters of Lourdes is sufficient proof for its authenticity. For the obstinate skeptic, *no evidence* - even the *same kind* of evidence that they will accept in non-religious questions - will be sufficient.

 

 

1 Timothy 5:21: "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels, I charge you…"

 

"In the presence of" does not equate to "in the authority of" as is used in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of"). Asking someone to witness to an act or an event is not the same thing as saying that they have the authority to consummate it.

 

Moreover, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus is commanding his Apostles to perform a religious act in reference to the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit.", that is, to baptize - which effects a supernatural regeneration (Cf. John 3:5). No angel has that ability or power to do so.

 

 

Actually, it has very little to do with a "preconceived theology" at all. It would not be out of line for you or a Jehovah Witness to say the same thing!  You have a holy fear and awe of God. You believe He is sovereign and almighty. You believe that He is greater than anything and everything in the universe. Well, I do too. And that is why I can make the claim that He does not share "the same stage". To share the same stage, is in many respects a sign of equality with another being, which by definition, is not possible with an infinite and perfect God. Hence, there is no problem with saying God does not "share the same stage" with anyone. In fact, the Bible is replete with this lesson, the most famous case is, of course, Adam and Eve where Satan said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5). It was Satan and our first parent's pride that made them fall because they sought to put themselves "on the same stage".

 

Now, you *can* challenge if "in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does, in fact, mean "sharing the same stage". I am rather surprised, however, that you would question whether any other being can "share the same stage" as God Himself.

 

 

 

But that is just it. Jesus does not say, "Stop in the name of God" or "Stop in the name of the Father". He includes Himself in that authority and He includes a rather idiomatic "force", the Holy Spirit, in the formula. You do not say, "stop in the name of the law and the law's force", do you? 

 

If God the Father is the *only* true God and Jesus is subordinate to Him, then is the Father's authority not *enough* or *sufficient* to baptize or, to use your example, "to stop another individual"? 

 

Ask yourself why Jesus includes Himself in the formula. Would you say, "Stop in the name of the King, the Prince, and the King's law"?  or would you say instead, "Stop in the name of the King!" To say the former does not cause much notice, but to say the latter is, at the very least, conspicuous. .

 

So let's "transliterate" the line: "...baptizing them in the authority of the Father, and in the authority of the Son, and in the authority of the Holy Spirit" If I said to you: "You have the authority to purchase the product by the authority of the marketing, finance, and production departments", would that not suggest to you that the authority of *all three* were *necessary*?  And if they were indeed necessary, does that not mean that to deprive the authority of one would make the command incomplete? 

 

 

"Probably...more than was intended?" What if, in this particular instance, the dice did not role the way that was "probable"?  I hope you see that such a statement is rather problematic. Who has the power to know *objectively* what the sacred writers intended by the statement?  See how a Church established by God would come in handy here?  How the anarchy would quickly disappear?  How Jesus' words "you will know the truth" can really mean that we *will*, in fact, *know* the truth? 

 

 

When Jesus says, "I have been given all authority", who is the 'I'?  When Jesus "grows in wisdom", how is this possible?  Well, as you know, the Trinitarian will say that Jesus is not only fully divine but also fully human. His divinity means that he has a divine nature while his humanity demands a human one, both co-existing with one another. But BEFORE the incarnation, Jesus did not have a human nature because He had not yet become a human being. Therefore, since His 'human dimension' DID have a beginning, it is totally proper and logical to say that Jesus Christ, the man-God, was "given" all authority. It would not be totally incomparable to a family "giving" their family piano do the eldest daughter even though it belonged to all, or one partner in a business being "given" all authority to make certain strategic decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry. I don't see how this proves your point. St. Peter appealing to the power of Jesus Christ does not disprove the Trinitarian claim. The only thing you have shown by providing this reference is to show that Jesus' name is appealed to, which is rather a neutral passage.

 

But wait. Let's look at the passage a little more closely. "And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, 'By what power or by what name did you do this?' Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them....be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...this man is standing before you well." (Acts. 4:7-10). Peter, "filled with the Holy Spirit", appeals to the Son, which, according to you, is allegedly subordinate to God. How can the Spirit of God, speaking through the Prince of the Apostles, subordinate its authority or its name to a creature?  Can you give me biblical precedent for this? 

 

 

I've addressed this kind of argument above. No need to repeat it again.

 

Re: Matthew 28:19

 

But what is more, at the very least, it is a neutral teaching - neither Arian nor Trinitarian. The fact that it says "nothing about the three being equal..." is an argument from silence which can hardly be taken as proof of the rejection of the Trinity. It does not say they are NOT equal either. It is *you* who say that.

 

 

At the very least, it is a neutral teaching. That is the very minimum. Of course, there is a lot to say that it well surpasses the minimum. I was merely giving you what I believe to be, in my opinion, a floor which you could not go below. The sky's the limit, though, my friend J.

 

 

Um...what exactly is the proof here?  The only thing I can surmise as an indication of subordination is that Jesus is called "servant". Well, if that is the proof that you are using to show subordination, may I suggest that you have missed the mark badly.

 

 

Again, SB, you are arguing from sufficiency. But let's look a little closer at your claim that "there is no Trinity in this." The teaching says "And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and *life eternal through Jesus* your Servant." Tell me. How can a finite creature be used as a medium for something which is not finite, namely, eternal life?  When Adam sinned, he caused a separation from God for all of humanity. The sin is infinite (in degree) because the offended, God, is infinite. Now, if the sin is infinite, then what quality must the redeemer have in order to negate the sin?  Well, this redeemer *must* also be eternal in order to meet the demands of divine justice. Perfect justice is what God demands for the sin committed against Him, and only a perfect sacrifice (perfection, of course, includes eternity) through an eternal God can fulfill it. Hence, Jesus must be God - if He is not, our "redemption" is incomplete and insufficient.

 

This is your argument:

 

Premise 1: God cannot be servant to Himself. Premise 2: Jesus was a servant. Conclusion: Jesus cannot be God.

 

 

I shall address your position that a person must be a separate being in just a moment.

 

To be a servant of someone does not necessarily mean that you are less than them in either dignity or authority.

 

 

Just a moment. Let's back up. Who gets to define what a person is?  Of course, you take the contemporary line that persons are *necessarily* separate beings because that is what your senses tell you, but that is not necessarily applicable to the composition of God. You have argued from sufficiency much. NOW you are imposing an argument from necessity!  By the way, Mr. SB, when the UN Charter (I think it was the Charter) was being drafted, it contained the word "person" in it. You know why the Communists rejected that word, Mr. SB?  You guessed it!  because it had Theistic, Christian, Trinitarian origins in it. You see how even the devil knows when to object to such a Trinitarian word.

 

In fact, if you did believe this, then how can Jesus be the servant of the Apostles (Cf. John 13:14) and of you and of me (Cf. Matthew 20:28). How can Jesus have "lived in subjection to" (Luke 2:51) Mary and Joseph?  Is he less than or subject to the apostles or his parents because He is our Servant?  This is the inescapable conclusion you must accept. Do you accept it?....I didn't think so. So, likewise……

 

 

No, of course not. All I was trying to demonstrate is that one may be a servant yet not be less than one's master, and I think I have done that.

 

…….He is not subordinate to the Father because He is His servant either.

 

 

I've addressed this issue above. No need to repeat it here.

 

 

You are not talking to a Protestant, Mr. SB. Catholicism admits to the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine, and not just about the Trinity. I recognize that there can be advances in the study of Scripture. I don't see why it can't be the same in the understanding of such a great mystery either.

 

 

Why do you downplay philosophy?  Cannot God use man's capacity at reasoning to further explain His Truth?  If you are so averse to the original Christians consulting other sources, then you must have a great problem with St. Paul who was not constrained by your artificial limitations. St. Paul frequently quotes pagans in his writings, such as the pagan poet, Menander (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:33). He quotes Aratus, a third century B.C. pagan poet, speaking of human beings as God's creation: "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). St. Paul quotes the pagan poet Epimenides (and even calls him a PROPHET!  - (Cf. Titus 1:12)), who wrote, "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

 

And what about the Jews of the Dispersion who composed the Septuagint?  Here is a passage from "A History of the Church" by Philip Hughes:

 

It was nevertheless, impossible for them to live entirely uninfluenced by their surroundings. They became Greek speaking, for example, and forgot their Hebrew to such an extent that it was necessary for their own use to have their sacred writings translated into Greek -- whence the Septuagint. With the new language they entered into contact with all the rich variety of the world's most gifted civilisation. Greece, its literature, its philosophy, its spirit of speculation on fundamental things, now lay open to the scholars and thinkers of the Dispersion. Were they to close their minds to the new influence, to shut it out as a thing necessarily accursed, in the fashion of many of their compatriots in Palestine?  -- or was there not a means of conciliating what was good in it with their own traditions, and so of enlarging the sphere of their influence without surrendering what was vital to their faith?  The thinkers of Alexandrian Judaism chose the latter alternative, and using Greek Philosophy to universalise the Law, strove to create an entente where the corrected philosophy and the Law, philosophically explained, should be seen as two aspects of the same unity. The Jewish faith remained the same thing, with its eternal foundations of monotheism and the personal immortality of the individual soul. The best of Greek philosophy accorded here with Jewish belief; and while the Jew accepted the philosophical allegorising of the Greek myths and fables that made of them merely a vehicle for the teaching of abstract truths, he was prepared, in the same accommodating spirit, to explain allegorically, the contents of his own sacred books. It is the idea hidden behind the fact that is the all-important thing; the fact related is secondary. Greek Philosophy thus becomes a religion, accepting the principle of the supernatural; Judaism, without ceasing to be a religion, will be a philosophy, "searching beneath the word revealed, the reasonable teaching it covers."

 

Don't truncate the Catholic Church, SB - unless you want to do the same for St. Paul and the Alexandrian Jews.

 

Now I find it rather delicious how the Church is viewed something of a contradiction. On the one hand, the liberals view the Catholic Church as "backward and closed minded, not willing to 'open up' to human philosophy". On the other hand, you and the other "fundys" accuse Her of importing 'traditions and philosophies of men' into Christianity. So which is it, SB? 

 

 

 

 

 

O.K. are you saying that Jesus is subordinate BECAUSE he was "sent forth" by God?  Here we go yet again. SB, just admit it. St. Clement was a Trinitarian:

 

"This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." St. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1, 200 A.D. "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, the Expiator, the Saviour, the Soother, the Divine Word, He that is quite evidently true God, He that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because He was His Son…." St. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 10, 200 A.D.

 

 

God is constantly revealing Himself throughout Judeo-Christian History. Each successive generation of God's people knows a little more about God. The deposit of revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, but before this time new and novel revelation was still possible. Having said that, then, when you say "I assume that persons are beings based on all usage of the Biblical languages", you necessarily exclude those passages which point to the Trinity - you beg the question. Furthermore, there is no requirement that a new revelation in the Bible be necessarily predicated on past biblical precedent. That's why we call it revelation.

 

I, on the other hand, am not assuming anything. I am asking you to tell me who gets to say what a person is WITHOUT engaging in circular argumentation.

 

You presuppose that God the Son cannot be sent by God the Father and still be equal to God the Father.

 

 

No. You are right. But He is called 'God'. And He is called 'Son'. He is not the Father, and He is not the Holy Spirit. So I don't think God the Son is too much of a stretch.

 

Funny, how St. Ignatius of Antioch has a different opinion of Scripture. Hmmmm…I wonder who I should believe - a twentieth century heretic or a giant of the VERY early Church? 

 

"There is then one God an Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For 'the Lord they God,' says [Scripture], 'is one Lord' [Deut. 6:4]…And there is alone one Son, ***GOD THE WORD***…" (Letter to the Philadelphians 2, 110 A.D.)

 

 

So, by that rationale, does the fact that Jesus is also called the 'Son of Man' mean He is subordinate to man?  Or does it point to what both of those formulas demand: He is fully human and divine. Jesus was born of a woman, and therefore He is fully human. My son will have a complete human nature because he will come from a human. A calf will have an animal nature because it comes from a cow. So likewise, when Jesus is called the 'Son of God', He too must possess the Divine nature of His Father. "Truly, this man was the Son of God." (Mark 15:39), and only through his redemptive act can "we receive *adoption* as sons" (Galatians 4:5). Every species of life communicates its own complete nature to its offspring.

 

Why do you make this presupposition, and how can you defend it. The Apostle Paul was "sent" by the apostles (Cf. Acts 15:22) to preach to Antioch. Peter was also "sent" as well in another passage (the reference escapes me at the moment). Does that mean that they were subordinate to the other Apostles in authority? 

 

 

Yes, Paul was a separate being. I don't think that being 'sent' by anyone by itself makes you a separate being or the same one, for that matter.

 

 

 

 

No. You don't understand.

 

 

And I don't agree with yours. What happens to an objective and KNOWABLE truth in this circumstance?  Will you resort to telling me that I don't "understand the issues". The first and second persons of the trinity stand to each other in the most true and authentic relationship between a father and a son. The son comes from or is "generated" from the Father.

 

 

Oh really?  I "owe" my existence to MY human father, yet I remain equal to him in nature i.e. possessing a human nature.

 

 

"We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn." (Matthew 11:17) You see if we try to be "dogmatically precise" we are accused of "dogmatism" and "word games" - if we don't do so our theology is weak and vague.

 

 

"A strange combination of belief..." Yes, you are right, the fathers did believe in an eternal generation - among them - St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Iranaeus, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, Origen, St. Dionysius, Lactantius, St. Athansius, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. But I want to challenge you now. You say that "on one hand there is an almost unanimous agreement that Jesus was distinct from God and subordinated to him, on the other hand they believed that Jesus... generated [eternally]." To me you must try and resolve this dilemma. IF INDEED THE FATHERS WERE SUBORDINATIONISTS, THEN WHY WOULD THEY DELVE INTO SUCH THELOGICALLY PRECISE LANGUAGE WHICH REFUTES ANY KIND OF SUBORDINATIONIST TENDENCY. What I am trying to say, SB, is if you asked 10 people if they were brain surgeons and they said no, but then they proceeded to do a brain transplant on your friend, you would be faced with two possibilities:

 

1) They ALL lied about being a brain surgeon. 2) YOU misunderstood their answer or your question was not well phrased.

 

Which do you think is the more likely scenario? 

 

"He was begotten through communication, and not by a cutting off; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance; but that which proceeds from something by communication, and which accepts the choice of the arrangement, does not diminish that from which it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, and the light of the first torch is not lessened by the igniting of the many torches, so also the Word, proceeding from the power of the Father, has not rendered the Progenitor Wordless.

 

- Tatian the Syrian, Address to the Greeks, 165 A.D.

 

 

This is rather amusing. You have been trying to convince me by APPEALING to the testimony and the authority of the early Church Fathers as to what the early Christians believed. Now that they dare utilize all available human instruments (i.e. Greek philosophy and Platonic theory) to try and explain the mystery of God, you object!  Well, to me, you can't have it both ways - either you accept the testimony of the early Church Fathers and the entirety of their teaching or you do not. Somehow, I don't think you would object if they used these methods to support the idea that God is unitarian, would you?  And while we are on the topic, there's plenty of rhetorical argument in the Book of Romans - where did St. Paul learn that?

 

No where does it suggest that Jesus was created. This eternal generation of the Son from the Father is testified in Psalm 2:7 (Doauy Rheims) and Hebrews 1:5: "Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee." You know the line, "begotten NOT made". A human father "generates" a human son, and imparts to him his human nature. Likewise, God the Father imparts HIS own divine nature to HIS Son.

 

 

But who are you to say that Trinitarians, or anyone else for that matter, cannot use a word outside of the Bible to more explicitly define a biblical doctrine?  The Bible was never meant to be a complete and exhaustive theological treatise of what Christianity taught. That was never its purpose, and this is at the root of your objection. Examine your contradiction, "eternal generation has no basis [in the scriptures]" BUT YOU ALSO SAY "on the other hand they [the Fathers] believed that Jesus, or rather the Reason of God from which he generated, was eternal." What is the conclusion?  That the Fathers were not "biblical", of course. Good grief.

 

 

But if you examine the heresies that have attacked the Catholic Church throughout the ages, you will see that such definitions are made IN ORDER TO settle the matter. This makes perfect sense since IT IS MOSTLY THROUGH ADVERSITY that the TRUTH is revealed and defined. That maxim is rather universal, I would say, not being restricted only to religious truth at all.

 

But more on 'monogenes' later.

 

 

Surprise! 

 

 

 

But, the phrase "only begotten (Son)" is also used in Jn 3:16,18 and 1 Jn 4:9, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, "unique, only member of a kind."

 

 

More to the point, if God begat a beginning identified as Jesus and *before* all *Creatures* , then how could Jesus have been created and therefore have a beginning? 

 

 

He does not come into existence, and neither does the Son. And so as there is no beginning to God, the Father, the "begetting" of the Son need not have a beginning either. In order to conceptualize it, one could say that IF God did have a beginning the "begetting" would occur at the instant when God was created.

 

 

But you accept the advance in scientific discoveries, but you cannot bring yourself to admit that God uses human faculties to allow us to understand Him better?  Why?  Maybe it's because you lack the beautiful universalism of Catholic truths - which are at harmony with all realms of knowledge - not just the religious.

 

 

No. The word "beget" means to "cause", but to cause something to happen FOR GOD does not necessarily mean that the event is WITHIN time. That is *your* imposition.

 

 

Well. That is a matter of divine revelation. You will have to ask Jesus that because it was He who set up the dichotomy in the first place.

 

 

Did your human father truly GIVE you life, or was he an instrument only?  I favour the latter interpretation since only God can give/create life. Is a father any less than a father for adopting a child, or the child any less than a son?  What determines a father-son distinction, SB, is not so much the mechanical giving of life, but the giving of LOVE in a certain way.

 

To assert that because Jesus only reflects God's splendor, He cannot be equal to the Father is, once again, an argument from sufficiency which does not prove a thing.

 

 

Who said they were separate beings?  Not me. But if you are saying "How can a being reflect a quality of itself", I will say "it depends on WHO we are talking about." Remember, SB, it is you who impose your anthropology on God's essence.

 

I cannot reflect a quality of my father and also be my father. Let's try to be honest in our definitions.

 

But I am not saying that *you* are your father. I am saying *you* are his son.

 

But we know that we are to "have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped…" (Philippians 2:6)

 

 

It's not my preference, but go ahead.

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Let us compare: "form of God" in Phil 2:6 with "form of devotion" 2 Tim 3:5. See the difference here?  The SUBJECT in Phillipians is God while in Timothy it is "devotion" or "religion" (RSV). To me that's an immense difference.

 

 

Yes. Angels are spirits to help us inherit salvation, but this does not support your position.

 

 

Yes. I admit you can understand this through either viewpoint, and it is not a conclusive argument. But then again, I think it is far closer to the orthodox view.

 

 

Let me tell you how I read the passage, paraphrasing:

 

"Jesus COULD HAVE regarded His equality with God something to be considered, BUT He did not and became a servant instead."

 

"...although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, BUT emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant…" Notice the conjunction "BUT" in the passage which demonstrates a contrast between what Jesus really is - God - to what He made himself like - servant.

 

A couple of other points. If, as you were saying, Jesus was only in the form of God in an *extrinsic* or *forensic* sense and not an *intrinsic* sense, than you would expect that the same to apply to the last part of the verse: "form of a servant". Was Jesus a servant in an *extrinsic* sense only, or was He truly a servant in the full sense of the word? 

 

Secondly, notice the verse says that Jesus "emptied Himself". Of what did He empty Himself?  What is the nearest referent to this phrase?  To me, Jesus "emptied Himself" of all of the glorious things that would rightfully belong to God.

 

 

 

Perhaps. But even if you use the word "snatch", it still can be used in support of the Trinity even though "cling to" would be a stronger rendering for the Trinitarian position.

 

 

 

But I am using the RSV which has the rendering you prefer, and I am still saying that the word can be used, quite effectively, to support the orthodox position. Let me ask you. How many beings that you know of are even able to "grasp" at equality with an infinite being?  Could that mean, that if Jesus did grasp, He would be in reach of it? 

 

 

But you are omitting the first part of the verse, "ALTHOUGH he was in the form of God", He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped..." THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. It shows a contrast between what He is and what He made himself.

 

 

Greater?  Well. If Jesus was only "one in purpose" with the Father in John 10:30, than it is equally possible that the Father was "greater than" Jesus' human nature in this verse. But a little bit more on this later on.

 

 

Is this a "dump" from the JW's database?  It sure sounds like it. Jesus was emptying himself of his status as God - as the context clearly confirms.

 

 

No. It wouldn't. In fact, it would be very necessary to correct people like you who harboured subordinationist tendencies. :)

 

 

Well, have you considered that Clement could have been addressing certain strains of thought which held that Jesus was on par or even below an angel?  If Gnostic belief was around, then I would suspect that any kind of ridiculous doctrine could be floating about as well.

 

 

No. I don't think it's clear at all. What is clear is that you believe that the Son is inferior to the Father, and You believe that Clement MEANS this.

 

 

Ad populum arguments don't appeal to my sensitivities, SB. If you want to play the numbers game, do it 'somewheres else'. When the telescope was invented around the seventeenth century, it completely destroyed the Ptolemaic theory of planetary orbit Opinions change, and even in this area, modern biblical scholarship with its anti-orthodox tendencies is being ITSELF undermined by an increasing number of brilliant scholars ON OUR SIDE.

 

 

Well, then, if God the Father shares His position with no one, then why did Jesus blaspheme?  "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). Seems to me Jesus is putting himself and this "holy spirit" force on par with the Father.

 

 

No. I have not slipped into appealing to sufficiency fallacy at all. If Jesus is put on the same level or plane as the father, He is, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, equal to him.

 

 

Again, Mr. SB, arguing from sufficiency does not work on me.

 

 

No. Mr. SB, I have not done so at all, and please remember that if I were to offer my own treatise instead of responding to yours (although there is overlap of course), we would be here forever. In fact, Clement did show he understood the rudiments of the doctrine when he wrote: "Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace poured out upon us?" (Letter to the Corinthians 46,6)

 

 

Splendid. How do either of us know Clement's mind?  Or better yet, how do any of us know who Jesus' true identity is?  I have an answer for you that will not involve falling into the pit of hopeless human opinion. I suspect you know what that answer is too so I won't mention it (again) here.

 

Again, to be subject to the Father does not mean to be less than him. Why is a Christian wife subject to her husband (Cf. Ephesians 5:22), yet equal to him (Cf. Ephesians 5:33)?  Well, for the same reason that Jesus is subject to His Father, yet equal to Him.

 

 

Nice try but no cigar. Jesus was called God because He is God, and the references you provide (Isa. 9:6, John 1:18) and the multitude that I could add, refute your position rather well. They are so strong that you attempt (rather badly I must say) to obfuscate the meaning of "the only begotten God" to mean "mighty one" only.

 

 

Let me demonstrate: John 1:18 refers to Jesus as "the only begotten God". You say that God really means "mighty one". Mighty one does not necessarily mean God. Therefore Jesus may really just be vested with God's authority only.

 

 

Yes. Thank You. I understand that, but you have not understood my objection. Your whole argument rests on the *application* of "theos". Where *theos* refers to the Father, you translate it "God", when it's referring to Jesus, it's "mighty one". My question to you is, WITHOUT appealing to YOUR preconceived theology, how can you justify translating (or applying) "theos" differently?  That is, your treatment should be CONSISTENT which it is not.

 

Boy, if there were ever a circular argument, this is it. Moreover, if "mighty one" only really means "god", then how do we know God the Father is not just a "god" also? 

 

 

The context?  Well, that all depends on one's interpretation, doesn't it?  Where does the Bible teach "sola scriptura"?  The Bible was never meant to be a complete discourse on Christian theology, but there's plenty of references which certainly point to it, and none that reject it.

 

By the way, the phrase "Jehovah God" gives you away. Not just an Arian, but a Russellite to boot! 

 

 

Yes. I know this. So what?  The quotes you were so excited about are part of those that are most likely forgeries.

 

Oh yes. Which ones are those?  I would be very interested to know which ones I was "so excited about" - the ones below?  Well, let's take a look at what St. Iggy says: Ignatius of Antioch: "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

 

[oops i mean "Jesus Christ our "mighty one'" - sorry.]

 

 

"Jesus Christ Our God" How else do you want it said? 

 

Ignatius of Antioch: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

 

 

The point is Ignatius' reference to Jesus Christ, "our God".

 

Was Jesus conceived of his own plan?  I would say yes, and might give you a more in depth explanation from Catholic theology. There's no point in appealing to only Scripture, SB. Again, I am not influenced by Luther's hatchet.

 

 

"I do glorify you through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Child: through whom be glory to you with Him and with the Holy Spirit, both now and though ages yet to come. Amen." (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 14,3) Now, what do you think of St. Polycarp giving the same glory to the Father as he does to the Son and to the Holy Spirit?  And why is Jesus referred to as *eternal* if He was a created being?  Do you still believe there is "nothing in Polycarp's writing that would indicate a Trinity"? 

 

 

But you did not answer the question, SB: why is Jesus referred to as *eternal* if He was a created being?

 

 

This makes no sense to me. The fact that God is explained as the Father of Jesus cannot be denied, and it certainly emphasizes Jesus' Sonship to the Father. He is, after all, the SON OF GOD. And God is the Father, right?  Why do you divorce what is clearly united?

 

 

Let me try to help you out. Jesus was fully divine and fully human. You seem to forget that, focusing only on the Trinitarian's belief in Jesus' full divinity. It is totally proper to for Jesus' human nature to be subject to His divine nature.

 

 

Indeed, Jesus is Our Saviour, but "they forgot *God* their Saviour." (Psalm 106:21)

 

 

Look at where the quotation mark starts. The conjunction is ****MY**** insertion, it is not in the Psalm. So if Jesus is Our Saviour AND God is Our Saviour, what does that make Jesus?

 

 

 

 

How does "wishing the spirit to speak" mean that the Father is superior to the Spirit?  I could as easily appeal to the unity of the Trinity and say that they are all in one accord. The fact that one Person initiates the Word does not detract from the Word itself so that "the words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works." (John 14:10).

 

 

Yes. And your point is?  You see, Mr. SB, if you really know who Jesus is, "you would have known My Father also; from now on you know him, and have SEEN Him." (John 14:7)

 

 

Yes, that is another issue - an amusing one in the ever mutating heresy of Protestantism.

 

But the point that Jesus was trying to make is his substantial unity with the Father. I cannot see how you can escape that.

 

 

Agreed. So we can both agree that "Oneness Pentecostals" are wrong.

 

 

Au contraire, mon capitain. Jesus frequently teaches based on His OWN authority (Cf. Mt.5:18-34, Rev. 1:17-3:22, etc.), whereas the prophets in the Old Testament did not do so.

 

 

Who is the invisible God?  The Father. Who is His reflection?  The Son. Is the reflection (Jesus) also the original (the Father)?  No. When you look into the mirror, you see an image of yourself. It is not a real person, but it is a true and proper reflection except for one thing - it lacks substance and reality. However, the Father's reflection IS a *real* person - Jesus. The Son is a true and proper reflection of the Father AND does NOT lack substance. It is like *your* own image in the mirror stepping into the real world.

 

 

 

No. But the passage does not say that the disciples would do great works without God. What Jesus is saying is: "My disciples will do greater things than I did while I was on earth - not because of their own works but because I will be in them." Remember, SB, Jesus said: "without me, you can do nothing."

 

 

Or maybe, Jesus is truly God, and that is why you see a perfect reflection of His Father.

 

 

But the relationship between the Father and the Son is not one of subordination. You are unduly influenced by a worldly relationship of power and domination so you naturally apply this to your biased conception of that relationship. A Father giving his vineyard to His Son is an expression of love not the fulfillment of a contract. Do you say, 'I gave a present to my son, THEREFORE, I am SUPERIOR to him?

 

 

But you are not staying within the biblical paradigm of the Father-Son relationship since that is not the Son's role in the Trinity. Neither do I agree with your utilitarian view of this relationship, nor do I subscribe to your anthropological impositions on the biblical text.

 

 

Who is the creator?  God, right?  So how can Jesus, the Son of God, (who is not God according to you), be the creator?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the response from our gentleman scholar:

 

Dear John,

 

I'm glad to help. You might also check out the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannegraff) for materials on this. I realize that he can be taken as anti-Catholic, but some of his materials on JWs are very good.

 

------------------------- A general response:

 

The obscurantism of this poor man is breathtaking. The whole point of Col. 1:13-20 is the central nature of Christ to all of God's essence and plans -- creation, redemption, and God's very image. To turn all this on its head to claim that "Christ is called creature" is not only poor exegesis, it is, frankly, a lie. Christ is nowhere "called creature." The fact of the matter is the following: "An individual exegete CLAIMS that such and such MEANS that Christ is a creature."

 

In response to the first paragraph:

 

1.) The dia/hupo distinction is not always so plain as the writer claims. In 1Cor.1:9 dia is used with God.

 

2.) As the writer admits, "In any case he [Christ] is the intermediate agent." Even so, the point of vs. 3 is still clear: "All things [emphatic position]...and without him [emphatic position]..." Christ cannot have been the intermediate agent for his own creation. Christ cannot have been created. Period.

 

In response to the Colossians portion:

 

3.) "Firstborn of all creation" (v.15b) is simply a genitive. What it means is dependent largely upon context.

 

4.) The context is v.15a and v.16ff, clearly showing that Christ is the ultimate INHERITOR of all creation and has SUPREMACY over it. This is so because he is: the image of God (15a); the "means" of creation (16); the sustainer of creation (17); the head of the church (18); the possessor of all God's fullness (19); the means of reconciliation (20).

 

5.) As Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament confirms regarding prwtotokos: "the "for" clause [of Col. 1:16] brings out the meaning, namely, that all things owe their creation to Christ's mediation. The point, then, is not that Christ is the first creature. This would demand a stress on -tokos and would also bring birth into conflict with creation. What is stated is Christ's supremacy over creation as its mediator. The term prwtotokos is used, then, because of its importance as a work for rank."

 

6.) Here is another case where JW theology would relegate to a creature the attributes of God. By their own word, their theology is blasphemous. Since God does not give his glory to another, Christ is God.

 

7.) The rest of the explanation given is just straw around a burning house of falsehood.

 

As in John 1:1-3, the bias of "JW theology" blinds the exegete to the obvious truth. What is sad is that such people try to blind others.

 

The Greek word for firstborn is "prototokos", which means "preeminence" and "eternal preexistence". It does not mean "first-created" as is made abundantly clear from the succeeding verses in the passage.

 

Furthermore, pay close attention what Dave Armstrong, a Catholic Apologist, points out:

 

"The Hebrew usage of firstborn is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as "preeminent." David is called firstborn in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, whereas Manasseh was the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called my firstborn by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn of all creation," that is, the Creator. This is precisely how St. Paul uses the firstborn phraseology in Col 1:15."

 

 

Well, that is Mr. Kelley's interpretation of the passage. He could be right; he could be wrong. The passage is highly speculative. And even if this is what he did mean, I am not so rigid as to expect that *all* of the early Christians would agree with precise mathematical unanimity on a dogma that was yet to be defined.

 

 

Of course. Christ claimed me for Him when I was baptized. No obfuscator of the truth is going to change that. And, may I inquire as to when an early Christian witness rubs you the wrong way, what is your recourse? 

 

 

Yes, I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity was still under development. There was no definition of the belief - no "strict sense". But there most certainly was a sense of his divinity - and the traditional and orthodox one at that.

 

 

Well. If you let this dialogue go public, we'll let the readers decide that question based on what they have read here. Sounds reasonable, don't you think?  However, I don't think it serves your credibility to deny something that was there. But that's OK - the more obstinate you are, the better I look - especially to the more orthodox Protestants reading this.

 

 

Maybe the fragments that were lost were about the Trinity?!?!  Good grief, Mr. SB. Claiming that because two fragments of Papias' writings did not expound the full-blown doctrine hardly proves that he did not believe in it. In fact, this argument, which you repeat throughout this post, is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, and it is one, I may add, which is endemic in anti-trinitarian arguments. In an argument of this form, the second premise is categorical; it affirms the antecedent of the hypothetical premise. This affords you the luxury to infer the consequent, which is also categorical. Let me demonstrate…

 

 

No. I am merely demonstrating that you have an untenable one.

 

 

Again. That is your opinion. There is plenty of evidence which shows a strong belief in Jesus' divinity and his substantial union with the Father. The fact that you do not acknowledge this irrelevant to its truth.

 

…If my car is out of gas, it will stop running. My car stopped running. Therefore, my car is out of gas.

 

 

I was not attempting to use this as a rebuttal of the many points you have made. I was merely allowing our readers to see how your appeal to Papias is a fallacious argument. I don't think that is silly. It is simple but effective.

 

 

Hardly. Show me where the Bible or even the majority of the Fathers regarded Jesus as a creature?  Go read some of MY goodies below at the end of this post. At the very LEAST, it is a CONTROVERSIAL doctrine, and by no means "unanimous". To even hint that it was is, to me, laughable.

 

 

From near the middle of the 2nd century CE through its end, there appeared churchmen who are today called Apologists. They wrote to defend the Christianity they knew against hostile philosophies prevalent in the Roman world of that time. Their work came toward the end of, and after, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

 

Just the Romans? Ever heard of Marcion, Arius or Nestorius? 

 

 

I said that I was an amateur in Apologetics, not totally ignorant.

 

 

Well, Dr. Boer is entitled to his opinions, and the early Church is entitled to hers. But, just in case you have not read St. Justin Martyr's real views on the Trinity, here are some writings:

 

 

You know, there is a former Protestant Presbyterian did the very thing Dr. Boer did. Now he is a Catholic Apologist. His name is Gerry Matatics and his website is:

 

www.gerrymatatics.org

 

Does the fact that this man did the same and remained Trinitarian have any influence on you?  No?  Well, then why do you call my response "shallow"? 

 

"…nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (First Apology of Justin, Ch LXIII).

 

 

How does this support your position?  It supports mine. And "IS EVEN GOD". "…by now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called by God and the Lord of hosts…" (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XXXVI).

 

 

"Of course…how could you have any other opinion?" Does this sound familiar? 

 

"…Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Ibid. Ch. LXIII).

 

 

What did you expect me to do?  Conveniently disregard them because they are so obviously Trinitarian? 

 

 

Give me a break. Worship whom?  As "GOD and CHRIST". How atrociously predictable that worship cannot mean adoration in this case! 

 

'Proskuneo'. This word literally means to prostrate oneself, to bow down or to kiss the ground before someone. In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek. Especially compare the Greek word "proskuneo" used with reference to God in Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17.

 

The problem, as you know, is that the word 'proskuneo' can mean either. It CAN mean to pay reverence, and it *can* mean worship. That is why you need a definitive teaching authority to tell you WHAT THE WORD DOES MEAN. In the case of St. Justin's passage it is crystal clear that worship is adoration.

 

 

 

Forgive me. I did not get the answer to my question: which scholar should I listen to when they contradict one another on the Trinity? 

 

 

No. What my question does do is to remind you of an ironic fact. The only scholar among the original 12 Apostles was Judas, and Judas got Jesus' identity wrong. That is a very telling fact because the human intellect should always submit to God's Church. You see, you can *never* have closure on this issue because there is no *definitive* authority you can appeal to without it being contested. The only authority that you really appeal to is yourself, or others who share your views, but that always begs the questions that must come. What authority do they have? 

 

And more importantly WHY should I listen to them? 

 

 

No. It's not a silly question at all (Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4). It is a very necessary one if you want to ensure you are not being blown hither and thither by pernicious and false doctrines. The early Christians listened to a VISIBLE, APOSTOLIC, and INFALLIBLE Church, and I do the same.

 

I have provide you with a real scholar's view on the Trinity near the end of my post.

 

 

Well, I am providing you with his opinion because *you* place a very high opinion on scholarship. So I was just using your own standards. For me, any scholar's opinion should be compared to Sacred Tradition and the Living Magesterium of the Catholic Church. I don't discount scholarship - it's a wonderful tool that God uses, but it is not sovereign.

 

 

 

Well, I don't agree. So it's his opinion and yours vs. mine and the Catholic and orthodox Christian Churches. Me - I follow Christ and His vicar.

 

 

The "orthodox" Christian Churches are those Churches which agree with the Catholic Church on any issue. Truth must always have a center of belief.

 

 

I agree that CHRIST needs no vicar, but WE need His Vicar!  Protestant Christianity is sufficient to prove that all by itself.

 

 

 

..."generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers". But you see, your position would be a lot more tolerable if you did not cite such embarrassing and clearly false claims.

 

 

Yes. That is quite legitimate. But I could do the SAME THING, and we are left at a stalemate. Let me ask you something. When St. Paul was arguing against with his fellow countrymen-scholars on the true identity of Jesus as the Messiah, would you believe them because they have the numbers?  Ad populum, ad populum, ad populum. Religious truth was not determined by a vote among scholars when Jesus was around. Why do you believe that that has changed?  Methinks you've got too many "Jesus-Seminar" buddies.

 

 

Tell me. If I find a gazillion scholars saying the exact opposite as these "scholars", will that influence you?  No?  Well then why do you think your "scholars" will do so for me? 

 

 

I AM dealing with the *real* issue. You don't like it. You don't want to talk about it, but it's the one you must face. After you have appealed to the same biblical and historical sources as I have to defend our respective views, then *what good is it*?  You must appeal to a final court of appeal. I cannot imagine the United States having a constitution without a Supreme Court to interpret it. What would you have if you did not have a judicial branch in a democracy?  I'll tell you: ANARCHY - the same anarchy that you are unwittingly promoting.

 

 

Yes. That is not the Trinity teaching, but then again, it is hardly the Fathers' or Scripture's teaching either :).

 

 

Well, maybe reincarnation is true and I would have the time of this 100 page dialogue to provide you with something!  But I'm glad you asked. You shall be provided with a modest exegesis later on.

 

 

No. I disagree with your INTERPRETATIONS of their writings. And *you* ignore those writings which clearly refute you.

 

 

 

Get thee to a history book and read about Arius.

 

 

I will continue to test my position. Based on this discussion thusfar, however, I see my belief strengthening as I learn more.

 

Can you tell me who the author(s) of the book "The Formation of Christian Dogma" is. I am interested to know who he or they are.

 

 

Of course it downplays these errors. I don't expect you to agree with the orthodox position.

 

 

Ah yes. Protestantism at its finest: any individual being the final arbiter of religious truth. The "biblical text" says whatever *you* want it to say.

 

 

Here SB, did you catch this one?  You don't have to pay close attention, since only the walking dead can miss it:

 

"One God, the Father of the living Word, of subsistent Wisdom and Power, and of the Eternal image. Perfect Begetter of the Perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son. One Lord, Only of Only God, Image and Likeness of the God head, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehending the constitution of the universe, and Power shaping all creation. Genuine Son of genuine Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Eternal of Eternal. And one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested - to men, that is through the Son; Image of the Son, Perfect of the Perfect; Life the Cause of living; Holy Fountain; Sanctity, the Dispenser of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or subservient in the Trinity, nor anything caused to be brought about, as if formerly it did not exist and was afterwards introduced. Wherefore neither was the Son ever lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, and the same Trinity."

 

- St. Gregory, the Miracle Worker, "The Creed", 260 A.D.

 

 

Hey. At least he says there is no "consensus" instead of what you laughably assert: that there is no hint of it at all.

 

 

If there is a specific part of his writings that you want to bring up, then let's hear it. I would like to read Newman. But he's got to get in line.

 

Oh did you happen to read this part in the essay: "To go back in history, is to cease to be Protestant."

 

 

I have already provided you with Justin's opinions.

 

 

"…Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Ibid. Ch. LXIII).

 

You mean this one?: "Understandably you would cite such a passage in support of your views."

 

 

If Jesus were a "Mighty God" who is separate from and second to the Father, then that would mean there are two Gods, which of course is in direct contradiction to the Bible (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 45:5).

 

 

Actually, I have read very little on the Trinity from other websites. And your particular point is not so much a "language issue" but a deductive one. You say that Jesus is referred to as ´El Gib•bohr' which means "Mighty God" while the Father is referred to as ´El Shad•dai', "Almighty God". You then use this fact to suggest that since Jesus is not referred to as ´El Shad•dai', he must not be God. I think this is extremely weak. You set up the criteria and PRESTO you confirm it with the text.

 

BUT WAIT!  What have we here….why does the NWT say this about Jehovah: "Those remaining of Israel and those who have escaped of the house of Jacob will never again support themselves upon the one striking them, and they will certainly support themselves upon Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in trueness. A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob to the MIGHTY GOD." (Isaiah 10:20-21).

 

But you say, "in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods, and Satan are also called "gods." Yes, it is true that the term is used, but the key is to look at the CONTEXT of the passages. *NO WHERE* does it suggest as their being true God by Nature, but rather that they had performed some God like function.

 

 

Well. It would be better for you to say it is ambiguous. At least that is more tolerable.

 

"My Lord and My God." (John 10:28)

 

Pretty clear cut.

 

"But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life eternal." (1 John 5:20 NWT)

 

"Houtos" is simply translated "This", but it has a more emphatic meaning of 'this person here'. Contextually, Jesus is the center of the passage and the grammatical antecedent of 'houtos'. So Jesus is the 'true God'.

 

"The activities of Christ after His Baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by the miracles during the three years following after His Baptism; of His humanity, in the thirty years which came before His Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, He concealed the sings of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before the ages." - St. Melito of Sardes, Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, Ch. 13, 171 A.D.

 

 

Must every Trinitarian be old and 'worn' to you?  Why can't there be a legitimate argument made by a Trinitarian? 

 

 

Clever. But that is not what St. John is saying, and you *should* know it. Actually, this proves *my* point splendidly REGARDLESS if the Jews were mistaken or not. Their proper understanding is not the issue for you, SB. The real issue is their belief in the first place. Let me demonstrate. So far you have made the following comments:

 

"I would think that we could agree that if the apostles taught the doctrine, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is."

 

"You are also arguing from a lack of evidence. I have clearly stated that the doctrine of the trinity is not present in the earliest Jewish/Christian writings. It is not because the doctrine was still in development, it simply was understood that so such doctrine was found in the scriptures. It was not until the philosophical underpinnings were present that the doctrine was invented."

 

Tell me, SB, IF as you say, the early Christians had *no conception* of the equality of the Father and the Son, it is safe to say that the MONOTHEISTIC Jews did not or should not either. Agreed? 

 

Well then, how could UNBELIEVING and apparently mistaken Jews come up with this *NOVEL* and * BIZARRE* idea that the Father must be equal to the Son????????!!!!!!!!?????? 

 

How could they have imagined such a foreign and 4th century A.D. "invented" doctrine? 

 

[Unless, of course, the Jews (and everyone else, for that matter) knew precisely what Jesus was claiming to be, namely, God Himself]

 

GOTCHA!!!!! 

 

 

Rubbish. If Jesus was truly God, you would expect him to do EXACTLY what the Father does since the Father is God, and do NOTHING of His own initiative since that act would constitute a separate divine will. So far from proving your point, it fits the Trinitarian understanding rather nicely.

 

 

Who was Jesus?  He was true God and true Man. For a Trinitarian, you cannot separate Jesus' humanity from His Divinity. The two natures make up His personhood, but His human nature is not equal to His divine nature because His human nature can grow in wisdom (Cf. Luke 2:52). So when Jesus says that "the Father is greater than I" what He is saying is: I have a perfect human nature which is indeed inferior to the Father's divine nature. Now you might think this is hopeless theological gymnastics, but it is not. It is the way the Church reconciles Jesus' divinity with his humanity. YOU must reconcile those less palatable passages with your belief as the Church does with Hers. The question is: who is right?  That is how you get a precise definition of theological points of belief - precisely by pursuing these questions. But let us look at Matthew 23:11: "He who is greatest among you shall be your servant." The same word "meizon" is used in John 14:28. So what does this mean to your theory, SB?  Does that mean that being "greater" is to "to surpass others.....in power and nature"?  No. I don't think so.

 

Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be all in all, Colossians 3:11 tells us that Christ {is} all, and in all. Thus, Jesus' office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be all in all just as His Father is.

 

 

This is ridiculous. If Jesus was not God, He was morally bound to correct their understanding, which He did not. Don't you think YOU would be morally obligated to inform someone if they mistook your identity or office?  Of course you would.

 

Let us look at John 5:18 a little more closely. Jesus was a JEW. He lived among the JEWS, and knew the law and the culture of the JEWS. He knew it perfectly. Knowing (as He must) the Jews' and their religion and culture, He called God His "Father", and He would expect the response that he received from the Jews i.e. they wanted to kill him (v.18). He has now 2 alternatives:

 

Correct them because they were mistaken in their understanding. (See John 2:19-21, 3:3-6, 4:10-11, 4:32-34, Matthew 16:6-12) Do not correct them, accepting their understanding.

 

Jesus did not correct their understanding as He was morally bound to do and had done in other passages. Ergo…..

 

 

Ask yourself this: if the Trinity were true, what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe in it?  Just above you were trying to extricate yourself out of the fact that Jesus was called "God". Here you concede it, and turn your attention towards demanding an even more exact definition from St. Justin. Repent of this sin of obstinacy.

 

 

"…I would expect to see evidence of it in the Scriptures." There is evidence, but if you are demanding a full blown theological treatise. I admit that you won't find it. Again, what is your presupposition in all of this, SB?  Sola Scriptura.

 

"…the Father and Son are separate beings that are not equal in nature." Oh you mean like this one: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

 

"…however you confuse the concept of a title with some ontological maxim…" But how convenient that the same title just so happens to be used for God, almighty.

 

 

Is God the Father the Creator?  Yes. Was Jesus subject and servant to the Father? Yes. No problem so far from a Trinitarian point of view.

 

 

No need to be the same person, but must obviously be the same being. This comes back to the question concerning a person *necessarily* being the same being which you posed earlier.

 

 

Jesus can be *called* an angel in analogous sense since he, like the angels, "announces to men...." See?  There's no problem reconciling St. Justin's view with the Trinitarian view at all.

 

 

Simply because there are *no* other *gods* (Cf. Deut 32:39) in the sense you are conceiving - unless you want to rewrite the Jewish religious tradition . But you have a good point in general. How does *anyone* determine whether Scripture is using analogy, hyperbole, or the literalism?  It's easy: the Church has the mandate to decide.

 

 

Now, this is interesting. If Jesus is not distinct in will from the Father (and I presume he means categorically), then just what kind of subordinate god is Jesus anyway. One way of *distinguishing* between the fundamental natures and essences between beings is their wills. Now, if the Son and the Father share the same divine will, what do you think that means?

 

 

Well, if that is what it means, I don't think the Jews should have tried to stone Jesus for essentially saying he's on the Father's "side" since ALL Jews would naturally affirm that. Instead, the Jews tried to stone Jesus after He identified his oneness with the Father in the most complete and categorical way possible ( Cf. John 10:31)

 

 

From the most common and basic principles of logic. If I have the *same* will as another being, I must, by definition, BE that being.

 

 

Is that the best you can do - the positioning of names?  If it is, I'm quite pleased to stay in my Trinitarianism.

 

 

No. I am not using the "positioning of names in Matthew 28:19". What I am simply remarking is that in Matthew 28:19, there is a *different plane* where Jesus puts Himself, not where He puts Himself in that plane (1st, 2nd, or 3rd).

 

And speaking about that Divine plane, here is Jesus again imposing Himself where the Godhead is: "For the Father Judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son ***JUST*** as they honor the Father." (John 5:22:23 NWT)

 

 

Wrong. The Father has one divine essence or nature. If Jesus is truly His Son, He must share fully in this divine nature. There is no reason to believe that God invented a 'quasi-divine nature' for His Son.

 

 

True. But you share the same *nature* and you are a member of the same *species*. That's a pretty strong argument for the Trinitarian doctrine all by itself. The human father-son relationship is not a perfect parallel, but we should not expect it to be - because we are talking about Almighty God Himself. You do admit that there is at least *some* mystery in God, don't you? 

 

 

Let's see some scripture so we can examine the context.

 

 

Well. Angels are divine beings, but Jesus is infinitely superior to them because ONLY He is truly the Son of the Father. The angels do not have this relationship.

 

Speaking about Jesus, Hebrews says, "And let all God's angels worship Him." (Hebrews 1:6) - New World Translation (editions 1953, 1960, 1961, 1970)

 

 

No need to have a thorough grounding in Biblical languages to understand the issues once they are provided. I think I showed that in my dialogue with Prof. Beduhn. By going on with "proskuneo" misses the point I was trying to make, which was that these NWT editions also rendered the word 'proskuneo' as 'worship'.

 

 

 

No. I am not against that. I am against those, however, who presume to know what the Scriptures teach, definitively, WITHOUT the authority.

 

You want the Bible to "interpret itself"?  Strange. I have never seen a group of books interpret themselves, but I have seen people try to do it. In his "Commentary on the Psalms", Luther once subscribed to your method: "scriptura sui ipsius interpres" - "the Bible is its own interpreter". The difference is that at least he was honest enough to admit the futility of it. "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophesies his ravings and dreams."

 

 

Thank you for providing me with the above citations. I learned about the issues of using 'proskuneo' from my dialogue with Prof. Beduhn. The bottom line, then, is that 'proskuneo' can mean EITHER 'to bow down to in veneration' or it can mean 'adoration/worship'. I concede this. The word is inconclusive since it can mean either. It is therefore NEUTRAL, and dependent on context. The best you can do is….well…show that it is inconclusive - which suits me just fine if you know where I am going with it (wink, wink).

 

 

 

Yes. God is to receive worship or "sacred service" in the passage that you cite, but how does this support your denial that the same is not allowed for Jesus? 

 

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man."

 

 

No, but what we do see is your unwarranted assumption. Your assumption is an 'a priori' belief on your part. We know that they are two separate persons, but not that they are necessarily two separate beings" that is *your* imposition on the text, and circular argumentation to boot.

 

"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth NOT me, but him that sent me." (Mark 9:37 KJV)

 

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth NOT on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." (John 12:44-45 KJV)

 

 

Who would receive 'latreuo'?  Who is the 'Him'?  If you want to be grammatical about it and had to choose between the Father and the Son, it would seem to me that the last referent is the one who should receive sacred service - which, in this passage, is the Lamb, Jesus Christ.

 

 

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth NOT on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." (John 12:44-45 KJV)

 

 

 

None of this, however, proves your point at all. You separate "latreuo" from the Son when both the Father and the Son are referred to. You need to do this because it is your only option.

 

 

 

As discussed above, I concede that 'proskuneo' can mean either 'to worship' or 'to give reverence to'. It is our theologies *ultimately* that drive our understanding. I must say, it is rather fortunate for you that 'proskuneo' means the former in this instance (wink, wink).

 

 

 

Of course he could not have meant that the Son was equal to the Creator - that would be Trinitarian!  I am starting to lose all respect for your position, Mr. SB.

 

 

Yes. I guess that is silly. I beg your pardon.

 

 

Is that what "For by Him all things were created.." means?  That's a big, seismic leap, Mr. SB which is totally foreign from the text. No. I shall not jump across the canyon that you wish me to.

 

 

The point is this. Whether I understand what Greek word 'by' means is irrelevant to St. Clement's belief. If St. Clement was referring to John 1:3, then let him believe what he wants i.e. that Jesus is the creator, and don't impose YOUR interpretation of John 1:3 on him when they apparently don't fit!  (If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.)

 

And why should I believe you?  What AUTHORITY do you have to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? 

 

 

Wrong. That is UNBIBLICAL and UNHISTORICAL. The Church's sovereign leaders were (and are) the Apostles and their successors - not every Tom, Dick, Harry, and apparently now SB. The Bible (and history) are *replete* with evidence of this, which you well know.

 

 

 

I can see it really wounds you to grapple with the fact the Clement did believe that Jesus WAS God. Take a gander at this one……

 

 

Deut 32:39: "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me...."

 

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 A.D.)

 

"…For 'before the morning star was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and "This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, BOTH GOD AND MAN…" and "The Word", who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends." (Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 1)

 

It is not I who is playing word games, SB. It is you if you want to deny that St. Clement is teaching the singular divinity of Jesus.

 

 

Oh this is really good. So far this is what you have done:

 

Option 1: When a Church Father is ambiguous, you say that he *clearly* teaches a subordinationist doctrine.

 

Option 2: When a Church Father is Trinitarian, you demand a precise theological definition.

 

Option 3: When a Church Father provides more precise language, you discount them, saying their teaching is not modern Trinitarian doctrine.

 

Option 4: When a Church Father provides very precise language, you object to their view being unbiblical.

 

You have chosen Option 2 here. Later you will choose Option 3 and Option 4.

 

 

Lamson should give his head a shake. What a joke. Take a gander at these, especially the Theophilus reference who actually mentions the word "Trinity"….

 

 

I don't expect you to listen to me, but then again I never asked you to listen to *me* in the first place. I ask you to listen to those whom God has given the authority to *bind* you to this doctrine. Can you tell me what "binding and loosing" mean in the Jewish religion? 

 

….Athenagoras (177 A.D.)

 

"The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the Son,' I will tell you briefly: He is the first-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things" (Plea for the Christians 10:2-4 [A.D. 177]).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you see. You are insisting on arguing against a straw man of your own choosing. You insist on separating the Son from the Father when Athenagoras DOES NOT. He clearly unites the two: "by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God." You can understand this teaching PERFECTLY if you concede his Trinitarian thought: God, the Father, is unbegotten, but His Son, is not. They are the same being although different persons.

 

But more to the point though, SB - Athenagoras' teaches that the Son was not "produced". If He was not "produced" than what was He?  What is the only other alternative?

 

 

So?  This is very Trinitarian.

 

Theophilus of Antioch (181 A.D.)

 

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 A.D. 181]).

 

Where is the concept of coeternal, coequal, and existing as the same substance but in different persons?  Simply using the word "trinity" to express the idea of "three" does not come close to modern doctrine.

 

Option 3: When a Church Father provides more precise language, you discount them, saying their teaching is not modern Trinitarian doctrine.

 

"When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning,' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is coeval with the Father. 'Was', therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word.'"

 

- Hypotyposeis, 190 A.D.

 

If there is only one God, then the word 'Trinity' certainly says quite a bit. Since the Christian tradition has never been polytheistic, then Trinity must refer to an equality of the three - otherwise there is no significance to saying 'Trinity'.

 

 

Who admits? Bettenson?  Who cares.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Who defines what is "orthodox"?  Not you and not a heretic, that's for sure. Orthodoxy PRESUPPOSES a center of legitimate teaching authority - otherwise the term is meaningless.

 

 

But you forgot the other side of the coin, SB. Let me rephrase it for you: "…every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of *Trinitarianism*. See?  I am not so rigid as to say that the full blown doctrine was present, whereas you will not concede *any* Trinitarian leanings *whatsoever*. It does you know good to attack the Trinitarian position, and then try to prove that it was not explicitly and fully present in the genesis of Christianity. To be fair, you should start from *your* position, and THEN try to reconcile those uncomfortable Trinitarian elements in the Fathers' teachings with your own position. Now, *that* would be something to see.

 

 

Nor should we expect him to. Our understanding of Jesus' divinity and his relationship with the Father and within the Trinity would likely evolve JUST like the early Apostle's understanding of Jesus would develop as well, and JUST like Jesus' revelation of God in the New Testament made the Jews change their understanding of God. You know, SB, ask yourself this: think of all the truths that you know, and tell me if *any* of them have not been subject to some kind of refinement or development.

 

i.e. Jesus' novel teaching of God as Father to the Jews

 

You know, even the JWs admit to the inevitably of development: "A new light of truth can never contradict a former truth. 'New light' never extinguishes older 'light', but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So it is with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another." (Watchtower Reprints, February, 1881, 188). Well, at least even the Governing Body can get it right *some* of the time.

 

 

Where exactly is Jesus called a creature?  Why does Theophilus say Jesus was begat before ALL things? 

 

 

If it does not mean three Gods, which it cannot, then what kind of three is it?

 

 

"one substance" means "the same kind of being" Whoa…getting closer to the truth, SB, careful now.

 

 

Here's some more of Tertullian's writings:

 

"And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has in being to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.29 The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ." - Tertullian, Apology, 21:11-14, 197 A.D.

 

"God alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God." - Tertullian, The Soul, 41:3, 208 A.D.

 

"For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith. As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had from the beginning148 caused plurality149 (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as "children of light," adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as "the light of the world." Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge150 which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord."151 But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13, 213 A.D.

 

"The question now is, in what sense each side uses a given thing and the word which expresses it. Valentinus divides and separates his prolations from their Author, and places them at so great a distance from Him, that the Son does not know the Father: he longs, indeed, to know Him, but cannot; nay, he is almost swallowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter.83 With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father,84 and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom."85 He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak.86 And it is not His own will, but the Father's, which He has accomplished,87 which He had known most intimately, even from the beginning. "For what man knoweth the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him?  "88 But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; "89 and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; "90 and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one."91 This will be the prolation, taught by the truth,92 the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray.93 For these are probolai/, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word-the Father and His Son-two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy." - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 7, 213 A.D.

 

Now it is beyond me how you think Tertullian is more subordinationist than trinitarian.

 

 

"If the Son and Spirit were generated out of "the One" at a certain point in time, this implies some division and change." But why do you introduce "at a certain point in time" into the equation?  "Eternally begotten" excludes the whole dimension of time. You beg the very question that you are trying to answer. But thank you for admitting the truth about the "Apologists yammer[ing] on and on about how this implied no change or division."

 

 

<Sigh> Do you now understand the *necessity* of God establishing a teaching and authoritative Church?  What happens when you are living in the middle ages and cannot even read or afford a Bible or even know the rudiments of grammar, syntax, context, etc. in FOREIGN languages?  How are you to come to the truth in this scenario?

 

"To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?  " since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?  " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth." - St. Iranaeus, Against Heresies, [2,19,1], 180 A.D.

 

Did you get all that, SB? 

 

 

I'm really wondering if you will concede ANY fact WHATSOEVER that will throw the LEAST doubt on your position. It is becoming very clear that you harbour a rather rabid anti-trinitarianism. Why such resistance? 

 

 

You mean, to be truthful, *your* interpretation of the biblical text.

 

 

Tertullian was not a father. He became a Montanist and a heretic. No one witness or father defines Christian teaching. The question for *you*, Mr. SB, is this: who gets to define Christian teaching?  (For what its worth, however, Tertullian certainly had a big influence in helping to define the orthodox teaching…

 

 

If the Scriptures define the teaching, then how do you: 1) *objectively* determine the canon of Scripture without appealing to an authority outside of them (since there is no table of contents) 2) whose interpretation of the competing 28,000 "Bible only sects" should I listen to and more importantly *why*.

 

It seems to me that a *group of men* were responsible for teaching God's word with absolute and sovereign authority at one point in time, and a *group of men* determined the canon which you use to formulate your theology. So why do you believe that arrangement has changed?  Did not Matthias, Timothy, Silvanus have the authority of the Apostles in teaching?  What about Linus, Polycarp, or Clement?  Where will you arbitrarily break the link? 

 

 

I don't recall ever claiming he was precise and exact in all of his definitions of the current dogma, only that much of what he said was true.

 

 

Yes. Just like a lot of the other Fathers taught many Trinitarian elements. The fact that the Fathers did not speak in unanimity or that even their theology differed from one another proves little. It does not help your position anymore than it detracts from mine. I would say that the Fathers, on the whole, are *more* Trinitarian than they are subordinationist - which is a term that, has, ironically, yet to be precisely defined by *you*. I think, if you are honest, you would never use some of the words and concepts that the Fathers used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

 

 

SB, you've been talking to too many Protestants, bless their souls. The Bible itself does not *explicitly* teach the dogma that Catholicism has defined, but there is *no* contradiction in the Bible with the dogma. [And that maxim, is one of the relationships between Scripture and Tradition: there is no contradiction of Tradition with Scripture.] After all, you have been attempting to disprove the Trinity by throwing doubt on the passages which Trinitarians use, but that is not the approach you can take against the Catholic Church. You are accustomed to engaging our more orthodox Protestant brothers because they rely on the Bible alone as a sole guide for their beliefs so the burden of proof is on them. In order to beat us, the burden of proof shifts to you since we Catholics do not regard the Bible as our sole guide. What *you* must show is where the Bible *conclusively* teaches *against* the Trinity, independent of *your* preconceived theology. So far, the very best you can do is to throw a feeble DOUBT on Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father - that's the best you can hope for.

 

After all, that is what we are talking about - the DEFINED teaching of the Catholic Church. Protestants understanding of the Trinity is borrowed from the Catholic Church. An increasing number of them hold heterodox opinions of the Trinity, and even those considered more orthodox than others believe that the Son became the Son by virtue of the Incarnation - which is false.

 

You ask: "why didn't ANYONE preach Nicene orthodoxy before the fourth century?" Well, that is rather problematic. If you mean, "no one preached the existing defined doctrine in its fullness - that is partially correct (although Pope Dionysius comes pretty close), but if you mean "no one preached any elements of the Trinitarian dogma before Nicea", that is false. It is left to the Church's Magisterium to witness to *what* is the truth, and what is not. The Father's testimony is not conclusive - since they do not speak with unanimity - nor infallibly because they don't have that charism individually or even collectively.

 

Do you reject development and if you do, why?  If you were a Pharisee facing Jesus, you would you say His teachings were "unscriptural". There has *always* been at least a development of revelation from the day God created the world. You are looking at this question from the benefit of 2000 years of Christian understanding of her faith, and you insist not only on stagnation, but refuse to concede that *someone* must have the authority to decide controversial doctrinal issues.

 

 

How do you reconcile the view of apostasy with Matthew 16:17-19 and 1 Tim 3:15?  To allow for such a concept of "apostasy" presupposes a defined teaching authority in the early Church since the canon was not determined until the late 4th century.

 

 

Exactly. I challenge you to examine this idea PLEASE. What criteria can you come up with which can objectively determine between "orthodox" vs. "heterodox"?  And please have mercy and don't say the Bible.

 

 

Anyone at all?  Or just those who are already so pre- disposed as to remain in the darkness.

 

 

Well, that's just it, isn't it?  Every 'Bible believer' has a remarkably different view of what the Bible means, don't they?  Sola Scriptura is untenable.

 

 

Maybe in academia. But secular academia today is rarely concerned with objective truth. And in that academia, I shall not find the truth.

 

 

Not poisoning the well at all. Just stating a rather sad fact. Secular academia doesn't even admit to such a concept as "objective truth" to begin with. And the point is rather apparent isn't it?  They had varying view, each different from one another in some respect (including yourself). Which brings me to the point I have been trying to make. Which is the true doctrine? Yours?  It is?  What a surprise?!? 

 

Here are some more references which I have not previously quoted: Irenaeus of Lyons: "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

 

No. But I understand what *you* think the "grammatical mistake" I am making. The reason why I cite this reference is to show you that there are three distinct persons, especially "the Holy Spirit". If the Holy Spirit was not distinct from the Father, the teaching would be strange. You would not say: "Believe in Jack, John, and Jack's force", would you? 

 

Hippolytus: "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

 

 

Option 4: When a Church Father provides very precise language, you object to their view being 'unbiblical'.

 

"…which are not clear themselves given our own presuppositions concerning the meaning of his words." I must chuckle at this…can there be *anything* that you would ever *accept*. Such reductionism only undermines your own credibility, SB.

 

Origen: "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

 

 

But you miss the point. To call someone a 'heretic' PRESUPPOSES there is a central authority. Heresy only has meaning when there is an orthodox IDENTIFIABLE voice - just like sin is meaningless without God. If you want to call someone a heretic, you'd better be able to substantiate *your* authority for doing so.

 

 

No. Why should I? By the way, are you willing to do the same of the Father's you cite?

 

 

See my previous discussion on the development of doctrine.

 

 

Don't be ridiculous. You are sounding like hack anti-Catholics who rail against something they don't understand, or appreciate. The Trinity was not present in Greek culture.

 

Here's something from Origen:

 

"That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things-"For by Him were all things made"8 -He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven)." - Origen, The Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Pref.4, 220 A.D.

 

Novatian: "For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

 

 

I don't think it's "obvious" at all by your citation.

 

Pope Dionysius: "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

 

 

The point is that the good Pope held to the "one substance" element in Trinitarian theology.

 

Pope Dionysius: "Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1-2)

 

 

No. But I do see that it annoys you that such a indisputable teaching from an early POPE, the head of the Church, would cause you to say such a thing.

 

Pope Dionysius: "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the Universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'" (ibid., 3).

 

 

Yes, you have attempted to do so, but rather inadequately. Rome has spoken, SB, the matter is closed.

 

Interesting that the Pope used the term "homoousios" SIXTY years before Nicea in opposing a heresy, Sabellianism, which affirmed the unity of the Trinity so much that it denied the three divine persons.

 

Gregory the Wonderworker: "There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non- existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

 

 

When is the Father described as "master" to Jesus?  Jesus became a servant to us for our salvation. Do you know what THIS means? 

 

Sechnall of Ireland [A.D. 444]). Why do you quote sources as being ante-Nicene when they are not?  Do you know when Nicene occurred? 

 

Yes. I know when Nicea was. I see no reason to discount his testimony because it came after a council.

 

So what am I to believe?  That *no* Church Father before Nicea believed in the Trinity?  That when Nicea came, every bishop went wacko and accepted a completely novel teaching, which might have be come known as the "Nicene Surprise"?  That, barring a more moderated and tempered explanation from you, the "devil made them" formulate the Trinity?  Is that what you will have me believe?  Too much, Mr. SB, too much. It would serve you better to at least admit SOME of the facts and dispute others since that would give you at least SOME credibility. As it stands now, your obstinacy is suffocating.

 

 

But of course, there must be *some* rationale that you must come up with. The only way you can reject Nicea is to impose Constantine's influence on the Council - thereby absurdly claiming that only a 'minority' of bishops accepted the creed. This is preposterous, considering the facts about Constantine. If anything, he had *ARIAN* leanings: Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicodemea, championed Arius' cause, and was very close to the Emperor and had much influence with him. He became the bishop of Constantinople when Constantine had moved the capital of the Empire there, and he persuaded Constantine to banish Athanasius to the boonies of Germany, and to reinstate Arius. And, of course, we know well what Constantine's son, Constantius, thought of Trinitarianism, and we *should* know well the persecutions suffered under him. In fact, it is nothing but *divine* providence that the Trinitarian doctrine even survived when the gates of hell were unleashed against it.

 

 

Heresy?  Only one Church can legitimately speak of such a thing.

 

 

I don't go chasing every heretic fool sharing the "Gospel" with me. And as for the Bible "getting in the way of doctrine", that is rather amusing since "doctrine" came four centuries before the Bible.

 

Here is the post I received from a very reputable scholar who was involved in translating the NIV:

 

 

No comment - for charity's sake.

 

SC - Scholar

 

SC: The three members of the Trinity are not simply like a set of triplets - identical in genetic material, independent in personality, and likewise independent in role. That there exists subordination among in the Trinity is, as you have mentioned, a clear teaching from Scripture.

 

HB Triplets are also separate beings with identical genetic material.

 

This is an ANALOGY to the composition of God. It is not perfect. After all, why do you insist on seeing an exact parallel between the natural and supernatural?  Indeed, in this life, you will never fully understand God or his composition.

 

SC: This does not necessitate, however, a distinction in essence. The Russian troika is an example - three horses, but only one in the middle, facing straight ahead. The other two pull with equal power, though each is slightly turned outward, one to the right and one to the left. The result is one team of three horses, equal in essence but each distinct in role.

 

 

Yes they are. But you need not reject a limitation in his analogy to appreciate the idea he is trying to convey. Do you insist on exact parallels in other areas of study, apart from this question?

 

SC: The family constitutes another example, this time from the Scriptures. . . .

 

 

SC: Likewise, the members of the Trinity exhibit both a hierarchy among themselves and a distinction in roles. But just as a father and mother are equally parents, so the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God.

 

 

SC: Returning to the first example, one might say that the Trinity is, in fact, like identical triplets, but only as they sing in a trio. . . .

 

 

SC: Another example in one which heard while working in the Philippines. The Filipino man who told it to me was illiterate, and had absolutely no formal education; he said he learned of the example himself in a dream. He compared the Trinity to a campfire. A fire is a whole, yet is comprised of three distinct elements. . . .

 

 

Yes - they are. But what *you* must answer is why that is *necessarily* so. What you are doing, SB, is imposing the natural world and its limitations to the supernatural order of God. TELL ME: WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?  Unless you want to declare that the natural order is exactly parallel to the composition of God (at least in this area), then you have *no* case.

 

Finally, I attach here an article written in response to questions about the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

SC: I take issue with the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses because it is tendentious and inaccurate.

 

 

SC: Central to the Jehovah's Witnesses is their rejection of the historic doctrine of the Trinity, held by the true church since its beginning. Another assertion that is merely an unsupported conclusion. JWs deny the full deity of Christ, teaching that although he is "divine" in some sense, he is ultimately a created being, not equal in nature with the one whom the Bible and true believers call God the Father.

 

Indeed, it seems rather clear that the Bible agrees with them.

 

SC: A key verse in the JW argument is John 1:1, which in the Greek is theos en ho logos ("god was the word"). The translators of the New World Translation wrongly render this as "the word was a god" instead of "the word was God," found in the majority of English translations (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc.). In support of their wrong translation a list of verses is supplied where an anarthrous predicate (a noun in Greek not preceded by "the") is translated in most versions with an indefinite article "...a/an _____." The issue in that list, however, is quite different from that in John 1:1. In each of the examples the Witnesses provide (Mk. 6:49, 11:32; Jn. 4:19, 6:70, 8:44, 9:17, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 12:6, 18:37), the predicate is invariably one of a generic class of which there are clearly many members: "prophet," "slanderer," "murderer," "liar," "thief," "hired man," etc. In the case of John 1:1, however, the multiplicity of "gods" is not at all established. We must either understand that "in the beginning" there was more than one "God/god" or that in fact there was and is only one. Since most translators are monotheists, they have properly translated the Greek equative clause by not including the indefinite article. Jesus, the Word, is "God," not "a god."

 

 

Yes. That is true. You are right here. But the question that must be addressed by you is how you reconcile this particular 'god' IN THE BEGINNING, where the 'other gods' you refer to (i.e. angels, false gods, and humans) were not.

 

 

I would agree with that. But I must tell you this: the Bible is USELESS without theology. You have used theology and context MANY times in this discussion to back up your view. The points you bring up only place the question of Jesus' divinity in the realm of possibility. There is nothing conclusive in your points to disprove the Trinitarian renderings. 'Proskuneo' and 'Theos' CAN mean either the Trinitarian or Subordinationist views. And so, it is quite foolish to say, 'I will translate the Bible only on grammatical grounds without availing myself of theology or my beliefs about who I think Jesus is.' Do you prefer 'a god' over 'God' in John 1:1?  Why?  How are you going to translate a passage such as John 1:1 WITHOUT appealing to theology?  You have a point with poor Protestants who deny Tradition, but not with the Catholic Church who alone decided the composition of the Bible, assembled it, and *gave* it to the world. And it is the Catholic Church who remains the only authentic interpreter of it.

 

 

Hey that's great. I see that you subscribe to Prof. Beduhn's 'range of possibilities' theory of biblical translation. As long as the 'gods of grammar' are obeyed in your approach, tell me how am I to arrive at an objective and knowable truth by reading the NWT and the RSV? Let's examine your argument:

 

Both the NWT and RSV are translations of the original languages. Each claims to be the inspired word of God. The translations will pull each person towards opposing theologies.

 

Conclusion: The Bible ALONE cannot be the avenue of objective truth

 

 

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. There's that theology word 'context'.

 

SC: Furthermore, from context (Jn. 1:3) it is clear that "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (NIV). A more literal rendering directly from the Greek reads: "all things [emphatic position] through him became, and without him [emphatic position] became not one thing which has become." So the related issue, namely, that Jesus as never been created, is also spoken of in very clear terms in the same context. This further substantiates the fact that Jesus is "God," and points out an insoluble contradiction in JW doctrine. Namely, how is it that Jesus Christ came into being if nothing came into being apart from him?  If he did not come into being, then he existed from all eternity.

 

 

 

 

I have read these opinions, and I don't discount that the subject of *through* may by used as the instrumental rather than the efficient or principal cause. But neither does it disprove that *through* CAN mean the principal cause also. It only goes to show how, if you rely on grammar alone to determine truth, you are left with the bizarre view that either interpretation is equally valid!  Grammar then is USELESS in these cases when determining truth. It cannot speak definitively as to *what is*, but only to *what can be*.

 

 

 

Understanding?  You can give me the correct *understanding*?  Aren't you encroaching on the field of theology now?

 

 

Yes. Go on. I was going to refer to that passage myself. Amazing isn't it? 

 

 

Yes. I see your point, but this does not disprove any Trinitarian doctrine. It does not say that Jesus, Himself, was created, does it? 

 

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth… (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning, the Word was with God. (John 1:1) "And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had before the world was with thee." (John 17:5) [Douay Rheims]

 

The Father existed before the creation of the world. (Romans 4:17, 2 Macc 7:28, Wisdom 1:14) The Son existed before the world. (Eph 1:4) The world was created with the heavens.(Gen1:1) The world was created in the beginning. (Gen.1:1)

 

Conclusion: "In the beginning, the Word was with God…" (John 1:1) must therefore mean that the Word existed BEFORE the beginning, before time, and therefore in eternity - which means He was God.

 

 

 

This is nonsense. You are begging the question, and you are imposing limitations on the text which are not there. Now there are TWO creation-events? Sorry - that's bad reasoning and bad exegesis. By the way, is the word "other" present in the Greek in your rendering "though which all OTHER things would come into existence"?

 

The phrase "in the beginning" without a more detailed definition means the absolute beginning. So when the curtain goes up in the beginning of the theatre and you see two actors, you do not ASSUME that one arrived later.

 

 

Of course not. It is not logical to say that Jesus created the Father. He must be excluded since to create God is impossible, and therefore not subject to creation. I don't think it's a stretch to read the text as: Jesus created all things that COULD be created. I think the sacred writer is totally within his parameters to presume that you would not go into theological and philosophical impossibilities. "But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection under him,' it is PLAIN that he is EXCEPTED who put all things under him" (1 Cor. 15:27). Did you get that, SB?

 

 

I agree with you on this point but unless there is something LOGICALLY apparent, then the benefit of the doubt should be given to the categorical meaning of the word "all".

 

 

Jesus did not create Satan as He exists NOW - that would be a contradiction in God's perfectly good nature. Lucifer was a good angel created by God, but by his OWN free will, turned against God and made Him his enemy. So I really don't understand your point.

 

 

No. We don't NEED to place any limit on God's Word. But if *you* want to do that, well, I guess you have that right since that is what sola scriptura is all about. It's too bad that you wish to do so indiscriminately in order to substantiate your theology because, if you do that, you will never arrive at objective truth, and you will have no way of knowing you are in error.

 

By the way, who did you say could place a limit on plausible interpretations? Sorry I didn't catch the name or names of those who have that authority? 

 

 

And where does it say that Jesus is called "creature"? 

 

And where is any creature referred to as the "beginning and the end"? 

 

Compare:

 

"Behold, I AM COMING SOON, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev. 22:13)

 

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely, I AM COMING SOING.' Amen. COME Lord JESUS!" (Rev. 22:20)

 

SC: We can pray to him; he helps us; he lives in us; he gave up himself for us; he forgives our sins; he receives our worship - all things which in the Old Testament are clearly within the jurisdiction and ability only of "Jehovah." Yet in the face of all this, the doctrine of the Watchtower Society would have us believe that this One who in every way is likened to God is, in fact, some form of created being. Frankly, not only is that impossible, it is the worst form of blasphemy, even by the JW definition, for it relegates to a creature the attributes of Jehovah.

 

 

Acts 9:3-16 - Lots of communication going on there.

 

1 Tim 2:3-5 - What's the point of Jesus' mediatorship if you can't petition Him?  Pay close attention to GOD OUR SAVIOUR in verse 3.

 

Revelation 5:8,12 - Lots of angels and saints praying and praising the Lamb.

 

Here's Jesus pushing himself into God's domain once again: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith in me." (John 14:1 NWT)

 

Without special pleading, in whom else in the Bible [besides God] are we to put our faith and trust? 

 

What being is called 'our hope', 'our light', and 'our salvation?  (See Psalm 71:5, 1 Tim 1:1-2//Psalm 27:1, John 8:12// Psalm 38:22, Acts 4:12)

 

 

Because The Father is deserving of prayer. Jesus was also a man - let's not forget that is also Trinitarian theology. The Father is still the God of Jesus, the Man. Let's stick to what the Catholic Church has defined, and not argue against straw men.

 

And, I would like to add my own explanation of the Trinity: Christianity understands God in the Trinitarian tradition. The creeds teach that there is one God, but there are three distinct persons in God. Now many people have difficulty in understanding the Trinity which, admittedly, is not the easiest of concepts to grasp, and it goes without saying that we will never be able to comprehend it fully in this life.

 

 

No. Some people have problem with the Trinity because they fail to admit that the biblical text is not conclusive on the subject and that they need to accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the matter. Of course, to many of them THAT would be inconceivable.

 

Nevertheless, it will not do to simply leave the matter there, assigning it exclusively to the 'mystery' part of our religion.

 

 

Being humble is *your* only real chance of understanding it.

 

"The content of the theology set before us is indeed beyond all comparison, nothing like this ever having been advanced when dealing with corporeal matters. By the sharpest kind of intellectual perception it represents the Son as having been begotten, not in the manner of one who at any time did not exist and afterwards at some time came to be, but as one who existed before the ages of time, both pre-existing and existing eternally with the Father as the Son; and not as truly unbegotten, having been begotten of the unbegotten Father, but truly as the only-begotten, as Word and God of God. Neither was He projected from the substance of the Father by a dividing, nor by a cutting off, nor by a separating. Rather, it teaches us what is beyond our power of reason and expression, that from eternity, or what is better to say, before all ages, He was invested with being at the will and power of the inexpressible and incomprehensible god."

 

- Proof of the Gospel, 316 A.D.

 

The Bible says that man is made in the 'image of God'. If we truly are so made, then it follows that we must have individually or collectively a likeness to His Trinitarian essence. . . .

 

 

It is fitting that the human family should reflect the truth about God. The human family has, of course, a rather striking parallel to this. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal procession of the Trinity since the act of love itself 'generates' another human being. ('Generation' is probably even a better term to describe the act than 'to create' since humans can create nothing, and so the analogy is closer to the Trinitarian relationship than one might have originally assumed.)

 

 

Except that you should be able to see the difference between an analogy and an exact representation of Almighty God - which is hardly possible. The human family comes as close as you can get in the natural order. In fact, IF you did find exact parallel in nature, then it would probably not be an accurate representation of God at all - since He is SUPERNATURAL. It is, therefore, not difficult to see that, in many ways, God is a 'family of persons', and the Trinity is not as unfamiliar to us as once believed.

 

 

And who gets to say what a person is?  Where did that DEFINITION come from? 

 

So what else is there to say except that I testify to you before the Son, before the Father, and before the Holy Spirit that I speak the truth to you. I speak to you with the authority of Jesus Christ's Church whom He died for and who He guides in all truth. I appeal to Almighty God right now, as you are reading this post, to allow you to see that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

 

Yes my appeal was heard. Now it is just a matter of time.

 

 

"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of GOD our SAVIOUR…" - 1 Tim 2:3

 

Here are a few more points of discussion:

 

Jesus is a perfect representation of the Father: "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature, upholding the universe by his word and power." (Hebrews 1:3) [RSV]

 

"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being." (Hebrews 1:3) [NWT]

 

How can a creature, however exalted, bear the "very stamp or exact representation of God's nature"?  How can a finite creature approach an infinite God and possess *anything* of the Father, which is by definition, infinite?  How can Jesus be an 'exact representation' of the Father and still be limited by the finite, by time? 

 

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8 NWT).

 

There is only one being which is unchanging, and that is God (Cf. Malachi 3:6 RSV).

 

I think one can make a valid case that 'yesterday' is the opposite of 'forever' in the spectrum of time in this passage, which would mean Jesus is eternal. But I can anticipate your objection against 'yesterday' being eternal, so I am going to address your argument, using 'yesterday' at a fixed point in time in the past only.

 

Let us take a look at your belief in Jesus being created. Let us say that Jesus was created at T = 0. Let us further posit that when it is 'today', He is T = 4000. And finally, when 'forever' comes it is T = ¥ (infinity sign). So Jesus does not change between T = 0, his creation date, and T = ¥ , infinity.

 

Now, before Jesus was created, He could not have changed since there was NO THING to change because a being can only change when He exists. So if between T = 0 and T = ¥, there is no change, as Hebrews 13:8 states, then Jesus is unchanging.

 

So my question for you is: Can you give me biblical evidence of another 'creature' being unchanging? 

 

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god BESIDE me." (Deuteronomy 32:39 RSV) "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god WITH me." (Deuteronomy 32:39 KJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God… (John 1:1 RSV)

 

Given your subordinationist and polytheistic views, please comment on the contradiction in these two verses.

 

Prof. Beduhn admitted to the 'inconsistency' between St. John and the rest of the Bible:

 

John:

 

The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as '... and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god'. How can the Word (Jesus) be 'a god' if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me...."? 

 

Professor:

 

I don't know, you would have to ask John. ****He no doubt faced similar objections from Jews and Jewish-Christians in his own time**** when he made the bold step of declaring even that "The word was divine" (which is how I would translate John 1:1). The NWT translation is an improvement over the traditional one, but it only raises more problems than it solves for a modern audience. In any case, for John to say "the word was with God and the word was God" would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century audience. First of all, it's a non sequiter. Second, the Greek construct he uses would mean that only exceptionally. John is putting the Word into the divine class of things (as opposed to the human, or animal, or vegetable, or what have you). ****That's a bold enough step beyond what the other gospels do****, and I don't think we should ask more of John 1:1 than the Greek allows.

 

"I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?' The Jews answered him, 'We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming,' because I said, "I am the Son of God?"…..that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."' Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands." (John 10:30-39 RSV)

 

Jesus' claim that 'He and the Father are one' is taken to be a blasphemous statement by the *monotheistic* Jews. The subject of a blasphemy is God, and only God. He does not correct their understanding, but rather chastises them for their hypocrisy.

 

Jesus confirms AGAIN His divinity by giving a rather mystical and precise definition of just how 'He and the Father are one'. Jesus wants them to *know and understand* that the 'Father is in Him', and 'He is in the Father'. And *again* the Jews understand Him correctly because they want to arrest Him for his blasphemy.

 

Notice also that Jesus does not say that the prophets were 'gods', only that they were so called gods', which of course, would contradict their monotheistic beliefs. So the Jews understood clearly how the term 'gods' were used.

 

"…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and [of the] Saviour of us, Christ Jesus…." (Titus 2:13 NWT)

 

"…awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ…" (Titus 2:13 RSV)

 

The Greek does not contain the article 'the', which separates the Father from the Son. Greek scholar Grandville Sharp formulated a grammatical rule where two nouns are joined by a co-ordinating conjunction such as 'and'. When an article precedes the first noun but not the second, the two nouns refer to the same person or being. Hence, Jesus is God.

 

"…because it is in him that all fullness of [the divine quality] dwells bodily." (Col. 2:9 NWT)

 

" ….For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily ." (Col. 2:9 RSV)

 

The Greek word that is translated 'the divine quality' really means 'divinity' or 'deity'. So if Jesus has the FULNESS of divinity. Who does that make Him? 

 

Some New Testament verses spoken of Jesus are quotations of Old Testament verses spoken of God:

 

Hebrews 1:8,10-12 v. Psalm 45:6-7 1 Peter 2:7-8 v. Isa. 8:14 John 12:36-41 v. Isa. 6:9 and Isa. 53:1 Matthew 1:3 Isa. 40:3

 

Why is that? 

 

The Personhood of the Holy Spirit:

 

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30). One cannot grieve a 'force' of God because 'to grieve' is properly directed at a person.

 

"The advocate the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you" (John 14:26, cf.15:26,16:7-8). How can a "force" be an advocate or be referred to in the third PERSON, "he". Why does Jesus in this and other passages (Cf. 1 Cor 2:11, 1 Cor 12:11, etc.) refer to the Holy Spirit as "ekeinos", which is the masculin pronoun? 

 

And if the Holy Spirit, the advocate, need not be a person, then why is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, also referred to as an advocate: "we have an advocate [parakletos] with the Father, Jesus Christ righteousness" (1 John 2:1)? 

 

Why does the Holy Spirit 'testify' as a witness in Acts 5:32 and Acts 20:23? 

 

"And coming to us he took Paul's girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, 'Thus says the Holy Spirit, "So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles"'" (Acts 21:11, cf. 1 Tim 4:1). Do you see a rather striking parallel between "Thus says the Lord" of the Old Testament and "Thus SAYS the Holy Spirit" here? 

 

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying, 'Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.' 'Blessed indeed', says the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them!" (Rev. 14:13). How can an impersonal force 'speak'? 

 

"While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2, Cf. Acts 8:29, 10:19). Again, the Spirit 'speaks' - an undeniable reference to a person from an *historical* book of the Bible.

 

John 16

 

i) Do you recall this statement which you made earlier: "Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just "Father") as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is "sent forth" by God, and God "chose" Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities."

 

Would you like to reconcile this statement with this teaching by Jesus: "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I WILL SEND HIM TO YOU." (John 16:7). Why is a supposedly lesser life form "sending" God's force, if he indeed is subordinate to him?  ( By the way, the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'him' - a person.)

 

"All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he [the Holy Spirit] will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:15).

 

"All that the Father has is mine"?  All or just some? 

 

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life" (Matthew 19:29).

 

How can an eternal reward be given to someone *because* of a finite creature's 'namesake'? 

 

11) JOHN 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (KJV)

 

A.T. Robertson writes: (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing. {Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, v. 5, p. 316}

 

HEBREWS 1:10 (KJV) "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands…"

 

Now compare this to Psalms 102:24-25 (RSV): "O my God……of old THOU didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of THY hands."

 

Clearly, Jesus is referred to in Hebrews and GOD is referred to in the Psalm. Your agency theory just collapsed.

 

Hebrews 1:8-10 (RSV): "But of the Son he says, '….And thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning…'"

 

Why is the Father referring to His Son as 'Lord' if the Father is greater than the Son? 

 

Lookie here what Dave Armstrong has found:

 

a)

 

•Gk. Word--------Eng. Word (KJV) --------Applied to the Father & Jesus

 

•Pipto-----------Fell down before -----------Rev 4:10, 7:11----------Rev 5:8
•Eulogia --------Blessing----------------------5:13, 7:12---------------5:12-13
•Doxa ----------Glory -----------------------4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12-------5:12-13
•Sophia ---------Wisdom----------------------7:12---------------------5:12
•Time -----------Honour ---------------------4:9,11, 5:13, 7:12-------5:12-13
•Dunamis -------Power-----------------------4:11, 7:12----------------5:12
•Kratos ---------Power ----------------------5:13----------------------5:13
•Ischus ---------Might / Strength ------------7:12----------------------5:12
•Axios ----------Worthy ---------------------4:11---------------------5:12
•Lambano -------Receive---------------------4:11----------------------5:12
•Ploutos --------Riches ---------------------(Rom 11:33)--------------5:12
•Eucharistia -----Thanksgiving----------------4:9, 7:12----------------(Col 2:6-7)

 

b) FIFTY O.T. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS

 

The Apostles, in the N.T., often appeal to messianic promises and fulfilled prophecies as evidence of the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mt 2:4-6, Rom 1:2-4, Acts 3:18, 10:43, 13:29, 17:2-3, 1 Cor 15:3-4, 1 Pet 2:5-6).

 

•1) Born of a Virgin: Is 7:14 w/ Mt 1:18,24-25, Lk 1:26-35.
•2) From the Tribe of Judah: Gen 49:10, Mic 5:2 w/ Mt 1:2, Lk 3:23,33.
•3) From the Family Line of Jesse: Is 11:1,10 w/ Mt 1:6, Lk 3:23,32.
•4) From the House of David: Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5 w/ Mt 1:1, Lk 3:23,31.
•5) Born in Bethlehem: Mic 5:2 w/ Mt 2:1,4-8, Lk 2:4-7.
•6) Called Son of God: Ps 2:7 w/ Mt 3:17.
•7) Called Lord: Ps 110:1, Jer 23:6 w/ Mt 22:43-45, Lk 2:11.
•8) Called Immanuel (God With Us): Is 7:14 w/ Mt 1:23.
•9) A Prophet: Deut 18:18 w/ Mt 21:11, Lk 7:16, Jn 7:40.
•10) Judge: Is 33:22 w/ Jn 5:30.
•11) King: Ps 2:6 w/ Mt 21:5, Jn 18:36-37.
•12) Special Anointing of the Spirit: Is 11:2 w/ Mt 3:16-17.
•13) Preceded by a Messenger: Is 40:3, Mal 3:1 w/ Mt 3:1-3, 11:10, Lk 1:17, Jn 1:23.
•14) Galilee Ministry: Is 9:1 w/ Mt 4:12-13,17.
•15) Ministry of Miracles: Is 32:3-4, 35:5-6 w/ Mt 9:32-35.
•16) Teacher of Parables: Ps 78:2 w/ Mt 13:34.
•17) Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem: Zech 9:9 w/ Mt 21:5-10,15-16.
•18) Messiah to Come Before Jerusalem's Destruction (70 A.D.): Gen 49:10 w/ Mt 24:1-2.
•19) Messiah Will Come to the Temple (Had to be Before 70): Ps 118:26, Dan 9:26, Hag 2:7-9, Zech 11:13, Mal 3:1 w/ Mt 21:12, Jn 2:13-17.
•20) Entered Jerusalem on a Donkey: Zech 9:9 w/ Lk 19:35-37.
•21) "Stone of Stumbling": Ps 118:22, Is 8:13-14, 28:16 w/ Acts 4:10-11, Rom 9:32-33, 1 Pet 2:7-8.
•22) Rejected by His Own People: Is 53:3 w/ Jn 1:11, 7:5,48.
•23) Hated Without a Cause: Ps 69:4, Is 49:7 w/ Jn 15:25.
•24) Resurrection: Ps 16:10, 30:3, 41:10, 118:17, Hos 6:2 w/ Acts 2:31, 13:33, Mt 28:6, Mk 16:6, Lk 24:46.
•25) Ascension: Ps 68:18 w/ Acts 1:9.
•26) Right Hand of God: Ps 110:1 w/ Heb 1:3, Acts 2:34-35.

 

c) The following 24 prophecies were literally fulfilled by Jesus in one 24-hour period of time:

 

•27) Betrayed by a Friend: Ps 41:9, 55:12-14 w/ Mt 10:4.
•28) Betrayed For 30 Pieces of Silver: Zec 11:12 w/ Mt 26:15.
•29) Silver Thrown in God's House: Zech 11:13 w/ Mt 27:5.
•30) The Potter's Field: Zech 11:13 w/ Mt 27:7.
•31) Forsaken by Disciples: Zech 13:7 w/ Mt 26:31, Mk 14:50.
•32) Silent Before Accusers: Is 53:7 w/ Mt 27:12.
•33) Wounded and Bruised: Is 53:5, Zech 13:6 w/ Mt 27:26.
•34) Beaten: Is 50:6, Mic 5:1 w/ Mt 26:67, Lk 22:63.
•35) Spit Upon: Is 50:6 w/ Mt 26:67.
•36) Mocked: Ps 22:7-8 w/ Mt 27:31.
•37) Hands and Feet Pierced: Ps 22;16, Zec 12:10 w/ Lk 23:33.
•38) Messiah Was to Die: Is 53:8, Dan 9:26 w/ Lk 23:46, 24:7, Jn 19:30.
•39) Executed With Criminals: Is 53:12 w/ Mt 27:38.
•40) Prayed For His Persecutors: Is 53:12 w/ Lk 23:34.
•41) People Wagging Their Heads: Ps 22:7 w/ Mt 27:39.
•42) Stared Upon: Ps 22:17 w/ Lk 23:35.
•43) Garments Parted: Ps 22:18 w/ Jn 19:23.
•44) Garments Gambled For: Ps 22;18 w/ Jn 19:24.
•45) Offered Vinegar and Gall: Ps 69:21 w/ Mt 27:34,Jn 19:29.
•46) Forsaken Cry: Ps 22:1 w/ Mt 27:46.
•47) Bones Not Broken: Ps 34:20 w/ Jn 19:33.
•48) Side Pierced: Zech 12;10 w/ Jn 19:34.
•49) Darkness at Noon: Amos 8:9 w/ Mt 27:45.
•50) Buried in Rich Man's Tomb: Is 53:9 w/ Mt 27:57-60.

 

Here are a few more selections from the Fathers

 

Mathetes:

 

"[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160]).

 

"The bishop largely destroys us and persecutes us, and does his worst against us, and has even turned us out of the city as godless men, because we do not agree to what he publicly preaches: 'Eternally God, eternal Son; like Father, like Son; unoriginated the Son co-exists with God; He is eternally born, He is unoriginate-born; neither by mental conception nor by the slightest temporal interval does God precede the Son; eternal God, eternal Son; the Son is of God Himself."….But what is it that we say and believe and did teach and do teach?  That the Son is not unoriginated, neither in any way partially unoriginated, nor from any essential substratum. Rather, that by will and counsel He subsisted before time and before ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable; and before He was begotten - that is created - or separated or established, He did not exist. For He was not unoriginated. We are persecuted because we said that He is from what did not exist. We have so spoken, however, because neither is He partially God, nor is He from any essentials substratum. For this we are presented. You know the rest." Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, 318 A.D.

 

Gregory the Wonder-worker:

 

"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons--namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

 

Gregory the Wonder-worker:

 

"But if they say, 'How can there be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?' we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity" (ibid., 14).

 

Methodius:

 

"For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty" (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).

 

"But since it is indeed a certitude and beyond the shadow of any earnest doubt that He is God do you think that we are about to deny that He is worshipped by us in the highest degree, and that we call Him the Protector of our body?  'Well, then,' some raging, angry and excited man will say, 'is that Christ your God?' 'God indeed,' we shall answer, 'and God of the hidden powers.'" - Arnobius of Sicca, Against the Pagans, 1,42, 305 A.D.

 

Compare Matthew 13:13-15 and Isaiah 6:9-10. What do you notice? 

 

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:23 KJV)

 

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Act 20:28 KJV)

 

Whose Blood? God's blood.

 

"They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." (Roman 9:5 RSV)

 

"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14)

 

The Greek word for "beginning" is "arche", which means "uncreated principle" or "origin". Now look at Revelation 21:7. What does it say?  It says: "He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son." Now back up one verse: "It is done!  I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 21:6). How is that that same word "arche" is used to describe both the Father and the Son? 

 

Why is the Hebrew word ("olam") for "everlasting" in Micah 5:2 used to describe Jesus? 

 

Why does Jesus have the same propensity to know the things which God could only know? 

 

PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11/MATTHEW 9:4//MATTHEW 22:18/MATTHEW 26:46/MARK 2:8/MARK 5:30/LUKE 22:10-13/JOHN 5:42/JOHN 6:64/JOHN 13:10-11 And other incidents include: Mt 12:40, 16:21, 17:9,11-12,22-23, 20:18-19, 21:39, 24:2, 26:2,12,21,31-34,54 Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:32-34, 14:9,18,27-30,42,49, Lk 9:22,44, 11:30, 12:50, 17:25, 18:31-33, 22:15,21-22,32,34,37, Jn 2:19, 3:14, 10:11,15,17-18, 12:32-34, 13:18-21, 14:19, 15:13, 16:20, 18:11, 21:18-19}

 

Only God can *by his own power* forgive sins (Cf. Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:20, 2 Samuel 12:13, 1 Kings 8:34, Psalm 25:11, 32:5, 51:9, 103:12, 130:12, 130:4, Isaiah 1:18, 43:25, 55:7, Jeremiah 31:34, Ezekiel 33:15-16, Daniel 9:9, Micah 7:18, Matthew 6:12-15, Luke 5:21, Ephesians 4:32, Hebrews 8:12, 1 John 1:9 )

 

But we see, Jesus doing that in a number of passages:

 

KJV -

 

a) MARK 2:5-10 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. (6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, (7) Why doth this {man} thus speak blasphemies?  who can forgive sins but God only?  (8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?  (9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, {Thy} sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?  (10) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) . . . {cf. Mt 9:2-6, Lk 5:21-24}

 

b) LUKE 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

 

c) LUKE 7:47-50 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, {the same} loveth little. (48) And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (49) And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?  (50) And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

Perfect sacrifice:

 

Now, notice that Jesus takes away the price of sin and the punishment of being separated from God:

 

MATTHEW 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. {cf. Lk 22:20, Heb 9:22}

 

LUKE 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

JOHN 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. {CF. 1:36}

 

ACTS 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand {to be} a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. {CF. 10:43, 13:38, 26:18}

 

1 JOHN 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

1 JOHN 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for {the sins of} the whole world.

 

1 JOHN 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

 

REVELATION 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, {who is} the faithful witness, {and} the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

{See also Is 53:4-6, Rom 3:25, 4:25, 5:9-11,18, 2 Cor 5:19, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:7, 2:13-18, 5:2, Col 1:14,21-22, 1 Tim 2:5-6, Titus 2:14, Heb 1:3, 2:17, 9:14-15,26, Heb 10:10,13,18-19, 12:24, 13:12,20, 1 Pet 1:18-19, 2:24, 3:18, 1 Jn 3:5, 4:10, 5:9} D DO IS….

 

Now, my question for you is this: if sin is a transgression against God, and a transgression against God has an INFINITE quality because of the party being offended, then how can a FINITE being (Jesus) affect a true reconciliation between an infinite being (God) and finite beings (humans)?  To me, this is a theological and mathematical impossibility.

 

[END OF COMMUNICATION]