Jesus and the Trinity

Odsolo · Nov 28, 2005

Balthasar said:
Is that the extent of your refutation? All Greek scholars have taken note that the article Ho is missing in John 1:1 when referring to the Word as God.

Irrelevant! How many times in John chapter one does "theos" occur without the article? How many times does "Theos" occur in the N.T., without the article, and exactly how many times does it refer to anything or anyone other than YHWH?

I don't know how much clearer Origen could have gotten Odsolo. He says when A. John refers to the Word(Logos) the article Ho is missing from Theos in John 1:1.

Irrelevant, see first reply,above. You still quoted Origen out-of-context, trying to make it appear he said something he did not say. Anyone can see several ellipses, in your quote. What you quoted was part of his discussion and you ignored his conclusion, which I quoted for you. And you continue to ignore it, plus anything and everything else that does not agree with you

Odsolo · Nov 28, 2005

Balthasar said:
Are you saying resurrection has nothing to do with birth?

Second request. Please show me any grammatical, lexical, historical, Biblical Greek language resource that equates "resurrection" with "birth"?

hybrid · Nov 28, 2005

Odsolo said:
Irrelevant! How many times in John chapter one does "theos" occur without the article? How many times does "Theos" occur in the N.T., without the article, and exactly how many times does it refer to anything or anyone other than YHWH?

only once, when it was referred to satan as god of this world which i think was f an exception to the rule.

as a general rule then, the rest all refer to god almighty.
so that when thomas said to JEsus, the lord of me (whom of course as a JEw would be YHWH and the god of me (again, the god of the jews is YHWH) ,

thomas basically reffered to Jesus as YHWH.

never got clearer than that.

gort · Nov 28, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi daneel,

Are you kidding me? Everyone with an ounce of Greek knows the article is missing when the Logos is called God in John 1:1. Odsolo claims to know Greek, ask him. I'm not in the business of furnishing scholars for the obvious. Or ask any trinitarian who knows Greek, or any Greek speaking person, if you don't believe me.

snip>

best wishes,

Yes, I actually don't know Greek. Nor do I have to because we are'nt talking about a man, or satan or any other derivitive of word dissection other than the actual meaning of the context which is God Almighty.

What is the the point of your bringing up 'Ho" in regards to theos anyway?

Is the context of what's said in John 1 anything other than God Almighty?

<><

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Irrelevant!

On the contrary!

How many times in John chapter one does "theos" occur without the article?

A few times..

How many times does "Theos" occur in the N.T., without the article, and exactly how many times does it refer to anything or anyone other than YHWH?

Theos occurs in the NT without the article quite a few times. Following are some instances where Theos(God) occurs without the article and it does not refer to God or Jesus.

John 10:34, Acts. 7:43, 12:22, 28:6, Phil., 3:19, 2 Thes. 2:7, etc.

As you can see even human judges are referred to as Theos in the NT in John 10:34, and by none other than Jesus himself. So why do trinitarians think Jesus is God when he's called Theos(God) in John 1:1? Trinitarians are kept in darkness regarding these simple truths by their leaders, I'm afraid.

Please tell me Odsolo , do you know Greek or not?

Irrelevant, see first reply,above.

It's not irrelevant Odsolo!

You still quoted Origen out-of-context, trying to make it appear he said something he did not say.

No I didn't quote Origen out of context, Odsolo. His words are clear. Read what he says agian, and his conclusion which I've already posted a few times now!

Anyone can see several ellipses, in your quote. What you quoted was part of his discussion and you ignored his conclusion, which I quoted for you. And you continue to ignore it, plus anything and everything else that does not agree with you

I quoted the gist of his argument Odsolo. I did not ignore his conclusion. Please re-read it .

P.S. You accused me of misrepresenting the trinity doctrine in post 660. Plesase show me how and why. Either come clean or recant your accusation.

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi daneel,

Yes, I actually don't know Greek.

Thanks for being honest, I respect that. From my part, I know some Greek, but not nearly enough.

Nor do I have to because we are'nt talking about a man, or satan or any other derivitive of word dissection other than the actual meaning of the context which is God Almighty.

The point is that in scripture even human judges(John 10:34) are called Theos(God, without the article Ho) same way Jesus is called Theos(God,without the article Ho) in John 1:1. So why do you conclude Jesus is God Almighty simply because he's called Theos but the human judges in John 10:34 are not God Almighty even though they are called the same?

What is the the point of your bringing up 'Ho" in regards to theos anyway?

See above.

Is the context of what's said in John 1 anything other than God Almighty?

It seems to be, in light of the context and structure of the prologue of John. Even Origen, the Greek expert, caught on to it almost 2000 years ago!

best wishes,

hybrid · Nov 28, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi hybrid,
As I pointed out to you last post Tertullian believed the angels, which God also brought forth, shared in the same "substance' of God.

oh really?

Wow! So you think Tertullian believed there was a time when God was not a Trinity. And where does Tertullian say there was a time when God was not a Holy Spirit? As far as I can tell, he says there was a time when the Son was not and God was not a Father.

God decided to be triune ? Wasn't He always a trinity?

please reread my previous post carefully. the answer is there for you to understand

This is Sabelliasm.

no, tertullian said at once (simultaneously) god was the father, the son and the spirit.
if he was a modalist he will say "god successively became the father, then the son then the spirit.

or he would say in his analogy about the sun and the ray as

the sun became the ray. but no he said the sun shoots its beam without leaving the source.

You see no contradiction between Sabelliasm and trinitarianism?

i think you are the one who is confused about the two.

Let me get this right: Is it your assertion that once upon a time there were not three persons in the Godhead(divine family)? Yes or No?

NO.the father and the son and the spirit were IN THE BEGINNING.

if you read carefully my post, i posted that they said that the event was BEFORE THE BEGINNING.

it was said in hope that you woud understand the logic of divine economy and not to be misunderstood as such.

you do can think beyond the beginning, can you? or your not a deep thinking egghead? it's nice to be once in a while.

So it's ok to refer to the Son as the Father?

not for me

I don't know how orthodox your trinitarianism is. It's a hybrid doctrine, and Semi-Sabelliastic at the least.
Tertullian joined the montanists who were Modalistic in approach.

Just my two cents, and best wishes,

am i suppose to cry over this?
nah, if you misjudged tertullian as being a modalist, i'm not a bit surprise if you misjudged my beliefs either.

balthasar, if you missed it, this is what i believe....

The Creator of heaven and earth, because of His infinite love for His wayward creatures became one of them and died for them in order to bring them back to His fold.

call me what you want, as long as it is understood to be this. i can live with that.

thanks.

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi hybrid,

only once, when it was referred to satan as god of this world which i think was f an exception to the rule.

Good point! Satan is refered to as Ho Theos , with the article just like God Almighty!

as a general rule then, the rest all refer to god almighty.

Yes!!

so that when thomas said to JEsus, the lord of me (whom of course as a JEw would be YHWH and the god of me (again, the god of the jews is YHWH) ,

thomas basically reffered to Jesus as YHWH.

Two points:

(a) Even Satan is referred to as Ho Theos as you yourself pointed out. But you don't seem to think Satan is God Almighty because of it, or do you? Following are the staticstic: Satan is called Ho Theos once in scripture in 2 Cor. 4:4, and if we take your interpretation of Thomas's words, Jesus is also called Ho Theos once in the NT....

(B) But your interpretation of Thomas's words is wrong(I can get into detail if you want me to), so we are essentially left with only God Almighty being referred to as Ho Theos in the NT, 99.9% and Satan referred to as Ho Theos once, 0.01%! Jesus is never referred to as Ho Theos(the Thomas verse is the only tentative one, but it is subject to varying interpretations, so it doesn't count) , only as Theos, like the angels , judges and other created beings; This should tell us something !!

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi hybrid,

oh really?

Yes really.

please reread my previous post carefully. the answer is there for you to understand

I've read your words carefully, but they do not represent what Tertullian is saying.

no, tertullian said at once (simultaneously) god was the father, the son and the spirit.

This is not what the Nicene creed teaches. The three persons have always been distinct. To say God was at once the father, the son and the spirit at one point but now is not at once the father, the son and the spirit is heretical, I'm afraid. Tertullian did say something to this effect, but he included the angels in hisfamily of gods as well since he said they were sparkes of his essence.

if he was a modalist he will say "god successively became the father, then the son then the spirit.

Not really. Modalists believe God is one person and wears the mask of father, son and holy spirit at will. You're essentially saying the same thing . You're saying God was at one point in time at once God the father, the son and the holy spirit. Where's the distinction between the three persons ?

or he would say in his analogy about the sun and the ray as

the sun became the ray. but no he said the sun shoots its beam without leaving the source.

Exactly. Tertullian said the angels too which shoot out from the sun, as it were, are a part of God's essence.

i think you are the one who is confused about the two.

I guarantee I'm not confused betwen the two.

NO.the father and the son and the spirit were IN THE BEGINNING.

Tertullian said there was a time when the Son was not and there wasa time when God wasn't a Father. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

if you read carefully my post, i posted that they said that the event was BEFORE THE BEGINNING.

Basically you're saying your God was in a different mode(no pun intended) before the beginning.

it was said in hope that you woud understand the logic of divine economy and not to be misunderstood as such.

The divine economy distinguishes between the persons of the trinity at all times, and forever , and separates them as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There was never a time when God was at once Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as you are suggesting. And by the way, there is no "logic" to the trinity.

you do can think beyond the beginning, can you? or your not a deep thinking egghead? it's nice to be once in a while.

That's not an argument. I'm simply pointing out to you where and how you're being "heretical" in your beliefs.

am i suppose to cry over this?
nah, if you misjudged tertullian as being a modalist, i'm not a bit surprise if you misjudged my beliefs either.

Do you know he was a Montanist?

The Creator of heaven and earth, because of His infinite love for His wayward creatures became one of them and died for them in order to bring them back to His fold.

call me what you want, as long as it is understood to be this. i can live with that.

To me that's absurd. The OT clearly states, and in numerous places, that God is not a man, and God does not die. YHWH warned us about worshipping strange gods. I will listen to Him rather than to any man, woman , angel or man-made doctrine.

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Odsolo said:
Second request. Please show me any grammatical, lexical, historical, Biblical Greek language resource that equates "resurrection" with "birth"?

Strawman. I never equated "resurrection" with "birth". My point is that if a man is truly "born from above", it certainly leads to his resurrection; there cannot be the new birth only, without the ultimate , corresponding and eventual resurrection. The two are interrelated concepts but not grammatically "equal" terms.

best wishes,

P.S. You accused me or misrepresenting the trinity doctrine. Please tell me how I've misrepresented the trinity doctrine. Either do that or recant your accusation.

This is my 9th request.

gort · Nov 28, 2005

Balthasar quotes:

The point is that in scripture even human judges(John 10:34) are called Theos(God, without the article Ho) same way Jesus is called Theos(God,without the article Ho) in John 1:1. So why do you conclude Jesus is God Almighty simply because he's called Theos but the human judges in John 10:34 are not God Almighty even though they are called the same?

Yes, I'm aware of these other meanings.

None of them would fit the context of John 1?
yes/no?

Can the Logos be anything but the divine expression of God Almighty?

<><

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi again hybrid,

Following needs extra treatment.

hybrid said:
oh really?

no, tertullian said at once (simultaneously) god was the father, the son and the spirit.
if he was a modalist he will say "god successively became the father, then the son then the spirit.

or he would say in his analogy about the sun and the ray as

the sun became the ray. but no he said the sun shoots its beam without leaving the source.

i think you are the one who is confused about the two.

NO.the father and the son and the spirit were IN THE BEGINNING.

if you read carefully my post, i posted that they said that the event was BEFORE THE BEGINNING.

.

I hope I don't hurt your feelings but you're falling under the same "heresy" Tertullian did. As you well know Tertullian was a Montanist . Montanists had Monarchianistic tendencies. There are basically only two models of Monarchianism, both heretical,-- Modalism and Adoptionism. If you don't believe me, following is a scholarly link which put's the Montanist heresy in perspective for you:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_montanists_wright.html

1. Allegations of monarchianism

In the later fourth century the opinion prevailed that their chief fault lay in their monarchianism, that is, their rejection of permanent personal distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit in the Godhead. The Council of Constantinople in 381 condemned Montanists in these terms (canon 7), and Jerome placed their Sabellian (i.e., monarchian) breach of the 'rule of faith' at the head of his catalogue of their aber rations (Sources, pp. 167-168). Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (died c. 398) did likewise in explaining why the church refused to recognize Montanist baptisms.

I'm sorry hybrid.

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 28, 2005

Hi daneel,

daneel said:
Yes, I'm aware of these other meanings.

None of them would fit the context of John 1?
yes/no?

<><

Didn't you understand anything that has just been said? The Greek word for God as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is Theos. This word Theos is used even of human judges and of Angels in the NT. So it's not unique to Christ. Just because the second part of John 1:1 says, "...and the Word(Logos) was God(Theos)" does not make Christ God Almighty.

Can the Logos be anything but the divine expression of God Almighty?

No. The Logos is an "expression of God" , God's image. Christ is the "image and glory of God" (1 Cor. 11:7) . It's like a son who is the splitting image or expression of his father .

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 29, 2005

One more thought Hybrid,

The word substance in the Greek language is rendered as "ousia", which means "that which truly is". "Substance" was used by the trinitarian Niceans to define the idea of "essence" or "nature". Athanasius viewed the word homousios as defining the Son as one substance with the Father. So in the Athanasian creed the Son was truly and essentially God as was the Father. The only distinction being that they were separate persons , withing the same being( a mystery not logically explainable.)

The trinitarian scholar Dr. Adolph Harnack pointed out that Tertullian's trinity is nothing more than the Gnostic doctrine of aeons applied in its full form. Only difference being that Tertullian and Hippolytus generally limited its usage to the Father and the Son, which Gnostics did not. But as I've already pointed out to you hybrid in a couple of previous posts, Tertullian did on occasion render the angels as of the same substance as God the Father. Revisit them!

best wishes,

Odsolo · Nov 29, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi Odsolo,

In post 660 you made the following accusation:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20192496&postcount=660

Show me where,how and why I've misrepresented the trinity doctrine.

If you cannot show where, how and why I've not correctly stated the trinity, please recant your accusation.

This is my fifth request.

Stuff your meaningless complaints. How many of my posts have you ignored? I already gave you part of the answer. The Trinity does NOT say anything. The doctrine of the Trinity might state some things but the Trinity does NOT speak.

The doctrine of the Trinity does NOT say that God is a human being. Neither did Jesus. And you contradict yourself. First you say Jesus did not say that God was a man, then you argue that he not only said that but that God was a human being. So which is it?

Why did you misrepresent the Trinity? If you don't know I can't help you.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20192496&postcount=660

Odsolo · Nov 29, 2005

Balthasar said:
. . .
The trinitarian scholar Dr. Adolph Harnack pointed out that Tertullian's trinity is nothing more than the Gnostic doctrine of aeons applied in its full form. Only difference being that Tertullian and Hippolytus generally limited its usage to the Father and the Son, which Gnostics did not. But as I've already pointed out to you hybrid in a couple of previous posts, Tertullian did on occasion render the angels as of the same substance as God the Father. Revisit them!

Who was Harnack, what was his Theology, does he represent any significant segment of Christian thought? And why should I care? You got a bad habit of saying this ECF said this and that ECF said something else, without citing the source.

If you have a relevant citation, quote it and ID it. And more than likely I will show you how you are deliberately quoting out-of-context, as I have done several times already.

Odsolo · Nov 29, 2005

Balthasar said:
Didn't you understand anything that has just been said? The Greek word for God as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is Theos. This word Theos is used even of human judges and of Angels in the NT. So it's not unique to Christ. Just because the second part of John 1:1 says, "...and the Word(Logos) was God(Theos)" does not make Christ God Almighty.

The word "Theos" is NEVER used of Judges or angels in the N.T. Every competent, Greek scholar will tell you John was literally saying that that Logos was God, almighty. And John was not saying anything new.

No. The Logos is an "expression of God" , God's image. Christ is the "image and glory of God" (1 Cor. 11:7) . It's like a son who is the splitting image or expression of his father.

For more than 700 years, before Jesus, when Aramaic speaking Jews read their scriptures "The Word" was literally God, and God was literally "The Word."

Jewish Encyclopedia-Memra

The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]/YHWH]] when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

In the Targum: [Aramaic translations of the O.T. during the Babylonian captivity, ca. 700 BC]

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra, (i.e. Word)" instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.).

Not "God," but "the Memra,"[/b] is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra [vice: Himself] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...id=399&letter=M

Odsolo · Nov 29, 2005

Balthasar said:
Following needs extra treatment.

I hope I don't hurt your feelings but you're falling under the same "heresy" Tertullian did. As you well know Tertullian was a Montanist . Montanists had Monarchianistic tendencies. There are basically only two models of Monarchianism, both heretical,-- Modalism and Adoptionism. If you don't believe me, following is a scholarly link which put's the Montanist heresy in perspective for you:

Your post is the one that needs work. Tertullian was orthodox earlier in his life, he turned to Montanism much later. The link is irrelevant.

gort · Nov 29, 2005

Balthasar quotes:

Didn't you understand anything that has just been said? The Greek word for God as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is Theos. This word Theos is used even of human judges and of Angels in the NT. So it's not unique to Christ. Just because the second part of John 1:1 says, "...and the Word(Logos) was God(Theos)" does not make Christ God Almighty.

No, I can't grasp just what it is you're saying here. So it's not unique to Christ. So what? You're telling me that theos is not make Christ God Almighty......so what does it make? What's the context make it to be???

SHow me. Make it fit into your system. Render the word theos for what you see it to be. Just don't tell me what it can't be!

Balthasar · Nov 29, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Stuff your meaningless complaints. How many of my posts have you ignored? I already gave you part of the answer. The Trinity does NOT say anything. The doctrine of the Trinity might state some things but the Trinity does NOT speak.

My goodness! Is that the extent of your complaint? For example if I told you Pythagoras theorm says c squared = a squared + b squared,would you also turn around and accuse me of "misrepresenting" Pythagoras because "theorms do not speak"?

Where's the substance in your accusation?

The doctrine of the Trinity does NOT say that God is a human being.

Odsolo,the hypostatic union, which is essential to understanding the trinity doctrine says God(Jesus) is fully human and fully God. If you do not believe God is fully human , you're a heretic!

Do you believe God(Jesus) is fully human? Yes or No?

Neither did Jesus. And you contradict yourself. First you say Jesus did not say that God was a man, then you argue that he not only said that but that God was a human being. So which is it?

Odsolo, could you please show me where I've ever stated Jesus said God is a man? Jesus would never say such a thing, only trinitarians say such things.

Odsolo, if you don't think God (Jesus) is fully human you're a heretic.

Do you or do you not believe Jesus(God) is fully human?

I don't think you fully understand what the trinity doctrine truly says nor the fundamental concepts of the hypostatic union, frankly.

Why did you misrepresent the Trinity? If you don't know I can't help you.

Odsolo, you're clutching at straws. Do you or do you not believe Jesus(God) is fully human ?.

Odsolo, there are very few people who understand the trinity doctrine or the hypostatic union better than me.

best wishes,

Jesus and the Trinity

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

hybrid

Guest

gort

pedantric

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

hybrid

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

gort

pedantric

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

gort

pedantric

Balthasar

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency