Father is "True God" in Scripture, though Son is God also

BornAgainChristian1

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,190
321
70
South Eastern Pa.
✟19,130.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I would argue that Jesus is equal in character, but not in size, and that Jesus clearly is not the Father. While there is the statement ``before Abraham was I am`` that can be meant only to state that Jesus is the reason for creation and that he is the beginning of creation (the purpose of creation) not Abraham.

I think the real problem is that people have exalted ideology and its importance, over how we live and thus we are more concerned with what we think about Christ, rather than whether we walk in the teachings of Christ and thus people think that how they embrace Christ intellectually is more important than how we embrace Christ spiritually, in the way we live, and this, to me, is the cause of all the real problems we should be focused on, not on what people`s beliefs are intellectually so much, but only intellectually to the degree that it affects how they live.
The bible states very clearly that Jesus said He was equal with God the Father..


John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him: not only because he had broken the Sabbath: but said also that God was his Father, and made himself equal with God.

Philippians 2:6
Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:
 
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you write your opinion, and "tag" it with a scripture reference, rather than writing out the scripture and referring to what the scripture actually says, it will make you a more believable writer.

Of course, you're right. My apologies for copying my notes directly. Many of these notes are for me, so I know what I mean. I should be more considerate in sharing and explaining them here. So allow me...

Jude 25 - to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Your translation leaves out the phrase "through Jesus Christ our Lord," which is in most of the most updated translations. The early church fathers also referred to the Father as Savior. I think it's clear that God the Father is indeed being given praise through the Son Jesus Christ. My point in showing this verse is that it also clearly states that the Father is the only God. Taken in context with other verses and early writings, this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God in substance, but that He isn't "True" or "Most High" God. However, He is referred to as the Son of the "Most High."

1 Timothy 1:17 - Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The terms "invisible" and "only God" always refers to the Father, and never the Son. This is consistent with Jesus being the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) , which also makes a distinction as to who They are. If you disagree, please direct me to the verses that state Jesus as invisible, only, true or most high God.

Regarding "God and Savior Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, it could go either way. It could mean Father God and Savior Jesus, or it could mean Jesus, our God and Savior. Scholars smarter than I have argued that one for years. Either way is fine by me since I already believe Jesus is God, though I don't believe He is YHWH. This was considered heresy in the earliest writings. I will re-read your argument there in Zechariah, as I have never been presented with all the cross-referencing you did around that.
 
Upvote 0

BornAgainChristian1

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,190
321
70
South Eastern Pa.
✟19,130.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Of course, you're right. My apologies for copying my notes directly. Many of these notes are for me, so I know what I mean. I should be more considerate in sharing and explaining them here. So allow me...

Jude 25 - to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Your translation leaves out the phrase "through Jesus Christ our Lord," which is in most of the most updated translations. The early church fathers also referred to the Father as Savior. I think it's clear that God the Father is indeed being given praise through the Son Jesus Christ. My point in showing this verse is that it also clearly states that the Father is the only God. Taken in context with other verses and early writings, this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God in substance, but that He isn't "True" or "Most High" God. However, He is referred to as the Son of the "Most High."

1 Timothy 1:17 - Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The terms "invisible" and "only God" always refers to the Father, and never the Son. This is consistent with Jesus being the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) , which also makes a distinction as to who They are. If you disagree, please direct me to the verses that state Jesus as invisible, only, true or most high God.

Regarding "God and Savior Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, it could go either way. It could mean Father God and Savior Jesus, or it could mean Jesus, our God and Savior. Scholars smarter than I have argued that one for years. Either way is fine by me since I already believe Jesus is God, though I don't believe He is YHWH. This was considered heresy in the earliest writings. I will re-read your argument there in Zechariah, as I have never been presented with all the cross-referencing you did around that.
So you're denying that Christ and and the Father are not the same God ?


Deuteronomy 4:39
Understand therefore this day, and consider in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none other.

Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is none other; there is no God besides me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isaiah 45:21
Tell ye and bring them, and let them take counsel together, who hath declared this from the beginning, or hath told it of old? Have not I the Lord? and there is none other God beside me, a just God, and a Savior: there is none beside me.

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none other God, and there is nothing like me,

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

1 Timothy 2:5 [Full Chapter]
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ Jesus,

Mark 12:32
Then that Scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, that there is one God, and that there is none but he,

Acts 4:24
And when they heard it, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou art the God which had made the heaven, and the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.

Romans 3:30
For it is one God, who shall justify circumcision of faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well: the devils also believe it, and tremble.


John 20:26
¶ And eight days after, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 After said he to Thomas, Put thy finger here, and see mine hands, and put forth thine hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but faithful.
28 Then Thomas answered, and said unto him, Thou art my Lord, and my God.
 
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The bible states very clearly that Jesus said He was equal with God the Father..

Clear to you. But clearly wrong, I'm afraid. Easily explained.

Regarding Philippains 2:6 - It already states that Jesus wasn't attempting to rob God of His place, as Satan tried to. Jesus never saw being equal with God something to be stolen from His Father.

And John 5:8 reveals the knowledge of the Pharisees regarding the Messiah. Not only were they expecting a Christ, but they knew from the prophecies that this Messiah was to be the Son of God. Note their questioning of Jesus in Mark 14:61...

"Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

Even Peter declared, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matt 16:16)

So it was commonly said later "What is born of God, is God." All followers of God believed that each reproduced after its own kind. What is born of man, is man. What is born of bird, is bird. What is born of fish, is fish. etc. etc. So the Pharisees even declare that what is born of God (His Son) is indeed God. It doesn't mean they thought the Messiah was going to be the same as the Father Himself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So it was commonly said later "What is born of God, is God." All followers of God believed that each reproduced after its own kind. What is born of man, is man. What is born of bird, is bird. What is born of fish, is fish. etc. etc. So the Pharisees even declare that what is born of God (His Son) is indeed God.
Sounds like Jesus was God, then, although not the Father. IOW, exactly what orthodox Christianity has long believed.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Welcome back, Albion!

I have always believed Jesus was God. But saying Jesus is God doesn't mean the same for everyone. Again, read post #4 for clarity of my thoughts.
Yes, I have. But I guess my feeling in this matter--and the reason for my post just above--is that I don't see much here to debate. Jesus is God. yes. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit or the Father. Right. They are three persona of one God. Check. We ought not deny that they are of one substance or OTOH confuse the persons...IOW, more or less just what the Nicene Creed explained. But I do see that some of your opponents here are interpreting your words in a way that makes them think you're a non-Trinitarian.
 
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough. I hear what you're saying. I guess my passion around this is that I was taught that the Father, Son and Spirit were all the same - literally. It was a pendulum that swung from modalism on the one hand, to polytheism on the other. But this clarity of Scripture combined with the early church writers really help me when I speak with Jehovah Witnesses and others who can confuse quickly with their interpretations of who God is (and isn't). Maybe you didn't struggle with it as much as I did, so what a blessing for you.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For the first several centuries, the New Testament writers and early writers declared the unveiling of the Son from His Father, the one true God. They also declared that the Son was God, too, for what is begotten of God, is God. But in later centuries, there was a overreaction to heresy, so the Son began to be elevated to be co-equal with God, the Father.
I am curious as to why we haven't gone back to the teachings before this overreaction? Why are Christians, theologians, professors, etc. afraid to just let Scripture and the early writings speak for themselves? Is it because there is something that doesn't feel right about making Jesus "less?"
You don't get much closer to the original source than the disciples of the apostles. These writings have been copied in Latin, Syriac, Greek and other languages. They clearly distinguish themselves in their writings from the heretical arguments of the gnostics, and many are referenced/endorsed by the later church fathers. They are reliable and should be considered heavily when determining what the writers of the NT were trying to say.
What did the disciples of the apostles believe?
Clement of Rome (disciple of Paul and Peter, died in 99AD). Origen says he is the Clement of Phil 4:3 [Commentary, John 1:29]. His writing is the earliest outside of the NT writings (80-140 AD). Note that he prays to God the Father directly, through the Son. He tells God that He is God alone and is the Highest, and does His work through his Son, Jesus Christ.
1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty... and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son...
verse 4 (next verse)
Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son...
Ignatius (disciple of Peter and John, died 108 AD)
I long after the Lord, the Son of the true God and Father, even Jesus Christ.
(Ignatius to the Romans, chapter VI)
But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.
(Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII)
He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens...
(Ignatius to the Romans, chapter VI)
Polycarp (disciple of John, died 155 AD)
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest (I Tim 2:5 makes a similar statement) himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...
(Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, 12:2)
Before we even get out of the gate to later disciples, the direct disciples of the Apostles teach that the Father is true God. They also state that Jesus is God, too, but only the Father is true God and/or Most High God. This theme is carried on in the writings for the next few hundred years right up to the formation of the Nicean Creed. If you truly consider their teachings, then it helps when you are reading Scripture...
John 3:33-35 and John 5:43-44: Jesus refers to the Father as the “only God.”

John 17:3 – Only true God is Whom Jesus is talking to. (see also John 5:44)

1 Thess 1:9-10 – True God and His Son (also see John 3:33, 5:44 and John 17:3)

1 John 5:20 – God is the true God, depicted in the Son – very clear Who is truly God and Who is Son

I Tim 1:17 and Jude 25 – The Father is the only God.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Eph4:6, Gal 3:20, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 John 5:20 – One God, the Father

Col 3:10 – Jesus is the image, created by God (see 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15, 1 John 5:20)

Rev 3:14 – Jesus is the beginning of creation

Of course, this goes against what we are taught about the Trinity today, so we outright disregard the evidence of their writings. Sad. We should believe what we read, not read what we believe.

But this passage is the Trinity proof in its most concise form...

Isaiah 9:6-7:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

Explanation, though it needs none really...
The son is of course Jesus. The Son/Jesus/ will be called Wonderful Counselor (name for the Holy Spirit—
see John 14:25-26:
“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have ever said to you.

The Son/Jesus will also be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father (so Jesus is the Father) and Prince of Peace…name for Jesus.If Jesus is called such, He is such.

There are other ways to prove the Trinity doctrine to yourself which require a putting together of a larger battery of passages…this is the easiest and to my way of thinking the clearest proof.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough. I hear what you're saying. I guess my passion around this is that I was taught that the Father, Son and Spirit were all the same - literally. It was a pendulum that swung from modalism on the one hand, to polytheism on the other. But this clarity of Scripture combined with the early church writers really help me when I speak with Jehovah Witnesses and others who can confuse quickly with their interpretations of who God is (and isn't). Maybe you didn't struggle with it as much as I did, so what a blessing for you.

No, I didn't. And it did take a more careful reading of your posts for me to be sure what you were saying, but FWIW my impression is that the "three pals who are the god committee" view is much more prevalent than the modalist view, so maybe it all depends on who raised us.
 
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the real problem is that people have exalted ideology and its importance, over how we live and thus we are more concerned with what we think about Christ, rather than whether we walk in the teachings of Christ...

This is a great point. For centuries, the church grew quickly - until the fighting over doctrine began. Then it quickly became "a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof." (2 Tim 3:5) I love living for Christ, and sharing life with others that do. This is most important to me. But I also enjoy discussing theology, but don't have anyone in close proximity who cares to discuss it at this level. Thank God for forums like this!
 
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are other ways to prove the Trinity doctrine to yourself

Hello throughfireytrial. Sorry, but I don't deny the Trinity. I embrace it fully. Where we part ways - I assume - is that most Trinitarians believe a later "All are equal" dogma, whereas I believe in the earlier "True God" dogma of subordinationism in the Trinity as the earliest church fathers taught.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're going to have to stop trying to prove the Trinity to me - I already believe it. The "Our" in Genesis is the Father speaking to His Son and Spirit.

Regarding "image," you're going to have a hard time with Colossians 1:15. Not only does it call Jesus "God's image," but it also says He is the first-born of all creation. There are those who try to use Scriptural gymnastics to explain this, but I believe Jesus is born as the perfect image of an invisible Most High God.

My qualifications pretty much match yours. SBTS '83. And I am not convinced. Paul also said "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." And John said "No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, [μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν] who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known."
 
Upvote 0

2 know him

Newbie
Dec 9, 2011
482
106
✟7,513.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The bible states very clearly that Jesus said He was equal with God the Father..


John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him: not only because he had broken the Sabbath: but said also that God was his Father, and made himself equal with God.

Philippians 2:6
Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:


The Greek word translated "equal" in John 5:18 actually means "similar", not equal: as in being the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul also said "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

See post #64 for my reply to Philippians 2:6.

And John said "No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, [μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν] who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known."

This is one of the most crucial verses in the earliest writings of the church. "The only One, Himself God" literally translates "only begotten God." This is why I believe Jesus is the firstborn of all creation - the difference is that He is begotten of God, and not made from nothing as all other creation was.

"Who is in close fellowship with the Father" is literally "Who is in the bosom of the Father." The early church writers taught that Jesus was sent from the bosom of the Father where, he was born.


Tertullian is a well-respected early theologian. If you're serious about learning this - or at least reading what he said - read chapter 3-5 of “Against Praxeas,” Chapter 7 speaks to the womb of the Father's heart and uses the word “bosom” four times to relate to where the Son came from. Also see chaps 18 & 19 of “Against Homegenes.”

Hippolytus, student of Irenaeus of Lyons, wrote of the Son:
"...because He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father before all;"
(Extant works, Exegetical, Scholia of Daniel, Chapter 7.14b)

Commenting on John 16:27-28, Clement of Alexandria writes:
For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word...
(Book 1 – Paedagogus, chapter III, 2nd paragraph)

Gregory of Nyssa, the leading apologists of the Cappadocian fathers wrote (in Against Eunomius)...
The leading aspect in which the person of the Son is presented and defended is as the Only-begotten. The work maintains his consubstantiality with the Father, the fullness of his divinity, the eternity of his generation in the bosom of the Father, his distinctive character as Mediator, and the beneficence of his mediatorial work.

I could go on, but suffice to say, it was the teaching of 300 years from the NT to the Nicean Creed that Jesus was born in the bosom of the Father, then sent out from His bosom to reveal the Father to all men. This is why Christ says no one has seen the Father but Him.

All of this is consistent with John 1:18.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Greek word translated "equal" in John 5:18 actually means "similar", not equal: as in being the same.

You are wrong! The word ἴσος/isos which is correctly translated "equal" in John 5:18 occurs 8 times in the NT it means "equal" and never refers to something "similar." Matthew 20:12, Mark 14:56, Mark 14:59, Luke 6:34, John 5:18, Acts of the Apostles 11:17, Philippians 2:6, Revelation 21:16.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Clear to you. But clearly wrong, I'm afraid. Easily explained.

Regarding Philippains 2:6 - It already states that Jesus wasn't attempting to rob God of His place, as Satan tried to. Jesus never saw being equal with God something to be stolen from His Father
. . . .

Incorrect! Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7. What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?
Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:
(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11
ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}
The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected. The word αρπαγμον, translated "robbery" in the KJV is a noun. many people try to make it a verb, e.g. "attempting to rob" to line up with their assumptions/presuppositions.
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)
It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.
In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.
O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Achilles6129
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello throughfireytrial. Sorry, but I don't deny the Trinity. I embrace it fully. Where we part ways - I assume - is that most Trinitarians believe a later "All are equal" dogma, whereas I believe in the earlier "True God" dogma of subordinationism in the Trinity as the earliest church fathers taught.

I understand you to be speaking of the I Corinthians 15 passages?
I believe that the three persons of the Trinity are all God as the Isaiah passage indicates. The three are one as Isaiah also indicates. Christ lowered Himself...He was made a little lower than the angels as Hebrews puts it or as Philippians says it...He was found in the likeness of a man. And He now must reign until he hands the kingdom over to God the Father ...Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Isaiah is very clear...these passages of I Corinthians 15, not as clear, but they must agree. You may be saying Christ is a lesser God than the Father, but I don't yet know...would we also then say that God the Father is not fully God or all powerful until Christ is made subject to Him? I think not. I believe them to be equal. Jesus says to Philip: if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
I don't believe we must understand all the mysteries of the Godhead. I believe this is an area where the following passage applies:
Psalm 131:1
My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
. . . This is one of the most crucial verses in the earliest writings of the church. "The only One, Himself God" literally translates "only begotten God." This is why I believe Jesus is the firstborn of all creation - the difference is that He is begotten of God, and not made from nothing as all other creation was. . . .

Another error, the word μονογενής/monogenes incorrectly translated "only begotten" does not mean "begotten" at all. See notes from NET edited by Dr. Dan Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.
NET Bible John 1:18 translation notes. 45 tc
The textual problem μονογενης θεος (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ο μονογενης υιος (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεος or υιος. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ο μονογενης υιος. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ο μονογενης θεος, while the anarthrous μονογενης θεος is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεος is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεος, for θεος without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενης θεος. Internally, although υιος fits the immediate context more readily, θεος is much more difficult. As well, θεος also explains the origin of the other reading (υιος), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υιος in the text he was copying would alter it to θεος. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υιος however, since μονογενης υιος is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεος as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεος as in apposition to μονογενης, and the participle ο ων (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεος, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενης in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενης is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενης alone, without υιος, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεος is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεος ην ο λογος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ο ων occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.​

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενης (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.
38 tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

 
Upvote 0