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

Der Alte · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
. . ."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. . . .

Lets go back a little earlier.

Justin according to Justin
Click http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325 to Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; (ca. 150 a.d.)
1. XI "There will be no other God, He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.
2. CXVOur Priest, who is God, and Christ the Son of God.
3, CXXV Christ is called God, He is God and Appeared to the Patriarchs.
4. CXXVIII The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.
5. CXXVI He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God indivisible and inseparable from the Father.
6. CXXVIII Begotten from the Father but not by abscission (cutting off).
7. LXII When God said, “Let Us make”, God conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being.
8. LXII (In Gen 1), there are persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two.
9. LXII This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.
10. LXIII (God speaking of the Son,) “Your holiness have I begotten Thee from the womb, before the morning star.”
11. LXIII (God calls the Son, God,) “Thy throne, O God is forever,”
12. LXIII (God calls the Son, God,) “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness.”
13. LXIII (Jesus), Deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ
14. LV The true God, God who made all things, is Lord alone.
15. XXXII The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
16. XXXVI Who is this King of glory? 'And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, `Who is this King of glory? '

And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'
Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,'(3)--does this not declare to you(4) that[He was] from of old,(5) and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted,[he says]:'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
"Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."(1) For ]the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God -- both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.

younglite · Apr 3, 2016

Thank you for your Greek lessons, Der Alter. Really. The dilemma is that it doesn't match the overall teaching of Scripture as I see it now. We all read what we believe into the Scripture, so it helps to lean on the writings of the earliest disciples for clarity. I don't claim their writings as inspired at all, but they cannot be ignored, and carry much weight as many of them were martyred for our faith, and their teaching was built upon by the later church fathers who wrote the Nicean Creed. Here are just a few of their quotes...

Ignatius – direct disciple of Peter and John

“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians, 7:2)

Justin Martyr

“For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.”
(First Apology, chapter 13)

“For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God...”
(ibid, chapter 53)

Irenaeus of Lyons, student of Polycarp, direct disciple of John

"But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him:
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter XIX, section 2)

"If any one, therefore, says to us, "How then was the Son produced by the Father? we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable...what all understand to the only-begotten Word of God; and while they (the gnostics) style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth...

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter XXVIII, section 6, see 5 also for context)

I could go on. I haven't even mention Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, Athanasius and others. I have over 40 pages of their quotes on the birth/generation/eternal begotten-ness of the Son.

So who do I believe? Your Harvard guy? Your modern-day Greek experts? You already stated we have similar credentials (me – Liberty University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), so keep in mind, I used to believe all you did. But how can I now ignore the preponderance of Scripture, or the writings of the direct disciples of the Apostles and their disciples?

If you're serious about explaining things to me explain these things:

1. Why was there an earlier orthodoxy of subordinationism in the Trinity from the NT to just beyond the Nicean Creed, but a later orthodoxy (prevalent still today) of "All are equal?" Why did the earliest orthodoxy get tossed aside later?

2. Why is the Father called "True God" and "Most High God" in both Scripture and early writings, but these terms are NEVER attributed to the Son or Spirit?

I have other questions, but these will do for now.

younglite · Apr 3, 2016

Der Alter said:
Lets go back a little earlier.

Looks like our posts crossed. I believe all of those quotes. You seem to be trying to prove the Trinity to me by stating Jesus is God, but I already believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is God. #4 is interestingly clear, though, that the Son was born of the Father's substance, which is my point.

younglite · Apr 3, 2016

throughfireytrial said:
I understand you to be speaking of the I Corinthians 15 passages?

It's one of many Scriptures. Much of Scripture was understood to the recipients when written as letters. But later, those letters' words began to be twisted, so we rely (at least I do) somewhat on the writings of the earliest disciples who fought against heresy and gnosticism to give clarity to the Scriptures. As stated throughout this thread, they taught a different Trinity that was taught hundreds of years later.

younglite · Apr 3, 2016

Der Alter said:
Another error, the word μονογενής/monogenes incorrectly translated "only begotten" does not mean "begotten" at all.

I pretty much believe along these lines...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html

BornAgainChristian1 · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
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.

Again as the bible clearly states Jesus is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as throughfireytrial pointed out above.

Isaiah 9:6-71599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
6 For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace.

7 The increase of his government and peace shall have none end: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to stablish it with judgment, and with justice, from henceforth, even forever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

There is no doubt that Jesus God the Father and is in all aspects of the God head.

throughfiierytrial · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
It's one of many Scriptures. Much of Scripture was understood to the recipients when written as letters. But later, those letters' words began to be twisted, so we rely (at least I do) somewhat on the writings of the earliest disciples who fought against heresy and gnosticism to give clarity to the Scriptures. As stated throughout this thread, they taught a different Trinity that was taught hundreds of years later.

Hello Younglite,
I rely only on Scripture, making the best I can of the passages...and I do have recall on passages when I reflect and I know that is a gift of the working of the Spirit...I do not expound, especially not to others, unless and until I feel there's clarity. The Holy Spirit works through the Word...should the wording of a passage have become mangled over time the subject still becomes clear via other passages...if not, I do not run ahead with an idea as though it is clear. Wait upon the Lord.
But as to the subject matter, don't you find Isaiah 9:6-7 helpful...you haven't commented on that.

BornAgainChristian1 · Apr 3, 2016

2 know him said:
The Greek word translated "equal" in John 5:18 actually means "similar", not equal: as in being the same.

Sory but you're wrong.......

Isaiah 9:6-71599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
6 For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace.

7 The increase of his government and peace shall have none end: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to stablish it with judgment, and with justice, from henceforth, even forever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Der Alte · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
Looks like our posts crossed. I believe all of those quotes. You seem to be trying to prove the Trinity to me by stating Jesus is God, but I already believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is God. #4 is interestingly clear, though, that the Son was born of the Father's substance, which is my point.

Justin says nothing about Jesus being from God's bosom.

4. CXXVIII The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.
5. CXXVI He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God indivisible and inseparable from the Father.
6. CXXVIII Begotten from the Father but not by abscission (cutting off).

Der Alte · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
I pretty much believe along these lines...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html

I know that Dr. Wallace whom I quoted has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years and has published Greek grammars and other writing but I don't know the qualifications of the author of that article. Here is the definition of genos, the second word in monogenes, from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker one of, if not, the most highly renowned Greek lexicons. I don't see begotten in this definition anywhere.

γένος, οῦ, τον ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , Ep. Arist. , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ; Sib. Or. 3, 193; loanw. in rabb. ) race, stock.
1. descendants of a common ancestor ejk gevnou" ajrcieratikou` of high-priestly descent ( s. Jos ., Ant. 15, 40) Ac 4:6 ( PTebt. 291, 36 ajpevdeixa" seauto;n gevnou" o[nta iJeratikou` , cf. 293, 14; 18; BGU 82, 7 al. pap .). uiJoi; gevnou" jAbraavm 13:26 ( s. Jos ., Ant. 5, 113); g. Dauivd Rv 22:16 ; IEph 20:2; ITr 9:1; ISm 1:1. tou` ga;r kai; gevno" ejsmevn we, too, are descended from him Ac 17:28 (quoted fr. Arat ., Phaenom. 5; perh. as early as Epimenides [RHarris, Exp. 8th Ser. IV ’12, 348-53; ChBruston, Rev. de Théol. et des Quest. rel. 21, ’13, 533-5; DAFrøvig, Symbol. Osl. 15/ 16, ’36, 44 ff ; MZerwick, Verb. Dom. 20, ’40, 307-21; EdesPlaces, Ac 17:28 , Biblica 43, ’62, 388-95]. Cf. also IG XIV 641; 638 in Norden, Agn. Th. 194 n. ; Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 [ Stoic. I 537] ejk sou` ga;r gevno"
. . . ; Dio Chrys. 80[30], 26 ajpo; t. qew`n to; tw`n ajnqrwvpwn gevno" ; Ep. 44 of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 354, 22] gevno" o[nte" qeou` ; Hierocles 25 p. 474, v. 63 of the Carmen Aur.: qei`on gevno" ejsti; brotoi`sin ), cf. vs. 2 9.—Also of an individual descendant, scion ( Hom. ; Soph. , Ant. 1117 Bacchus is Dio;" g .). Jesus is to; gevno" Dauivd Rv 22:16 ( cf. Epimenides [VI BC ] 457 fgm. 3 Jac. , the saying of Musaeus : ejgw; gevno" eijmi Selhvnh" ; Quint. Smyrn. 1, 191 sei`o qeou` gevno" ejsti ).
2. family, relatives ( Appian , Bell. Civ. 5, 54 §228; Basil. 1a §1; BGU 1185, 18; Jos. , Ant. 17, 22; 18, 127) to; g. jIwshvf Ac 7:13 .
3. nation, people ( Appian , Bell. Civ. 2, 71 §294 JEbraivwn gevno" ; 2, 90 §380 jIoudaivwn g. , the latter also Diod. S. 34+35 fgm. 1, 1; 40, 3, 8; Maximus Tyr. 23, 7b; Ael. Aristid. 45 p. 108 D.: tw`n JEllhvnwn g .; Achilles Tat. 1, 3, 1; 3, 19, 1; Synes. , Ep. 121 p. 258 B to; jEbraivwn g .; Test. Levi 5:6 to; gevno" jIsrahvl ; Jos. , Bell. 7, 43, Ant. 10, 183 to; JEbraivwn g .) Ac 7:19 ; Gal 1:14 ; Phil 3:5 ; B 14:7 (Is 42:6 ). Of the Christians: gevno" ejklektovn a chosen nation 1 Pt 2:9 (Is 43:20 ; cf. Esth 8:12 t; s. JCFenton, CBQ 9, ’47, 141 f ); kaino;n g. Dg 1; trivtw/ gevnei as a third people (beside pagans and Jews) PK 2 p. 15, 8 ( s. Harnack, Mission 4 I ’24, 259-89); g. tw`n dikaivwn MPol 14:1; 17:1; Hs 9, 17,
5. qeofile;" qeosebe;" g. tw`n Cristianw`n godly and pious race of the Christians MPol 3 ( Plut. , Mor. 567 f : the Greeks acc. to the divine verdict are to; bevltiston k. qeofilevstaton gevno"). tw`/ gevnei w. name of a people to denote nationality ( Menand. , Per. 9 J.; Plut. , Dem. 28, 3; Jos. , Ant. 20, 81; BGU 887, 3; 15; 937, 9 dou`lo" gevnei Pontikov" ; cf. 2 Macc 5:22 ; 3 Macc 1:3 ) Mk 7:26 ; Ac 4:36 ; 18:2 , 24 . Pregnant constr. kivndunoi ejk gevnou" perils from the people =my countrymen, the Jews 2 Cor 11:26 .
4. class, kind (Ps.-Xenophon, Cyneg. 3, 1 ta; gevnh tw`n kunw`n ; PGiess. 40, 9 panto;" gevnou" politeumavtwn ; Wsd 19:21 ; Philo ) of plants ( BGU 1119, 27 [I BC ] taujta; gevnh ‘the same species of plants’; 1120, 34; 1122, 23) Hs 8, 2, 7; of fish (Heniochus Com. 3; Jos. , Bell. 3, 508) Mt 13:47 ; of demons 17:21 ; Mk 9:29 ( Herm. Wr. 13, 2 tou`to to; gevno" ouj didavsketai). gevnh glwssw`n (glw`ssa 3) 1 Cor 12:10 , 28 ; g. fwnw`n 14:1 0. Cf. Hs 9, 1, 8; 9, 19, 1; 9, 24, 1; 9, 30, 3. M-M. B. 85; 1317.*
http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/ga/ga-Index.html

Hoghead1 · Apr 3, 2016

In theology, BornAgain, it is generally recognized that the Trinity is an extra-biblical doctrine. You may well see the Trinity in Scripture, but you are looking at Scripture, with that idea firmly in mind. You have overlooked the fact that the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture. I pointed out to you that the Holy Spirit was often neglected and that the early fathers had difficulty determining its status. So, before jumping on me, maybe you should take a close look at Scripture. For example, in all Paul's greetings, it is always in the name of the Father and Son. The Spirit is never mentioned. In the Gospel of John, it very clearly states that Christ is God, but says nothing about the Spirit. In Rom. 8, Paul seems to be using Christ and Spirit interchangeably. So, yes, Scripture elsewhere implies that the Spirit is God, but it makes no clear statement. Also, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. Hence, the early fathers used Hellenic metaphysics to work out the Trinity. They relied on substance metaphysics, which is a concept foreign to Scripture. I am just trying to help you out by providing you with some important information. And I emphasize that in theological discussions, it is a no-no to respond by anything an attempt to cast aspersion on the character of the poster. So if you have questions about what I am saying, ask them, don't just dump on me.

toLiJC · Apr 3, 2016

younglite said:
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.

one thing is certain, God the Father is the main God, while Jesus Christ is the Lord, which means the only second One in the heavenly hierarchy after God the Father, yet in the Bible there is also talk of inheritance/heirdom by Jesus, which is not fully clear for many modern worshipers, but it may be about inheriting power in place of God, if, for example, the Father is not fully awake, or even about being manifested that Jesus is the next "Father" i.e. that He will be the Father (in the) next eternity

Blessings

Hoghead1 · Apr 3, 2016

I hear you, Through. However, Isaiah says nothing here about the Spirit.

throughfiierytrial · Apr 3, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
In theology, BornAgain, it is generally recognized that the Trinity is an extra-biblical doctrine. You may well see the Trinity in Scripture, but you are looking at Scripture, with that idea firmly in mind. You have overlooked the fact that the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture. I pointed out to you that the Holy Spirit was often neglected and that the early fathers had difficulty determining its status. So, before jumping on me, maybe you should take a close look at Scripture. For example, in all Paul's greetings, it is always in the name of the Father and Son. The Spirit is never mentioned. In the Gospel of John, it very clearly states that Christ is God, but says nothing about the Spirit. In Rom. 8, Paul seems to be using Christ and Spirit interchangeably. So, yes, Scripture elsewhere implies that the Spirit is God, but it makes no clear statement. Also, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. Hence, the early fathers used Hellenic metaphysics to work out the Trinity. They relied on substance metaphysics, which is a concept foreign to Scripture. I am just trying to help you out by providing you with some important information. And I emphasize that in theological discussions, it is a no-no to respond by anything an attempt to cast aspersion on the character of the poster. So if you have questions about what I am saying, ask them, don't just dump on me.

No, looked at Scripture to see if my doctrine was correct.

throughfiierytrial · Apr 3, 2016

toLiJC said:
one thing is certain, God the Father is the main God, while Jesus Christ is the Lord, which means the only second One in the heavenly hierarchy after God the Father, yet in the Bible there is also talk of inheritance/heirdom by Jesus, which is not fully clear for many modern worshipers, but it may be about inheriting power in place of God, if, for example, the Father is not fully awake, or even about being manifested that Jesus is the next "Father" i.e. that He will be the Father (in the) next eternity

Blessings

Sorry, but where do you get such ideas?

BornAgainChristian1 · Apr 3, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I hear you, Through. However, Isaiah says nothing here about the Spirit.

Who do you think the Counselor is?

BornAgainChristian1 · Apr 3, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
In theology, BornAgain, it is generally recognized that the Trinity is an extra-biblical doctrine. You may well see the Trinity in Scripture, but you are looking at Scripture, with that idea firmly in mind. You have overlooked the fact that the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture. I pointed out to you that the Holy Spirit was often neglected and that the early fathers had difficulty determining its status. So, before jumping on me, maybe you should take a close look at Scripture. For example, in all Paul's greetings, it is always in the name of the Father and Son. The Spirit is never mentioned. In the Gospel of John, it very clearly states that Christ is God, but says nothing about the Spirit. In Rom. 8, Paul seems to be using Christ and Spirit interchangeably. So, yes, Scripture elsewhere implies that the Spirit is God, but it makes no clear statement. Also, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. Hence, the early fathers used Hellenic metaphysics to work out the Trinity. They relied on substance metaphysics, which is a concept foreign to Scripture. I am just trying to help you out by providing you with some important information. And I emphasize that in theological discussions, it is a no-no to respond by anything an attempt to cast aspersion on the character of the poster. So if you have questions about what I am saying, ask them, don't just dump on me.

Just because you're confused by scripture doesn't mean everybody else is.

toLiJC · Apr 3, 2016

throughfireytrial said:
Sorry, but where do you get such ideas?

i hint ideas rather than only get some

Blessings

2 know him · Apr 3, 2016

Der Alter said:
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.

Der Alter, I didn't realise the way I put my words. You are right that it means "equal", but what I meant to say is that it is not to say that Jesus and God are one in the same, but rather that they are equal in essence, but not the same in the sense of "one in the same". The Spirit of the Father lives in the son, in the same way that the dna of my father lives in me, but I am not my Father any more than Jesus is his Father.

younglite · Apr 3, 2016

throughfireytrial said:
I rely only on Scripture...

Actually, you don't. No one does. We all learn from others. That's why teachers will be held to a stricter judgment. What is more accurate to say is, "I rely on what I've been taught about Scripture." Your understanding of the Trinity wasn't even a teaching until hundreds of years later after the Apostles - after a man named Arius created quite an uproar in heresies that led to the Nicean Creed.

If you read my story (forget which post), I came to study this from reading about Jesus being the "image of God" and being created - firstborn of all creation. (Col 3:10, 2 Cor 4:4, Rev. 3:14, etc.). This lead to years of studying, trying to let Scripture speak for itself rather than try to read my learned beliefs into the passages. I came to most of my conclusion before I even read the early church fathers. After I had exhausted all I could, the thought occurred to me that I should study the earliest disciples. I was shocked. They were teaching virtually the conclusion I had already come to using only Scripture.

I don't expect to "convert" you to my way of thinking. I just challenge you to let the Scriptures say what they say, without reading the beliefs you were taught into them.

throughfireytrial said:
But as to the subject matter, don't you find Isaiah 9:6-7 helpful...you haven't commented on that.

Sorry I missed that. It's hard to comment on one verse, because there is the whole of Scripture has to be considered. But here goes...

If I hand you a photo, and say, "This is my wife." I am assuming you know it isn't really my wife - it's a piece of paper with a printed image of her. Same applies to the Son. He told Philip in John 14:9, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Jesus, of course, is the image of God, so He is correct in saying this to Philip. This also means all of what is said in Isaiah 9 is true, since the pre-incarnate Christ reflects the Father in all aspects.

But wait. He also says in John 6:46 that no one Has seen the Father. John also says this in John 1:18. So is Jesus contradicting Himself? If you believe Jesus is the same as the Father in all aspects, then you have a dilemma. You have two gods, no matter how you try to slice it. I don't believe this, nor did any of the early Christians. Calling Jesus the same as the Father was considered heresy in the earliest centuries.

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

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Truth-Lover

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Truth-Lover

Truth-Lover

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Active Member

Similar threads