Jesus and the Trinity

[Odsolo]

So you're citing a source you "own". How objective is that?

It is a standard Hebrew language reference, available at virtually any major bookseller. This shows your desperation, implying that I am quoting myself or something I have written.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.​

The dead are not born, “firstborn” is NOT literal.

Robertson-The first born [Taught PhD level Biblical Greek 47 years] (pro¯totokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Phi_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pa¯se¯s ktiseo¯s, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of pro¯tos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eiko¯n we find pro¯totokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eiko¯n (Image) and to the universe as pro¯totokos (First-born).

Vincent-The first born of every creature
(πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεω&#962
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Rev_1:5; for creation, see on 2Co_5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Col_1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰ&#962 Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psa_89:27; Heb_1:2.​

Lets look at what your favorite “Arian” in the early church has to say. But wait what is this I see, something about "hypostatic"?

Origen- de Principiis. Book I
For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me-the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He rounded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth."23 He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: "who is the first-born of every creature."24 The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."25
2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal26 when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically27 existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that u9po/stasij or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but-what cannot be said of God without impiety-was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but [size=+1]without any beginning[/size], not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation29 was included in this very existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6279_1122053
​

 

[Odsolo]

Hi Odsolo,

Unfortunately for you, this is the jist of it:

Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance

In your dreams. Repeating assertions do not prove them. What you must do, and are incapable of, is prove the assertion from historical sources. To see how that is done, read the citations in the LSJ article. Good luck, you will need expertise in classical Greek, and that will take at least 3-6 years.

[SIZE=+1]και ος εαν μη δεξηται υμας μηδε ακουση τους λογους υμων εξερχομενοι της οικιας η της πολεως εκεινης εκτιναξατε τον κονιορτον των ποδων υμων[/SIZE]

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Catholic Encyclopedia- Origen

The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Disciple of John the apostle.

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. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,53 but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Bk V, [Disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John.

3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said beforehand, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin; " pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which "He has destroyed the handwriting" of our debt, and "fastened it to the cross; " so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577

​

Can I ask you a question? What's this "cut and paste" got to do with the exegesis of John 1:1? I quoted Origen for a reason , because he addressed the Greek, Theos vs. Ho Theos, in this respect.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi odsolo,

In your dreams. Repeating assertions do not prove them. What you must do, and are incapable of, is prove the assertion from historical sources. To see how that is done, read the citations in the LSJ article. Good luck, you will need expertise in classical Greek, and that will take at least 3-6 years.

[size=+1]και ος εαν μη δεξηται υμας μηδε ακουση τους λογους υμων εξερχομενοι της οικιας η της πολεως εκεινης εκτιναξατε τον κονιορτον των ποδων υμων[/size]

Those nine words pretty much sums it up, unfortunately... your "expertise in classical Greek" notwithstanding. .

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

It is a standard Hebrew language reference, available at virtually any major bookseller. This shows your desperation, implying that I am quoting myself or something I have written.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

The dead are not born, “firstborn” is NOT literal.

​

Robertson-The first born [Taught PhD level Biblical Greek 47 years] (pro¯totokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Phi_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pa¯se¯s ktiseo¯s, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of pro¯tos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eiko¯n we find pro¯totokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eiko¯n (Image) and to the universe as pro¯totokos (First-born).








Vincent-The first born of every creature
(πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεω&#962
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Rev_1:5; for creation, see on 2Co_5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Col_1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰ&#962 Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psa_89:27; Heb_1:2.






​

Lets look at what your favorite “Arian” in the early church has to say. But wait what is this I see, something about "hypostatic"?

Origen- de Principiis. Book I







For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me-the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He rounded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth."23 He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: "who is the first-born of every creature."24 The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."25
2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal26 when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically27 existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that u9po/stasij or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but-what cannot be said of God without impiety-was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but [size=+1]without any beginning[/size], not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation29 was included in this very existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6279_1122053







​

Who says "the dead are not born"?
And who says firstborn is "not literal"? Did Christ not literally die and literally come to life again? The Saints also die and literally come to life once more . They are born again spiritually and physically ( resurrected from the dead literally). Christ is first among equals within the sub-set of those who are "born from the dead", the first of many brethen who are raised from the grave by God, the dead who are born again.

Btw., your latest "cut and paste" does nothing to support your argument, in my opinion.



best wishes,

 

[hybrid]

hi balthasar

The problem with these kinds of analogies is that the sun has no choice over whether it will shine.One of Athanasius’ favorite analogies was that the Word could be likened to a river flowing from the eternal spring. Thus as the Father has never not overflowed with wisdom and power etc, the river has always flowed – existing ever. But the problem is that the Spring has no choice over whether it will flow.

No problem with me, I never expected mere analogies to fully explain trinity. Though it captures the 1 substance, 3 forms concept.
As they say, The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

God is perfect and independent,

He cannot be so through another.

yes, god is perfect, immutable and one. However….

First: the phrase you use about God, “he cannot be” is I think inappropriate for god. I believe he can do anything, though he won’t do everything. Specially those that pertains to his moral character.

And there is no reasons to believe why god would not be so through another. (i.e. took a human form)

Second: God aside from being a HE is also a WHAT. God is light, god is love, god is Spirit. God is eternal. He is above reason, above creation, above nature and definitely above personality. To a person who believes god transcends everything, it is not entirely nonsensical to believe that god can manifest in three forms/persons.

This is Arianism in it's primitive format.

Arius was a deep thinking egghead for singing the song “there was a time when the son was not”. And the deep thinking eggheads theologians of the church had asked about the same question through the ages.

What was more important to God?
To be sovereign and share his glory with no one or,
The compulsion to love that he decided to become a father by begetting a son and gave to his son all that he has and was except for being a father?

if there was a time when the word of god was not, was god mute then?

And if god never brought forth his logos to create everything, and nothing existed without the logos, would god die of loneliness?

Now being an egghead aside, it was clear in john 1 that the LOGOS of god was with god in the beginning.

So arius was wrong.

THERE WAS NEVER A TIME THAT THE SON WAS NOT. The son was begotten outside of time. God was never without his word. In the political parlance, they are co-terminus. That is why jesus Christ can truly say that he is (also) alpha and omega. The beginning and the last.

Btw, now that you have brought arius here and you claimed to be an arian, his beliefs about the son are not different from that of the Nicene fathers except that he thought the son was a created being but nontheless highly exalted even above the angels. He would have never emphatically argued that the son was only a mere man.

He must be turning in his grave.

I did that for many years too!

I’m happy to here that.

All I can suggest is that you be honest with yourself.

as honest as you are perhaps?

Hi hybrid,
I enjoy conversing with you.

thank you, me too.





.

 

[hybrid]

Tertullian, whome you mention and who was castigated as a heretic writes:

"Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father" (Against Hermogenes 3.18).

Tertullian was a Trinitarian, why… the Nicene fathers basically modeled the creed from his Trinitarian concept.

Tertullian - Trinity - The Apology
We have been taught that He (reason) 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.

And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. Isa 59:16

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.

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.

 

[Balthasar]

By the way Odsolo,

You accused me of misrepresenting the Trinity.This is what you said:

The "Trinity" does not say anything. You have not correctly stated the "doctrine" of the Triune nature of God, i.e. Trinity. You haven't read your Bible. All I see is is parroting empty piece meal arguments from your religion. How many thrones in heaven, how many on the throne, where is Jesus sitting, how many on the throne?

I'm still waiting for you to defend your accusation and explain how and why I've "not correctly stated the trinity"..Either defend your charge or recant your accusation.

This is my fourth request.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi hybrid,

Tertullian was a Trinitarian, why

Tertullian believed that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son." He also says God has not always been a Father. It doesn't get any clearer than that. For this he was branded a heretic.

… the Nicene fathers basically modeled the creed from his Trinitarian concept.

Tertullian was neither here nor there hybrid! The Nicene creed could not have been modelled from his Trinitarian concept.He says God could not have been a Father previous to the Son, which is a concept Arius used.

We have been taught that He (reason) 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.

He did not believe the Son to be eternally generated, a concept essential to Trinitarianism but which is nowhere found in scripture.



I would have to say Tertullian was not a trinitarian in any reasonable sense which would be acceptable post Nicea. He believed in a created Son and his words must be filtered through this sieve.

best wishes,

 

[Odsolo]

By the way Odsolo,

You accused me of misrepresenting the Trinity.This is what you said:

I'm still waiting for you to defend your accusation and explain how and why I've "not correctly stated the trinity"..Either defend your charge or recant your accusation.

This is my fourth request.

best wishes,

LINK TO THE POST. You do understand English don't you.

 

[Odsolo]

Hi hybrid,

Tertullian believed that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son." He also says God has not always been a Father. It doesn't get any clearer than that. For this he was branded a heretic.

Tertullian was neither here nor there hybrid! The Nicene creed could not have been modelled from his Trinitarian concept.He says God could not have been a Father previous to the Son, which is a concept Arius used.

He did not believe the Son to be eternally generated, a concept essential to Trinitarianism but which is nowhere found in scripture.

I would have to say Tertullian was not a trinitarian in any reasonable sense which would be acceptable post Nicea. He believed in a created Son and his words must be filtered through this sieve.

The WTBS has been corrupting scripture for about 150 years. They have scores of wanna be, never was, never will be Bible scholars rewriting the Bible to fit their false doctrine. They have been flip-flopping on what they teach for the same length of time. All those so-called leaders and scholars with all the latest electronic research tools and they can't get it right.

And this same bunch of Bartimaeuses send their slaves out to criticize the early church because these Christian men, only a few years out of pagansim, who faced death every day for their faith, probably did not have a complete copy of the O.T. they certainly did not travel from town to down, country to country, with 40-50 pounds of scrolls, the N.T. had not been written, but this 'society" expects them to have a completely formulated, completely articulated doctrine, when NONE of them can do it.

And if you are going to claim to be quoting ECF, cite the specific writing, "Tertullian said. . ." ain't gonna get it.

 

[Odsolo]

Who says "the dead are not born"?
And who says firstborn is "not literal"? Did Christ not literally die and literally come to life again? The Saints also die and literally come to life once more . They are born again spiritually and physically ( resurrected from the dead literally). Christ is first among equals within the sub-set of those who are "born from the dead", the first of many brethen who are raised from the grave by God, the dead who are born again.

Cite any Greek source which equates resurrection with birth. Was Jesus the "first" person to ever be resurrected? Sub-set, schmub-set, you don't even know what the term means.

Btw., your latest "cut and paste" does nothing to support your argument, in my opinion.
best wishes,

Properly utilizing and citing sources is NOT cutting and pasting! Your meaningless repetition only makes you like a fool. You might try asking a librarian or an English teacher/professor what the term means. Shall I explain library or English teacher for you?

Cut-and-Paste Plagiarism:
Preventing, Detecting and Tracking Online Plagiarism
Lisa Hinchliffe
janicke@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
May 1998

What is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is a difficult concept to define. It includes a range of actions from failure to use proper citation to wholesale cheating. A student who plagiarizes may do so unintentionally or with planful deliberation.
In "Helping Student Avoid Plagiarism" Stephen Wilhoit lists the following types of plagiarism:

Buying a paper for a research service or term paper mill.
Turning in another student?s work without that student?s knowledge.
Turning in a paper a peer has written for the student.
Copying a paper from a source text without proper acknowledgment.
Copying materials from a source text, supplying proper documentation, but leaving out quotation marks.
Paraphrasing materials from a source text without appropriate documentation.

http://people.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/plagiary.htm​

 

[2ducklow]

First of all, "those whom thou hast given me" harkens more than just the disciples in my opinion, and in the opinion of most academics. But let's accept this refers only to the disciples. The argument is still the same . Ofcourse the clause may be one is in the subjunctive mood because this "oneness" Christ was praying for his own hadn't happened yet. That's the whole point of praying, Odsolo. It doesn't change anything as far as the argument goes.

I believe the ASV has this verse better translated.

John 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.ASV

God gave Jesus his own name "Jahweh the Saviour. So the point about who was given to Jesus, the disciples or all saints, becomes a moot point. Also, consider the biblical admonition to do all things in the name of Jesus.

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

We are kept in his name, where God placed us, by continually doing all things in the name of Jesus, baptism, healing, miracles, going to church etc.

 

[hybrid]

Tertullian believed that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son." He also says God has not always been a Father. It doesn't get any clearer than that. For this he was branded a heretic.

Let tertullian then explain himself….

200 AD Tertullian Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3)

tertulian was not saying that there was a time when the son was not!

He was saying there was a time when god was neither a father nor a son. IOW, the two are really co-existing. and he was saying this not as a doctrine but because he was demolishing the argument of hermogenes that matter was co-eternal with god.

GOD THEREFORE, AT ONCE BECAME A FATHER AND A SON!!!!

200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)

“the SON was at the BOSOM of the FATHER and always with the father.

Tertullian was neither here nor there hybrid! The Nicene creed could not have been modelled from his Trinitarian concept.He says God could not have been a Father previous to the Son, which is a concept Arius used.

far from arius, arius would not call the son god of the same essence of the father. And arius would not say that there was a time when the FATHER was not!
Observe the wordings of NICENE CREED and the wordings of tertulian below on trinity. they are almost identical.

Oh yes, tertulian was a trinitarian.

He did not believe the Son to be eternally generated, a concept essential to Trinitarianism but which is nowhere found in scripture.

tertullian believe in the CO-EXISTENCE OF THE FATHER,SON,SPIRIT. that's eternal genration to me. i made it green below so you won't miss it.

The distinctive feature of the Second Person of the Trinity is that He alone is eternally begotten. He is God the Son within the Trinity. This eternal begetting is indicated in John 1:14, 18, 3:16-18.

I would have to say Tertullian was not a trinitarian in any reasonable sense which would be acceptable post Nicea. He believed in a created Son and his words must be filtered through this sieve.

think again friend…..here’s some of tertulian’s words on trinity. For space, these are not all but some only.

• 200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
• 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).
• 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)
• 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
• 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
• 200 AD Tertullian "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 his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21)

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

Right off the back (even without resorting to the Greek) in John 1:1 you will note that the "Word" cannot be God because it was "with God". Something that is with something cannot also be that something. For instance it's senseless to say you are with yourself. So the "Word" spoken of here is not God(Elohim), but god(Elohim) like Moses, in Ex. 7:1.

The text from John 1 also states the "Word was God".

And that's another reason why Jesus cannot be God , because the heavens and earth were created through Jesus(John 1:3), not by him as Gen. 1:1 says. For example, Irenaeus in his wirtings says God used Christ as a woodcutter used an axe in the creation act.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.

I think Irenaeus is in the ballpark with his analogy. Unfortunately, analogies fall short of describing the Godhead. Every analogy I've come across or thought of cannot explain it.

This is another good verse proving Jesus cannot be God since he was crowned with glory and honour and set over the works of Yhwh. The true God on the other hand has never been without glory, or honour and to say that He is or can be set over the works of His own hands is nonsensical.

Don't forget that the Son was made lower than the angels for a purpose.

Here's one of my favourites showing from Jesus's own lips why he could not have been God:


“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 RSV).

Here's one of my faves...

Joh 14:7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?

But it still speaks loud and clear to those who are willing to listen.

Yep, it sure do. He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father.....

<><

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

Right off the back (even without resorting to the Greek) in John 1:1 you will note that the "Word" cannot be God because it was "with God". Something that is with something cannot also be that something. For instance it's senseless to say you are with yourself. So the "Word" spoken of here is not God(Elohim), but god(Elohim) like Moses, in Ex. 7:1.

The text from John 1 also states the "Word was God".

And that's another reason why Jesus cannot be God , because the heavens and earth were created through Jesus(John 1:3), not by him as Gen. 1:1 says. For example, Irenaeus in his wirtings says God used Christ as a woodcutter used an axe in the creation act.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.

I think Irenaeus is in the ballpark with his analogy. Unfortunately, analogies fall short of describing the Godhead. Every analogy I've come across or thought of cannot explain it.

This is another good verse proving Jesus cannot be God since he was crowned with glory and honour and set over the works of Yhwh. The true God on the other hand has never been without glory, or honour and to say that He is or can be set over the works of His own hands is nonsensical.

Don't forget that the Son was made lower than the angels for a purpose.

Here's one of my favourites showing from Jesus's own lips why he could not have been God:


“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 RSV).

Here's one of my faves...

Joh 14:7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?

But it still speaks loud and clear to those who are willing to listen.

Yep, it sure do. He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father.....

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Daneel,

The text from John 1 also states the "Word was God".

Isn't this what I tried explaining to you last post, that the term used to designate the "Word" is Theos(God), as opposed to Ho Theos(The God) when it refers to God Almighty in the context of John 1:1? You're missing the point because you're relying on the trinitarianEnglish translation which does not distinguish between Theos and Ho Theos in John 1:1. It's very clear in the Greek. That's what Origen is saying:



“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.”

Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.

But not by him.

Don't forget that the Son was made lower than the angels for a purpose.

God can't be made lower or higher.

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?

Because Jesus was the perfect image of the Father. If you want to take this literally it's a case for Modalism, not Trinitarianism.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi hybrid,

Let tertullian then explain himself….

200 AD Tertullian Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3)

tertulian was not saying that there was a time when the son was not!

Tertullian is saying there was a time when the Son was not a distinct person from the Father, which is problametic for the trinitatian conception, no matter how you try to parcel his words.

. IOW, the two are really co-existing. and he was saying this not as a doctrine but because he was demolishing the argument of hermogenes that matter was co-eternal with god.

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that Tertullian is saying the Son was always co-existing with the Father . Tertullian clearly says the opposite:"There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son;". Even if we accept your read , it's still problametic from the Trinitarian point of view. It would mean the Son was "co-existing" with the Father but not as the Son. What was he "co-existing" with God as before he became the Son? The Trinity doctrine demands that the Son as always existing with the Father as the Son, unchangeable, and as a separate person from the Father. Tertullian says the complete opposite.This is certainly not trinitarianism as the Niceans would later see it.
He's saying God's "Reason" was an effluence from the Father at a point in time after the creation act and becoming the Son.

200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself.

Here Tertullian is speaking of a time prior to the emergence of the Son. Or are you suggesting God's "Reason" was a separate "person" with Him before He became a Father? Problametic.

200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)

Even Arias believed in a Trinity, hybrid.

200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).

Christ is a Divine affluence of God, Tertullian would say, as a spark is of the fire but not the fire, as the rays of the Sun are not the Sun. Christ was not always the Son of God, but existed in God as God's "reason", and not as a separate person before the creation. You could accuse him of Modalism and Deism, but not really of Nicean trinitarianism.


best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

I believe the ASV has this verse better translated.

John 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.ASV

.

I agree.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Cite any Greek source which equates resurrection with birth. Was Jesus the "first" person to ever be resurrected? Sub-set, schmub-set, you don't even know what the term means.

Jesus was the first person to remain alive after the resurrection, hence he's the first born from the dead.. That's the reason he's called the Alpha and Omega. Get it?

Properly utilizing and citing sources is NOT cutting and pasting! Your meaningless repetition only makes you like a fool. You might try asking a librarian or an English teacher/professor what the term means. Shall I explain library or English teacher for you?

Cut-and-Paste Plagiarism: Preventing, Detecting and Tracking Online Plagiarism

Lisa Hinchliffe
janicke@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
May 1998

What is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is a difficult concept to define. It includes a range of actions from failure to use proper citation to wholesale cheating. A student who plagiarizes may do so unintentionally or with planful deliberation.
In "Helping Student Avoid Plagiarism" Stephen Wilhoit lists the following types of plagiarism:

Buying a paper for a research service or term paper mill.
Turning in another student?s work without that student?s knowledge.
Turning in a paper a peer has written for the student.
Copying a paper from a source text without proper acknowledgment.
Copying materials from a source text, supplying proper documentation, but leaving out quotation marks.
Paraphrasing materials from a source text without appropriate documentation.

http://people.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/plagiary.htm

​

This is another example of a "cut and paste" from you which serves no purpose , in my opinion.


best wishes,