trinity question

[Bananna]

Quote

[SIZE=-1]5:5-7 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof....And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.[/B[/SIZE]

The right hand of him that sat on the throne.

We already went over that one. It was determined that Yehoshuah is the right hand of God. This is a place of service not a physical reality.
bananna

 

[jeffC]

Quote

[SIZE=-1]5:5-7 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof....And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.[/B[/SIZE]

The right hand of him that sat on the throne.

We already went over that one. It was determined that Yehoshuah is the right hand of God. This is a place of service not a physical reality.
bananna

you'll have to point me to where that discussion took place - I am not familiar with who came to what conclusions. As far as that interpretation goes, my first response is in my next post.

 

[jeffC]

Before one presumes to lecture another, especially another who has been a Christian for about 2 decades longer than one has been alive, one should know what they are talking about and have their facts straight. You don't. ... If you are going to try to reply, and impress me with your "knowledge" at least do me the courtesy of actually reading what I post? ...

Why all the condescention? I hope my comments don't come accross as rude; I am only sharing my POV, as is traditional on this forum. I respect that you are probably much better read on this topic, and that your understanding of the Trinity doctrines is more vast than mine; I don't claim to have an extensive background, but neither do I think that my understanding is as far off as you claim. I fully expect that I will learn something new from this encounter, but it won't be that the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical; I find the Bible is too clear on this matter.

Please be so kind as to show me where I have interpreted the Bible in the wrong way. In the meantime consider this, from Jewish sources.
...

How does what is taught or infered in Cabala change what is in the OT? My claim centered on the written law, not what oral tradition may or may not have existed way back when, and not on the Zohar that surfaced in the 13th century AD. Consider this, from Catholic sources.


"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT.... The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, "Trinity, in the Bible", p306), [quoted elsewhere]


The online Catholic Encyclopedia recognises that there are some who will point to whisperings of the Trinity in the OT, but others take "what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant." ("Trinity in the Scriptures")


Since you asked, from my point of view your position on the OT scriptures you quoted contradicts the Bible because you apparently apply a homoousios interpretation to scriptures saying there is one God, while Biblical doctrine indicates that a unity of purpose most completely embraces all NT teachings on Deity, and clearly indicates numerical distinction between the members.

There are not and cannot be two Gods. That is clearly stated throughout the OT and the NT. I posted most of the OT scriptures in my previous post which you apparently ignored...


"must be done with the knowledge that Jesus and the Father are separate entities." This is called reading your assumptions and presuppositions into the text.

Not at all. Does the NT not also say there is but one God? The NT discusses every core requirement to understanding the Godhead. At least three ways are described: 1) Ultimately to there is only one God: the Father. He is Jesus' God, and our God.(John 20:17; 1 Cor 8:4-6); 2) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose. (John 17:11,21-23); 3) The Godhead itself is one body comprised of three separate members, each of which is divine. Most scriptures in both the OT and NT that describe deity are in one of these contexts.


Do you not agree that the NT shines more light on the OT? Though you chided me for my "presumption," I did not see where you disagreed with me. My stance remains unchanged: the OT does not exist in a vacuum void of NT illumination.

If we have the NT to help us sort this out then why don't you use it? Instead of just your handful of out-of-context proof texts.... Kneejerk out-of-context proof text. As you clearly noted Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one" "May" is in the subjunctive mood. Look it up.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was praying for something that was impossible? If so I do not share your opinion. The clause in the subjunctive is less important here than that which is indicative: "that they may be one, even as we are one."(v22)


How exactly is this out of context? These verses are frequently used by Trinitarians themselves to counter unitarians. They clearly demonstrate Jesus' meaning when He declares that He and His Father are one and also demonstrates Their physical distinction. Thus they also quite pertinently provide an alternative interpretation to the OT scriptures in your first post. The kneejerk reaction is your own.

And that "oneness" never happened during the disciple's lifetime. Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied him. The others ran and hid. Later Paul got in Peter's face because he was shunning gentile Christians. What may or may not happen in the resurrection, with the disciples, cannot prove anything about the then and there unity of Jesus and the Father.

This isn't relevant.

If you ever deign to provide a definitive to response to this [OT teachings of multiple gods] let me know. But please read the ECF before doing so. Especially Justin, Dialogue with Trypho. late 1st early 2d century, "True God from True God without abscission." i.e. "cutting off."

There seems to be enough on the plate as is. But a discussion of how or if the OT mentions multiple gods is unnecessary, because all that is needed for the purposes of this discussion is that there are two, dismissing the premise that there is just one.


I was unable to find "True God from True God without abscission" in the Dial. Trypho via an Internet search. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. I am, however, familiar with Justin's comparison of deity to fire, where he used the term "not by abscission" to mean that the source is not diminished for having generated another; in his analogy, there are in the end two fires.


"Justin wrote that the "first-begotten," the Logos, is the "first force after the Father:" he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure." Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 268.


"Then I replied, 'Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.'" Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch LVI.


"Thus while really distinct, the Three are from another point of view one; as he expresses it [Dial. Heracl. 2], 'we are not afraid to speak in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.'" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines quoting Origen Dial. Heracl. 2). "and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,"' has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12)




As for the ECF, I'm still workin' on them. But with my schedule, it'll be a while.

 

[jeffC]

[1]As you said "note the context." Jesus said "my throne," not the Father's throne. [2]His audience was never said to be one with Jesus or the Father. [3]His audience was never called God, [4]Jesus was; John 1:1, 14, 18, 1 Tim 3:16. Heb 1:8,9, Ro 10:13, Joh 20:28, Titus2:13, 2 Pe 1:1, etc.

1) Jesus compared the elect sitting in His throne to His own position in the Father's throne. Whatever the conclusions are that may be drawn, it does not follow from this verse that Jesus is one with the Father just because He sat in the Father's throne. We all may sit in Jesus' throne "even as" He sat in the Father's throne (cf. John 17:21-23). Your claim that there is only one throne undercuts your own argument here.


2) Jesus prayed that His followers would be one in the Father and in Himself even as[\B] the Father and Jesus are one in each other (John 17:21; Heb 2:11).


3) Not strictly true; (John 10:34; 1 Jn 3:2; Rom 8:16-17, cf. Heb. 1:2)


4) yes, Jesus was called God; this is not in contention. What is in contention is that Jesus is separate from His Father - He still gave the promise in v.21.

Is that a fact?


Vincent Word Studies ? Rev 4:1- A throne. See Ezekiel 1:26-28.
Was set (e?e?t?). Denoting merely position, not that the seer saw the placing of the throne. Compare John 2:6.
One sitting. He is called henceforward throughout the book He that sitteth
on the throne, and is distinguished from the Son in chapter 6:16; 7:10, and
from the Holy Spirit in verse 5. He is commonly understood to be God the Father; but some understand the triune God.79


Robertson Word Pictures ? Rev 4:1 {After these things} (\meta tauta\). Change in the panorama, not chronology (7:1,9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1). This vision is of heaven, not of earth as was true of chapters Re 1; 2. The first vision of Christ and the messages to the seven churches began in 1:12f. This new vision of the throne in heaven (4:1-11) succeeds that to which it here alludes....

Yes, it is. What was your intended point to these quotations? That "some understand the triune God?" Now that is called reading assumptions and presuppositions into the text. Otherwise, the quotes note the same details about the transition from ch. 3 to 4 that I did: 1) Ch. 4 begins with a new vision separate from the earthly context of Ch 1-3; 2) a specific throne is only now seen by John "set" in the heavens, and the one on the throne is the Father; 3) the Son is distinguished from the Father.


At the first mention of the Root of David (Jesus), He is not on the throne, but standing around it (Rev. 5:6, cf. 4:6). He approaches the throne and takes the book from the one on the throne. Subsequent to being slain, He receives "power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Yes, it is a fact that the Lamb is distinguished from the Father and is not on the throne with the Father in the new vision that starts in Ch. 4. The vision is of events that occurred before Jesus "overcame" and then sat with his Father (3:21).

And you proved this [distinct throne in Rev 20,21] how and when? Before you answer you might want to do a word search on the word "throne" in Revelation and make sure of all your facts. Read particularly the last several references the throne of God and the lamb....And exactly how many thrones of God do you count in Revelation? John repeatedly said "one throne."

Where did John say "one throne" even once?


I note at least three distinct contexts when a throne (T) is mentioned:


1) Ch. 3:21. Both the T of Jesus (my T) and the T of the Father (his T) are mentioned, but no specific T is seen by John. The promise Jesus makes is the same as those made as rewards for going to heaven. (Rom. 8:16-17; Rev. 21:7) Here the T mentioned most generally represents heaven (Matt. 5:34, Acts 7:49) and God and Jesus' presence in heaven.


2) Ch. 4-19. A new vision begins detailing heavenly rather than earthly matters. A specific T is seen as well as the one on the T. This T is set in heaven - it thus does not represent heaven in general. It is identified only once by "a throne" (4:2), not "his T;" thereafter it is referred to as "the T."* The one on the T is thereafter noted as "He that sitteth on the T," as the commentary you posted notes.


3) Ch. 20:11. "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it." This throne is distinguished in at least five ways: a) In stark contrast to every other occasion, "a T" is used instead of "the T." This implies a different T. As before "the T" is now used to identify the new white throne. b) the added detail that it is "a great white T" distinguishes it from the the T in 4:2. c) a personage other than "He that sitteth on the T" is identified as being on the new T. d) rather than the being surrounded by the "beasts" and elders, the dead now stand before the T. e) Jesus is now the person on the T. Furthermore, Verses 19:9-11 indicate closure to the vision begun in Ch. 4, and a new panorama.


By ch. 22, the context has changed again from judgment to a description of heaven. Thus the context is again that of (1) - and the throne of both Jesus and the Father is referenced. Here the throne is certainly not the same as that in Ch. 20, for "the Father judgeth no man" (John 5:22). Neither is it in the context of the throne surrounded by the beasts and elders, which is last referenced in Ch. 19:4-5. In Ch 22, a specific throne with "one" on it is not mentioned. Furthermore, the identity of the throne is now qualified: instead of simply "the throne," the text now reads "the throne of God and of the Lamb."




*(The one exception occurs in 12:5, where "her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." Here, the throne seen by John in vision is not being referenced directly. The meaning here is clearly "caught up to heaven.")

Which shows you know diddly squat about "traditional Trinitarian thinkingor for that matter the Trinitarian writing of the early church.

Allow me to elaborate. The following statements are drawn from the verses I listed
John 20:17. The Father is Jesus' God.
John 14:28. The Father is greater than Jesus.
John 5:26,30. The Father gave the Son to have life in Himself.
1 Cor 15:28. At the end of all things, the Son is also subject to the Father. The Father gave the son authority over all things (i.e. not just those pertaining to His "manhood").


In each of these verses, the Son is subordinate to the Father. In the final verse, it is indicated that this always has been and always will be the situation - the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father because the Father always has authority over Him. Just based on authority, the two cannot be co-equal; the role and status of the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

And you proved this "etymology "how and when? Reread my Philip 2:6-11 post. Then carefully look up all three occurrences of "morphe" in the NT all refer to Jesus.

My understanding of morphe came from Strong's definition AND the other uses of morphe I looked at.


morphe
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
2) external appearance


Perhaps derived from:
3313 // merov // meros // mer'-os //


from an obsolete but more primary form of meiromai (to get as a
section or allotment); TDNT - 4:594,585; n n


AV - part 24, portion 3, coast 3, behalf 2, respect 2, misc 9; 43


1) a part
1a) a part due or assigned to one
1b) lot, destiny
2) one of the constituent parts of a whole
2a) in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree,
as respects a part, severally, individually
2b) any particular, in regard to this, in this respect


I'm not sure to what you are referring with the other occurrences of "morphe." To my reading, each has to to with external appearance, not true quality. To arrive at a deeper conclusion requires interpretation, which is open to disagreement. Paul did not say "being God," but only having the form of God.

And you ignored my posting of Philip 2:6-11. Note particularly vss. 7 and 8. "He emptied himself and humbled himself and became obedient." ... Reread Philip 2:6-11 until you fully understand it. "Existing EQUAL with God." "Humbled himself became obedient" You do understand the meaning of "equal" particularly when it is not qualified in any way?

Consider the following alternative translations:

who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,(WEB)


who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, (ASV)


To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God; (BBE)


who, being in the form of God, thought 'it' not robbery to be equal to God, (YLT)

I have read that the difficulty in rendering this verse lies in the 'it', which is not present in the greek but is inferred by some translators. Removing the 'it' changes the meaning completely. Since I'm no expert in ancient languages, I'll have to (for now) go by the difficulties the above translators have had in rendering the verse uniformly to tell me that basing the entire doctrine of the Trinity on the semantics of this verse is a bad idea.


In my previous post I explained why Jesus humbled himself and became obedient himself. I find it interesting that though He humbled Himself, it was God that exalted Him, and gave Jesus the name above any other.(v.9) Jesus did not do that Himself. Also as I stated before, it is clear that the Father is and always has been in authority over Jesus. Jesus was an heir in all things of the Father, and in that way is equal in power and inheritence. But the very fact that it was the Father that provided Jesus with all things again underlines inherent inequality of authority that must exist, even in Philip. 2:6. The word equal doesn't need a qualifier - the entire NT is a qualifier. Paul's main point is to teach humility to His audience, not make a statement defining deity.

Jesus was distinct from the Father when he walked in the flesh. Trinitarians have no problem with that. God does not share the same physical, temporal, spatial limitations that you do, after all he is God, you aren't.

At what point was Jesus not distinct from the Father, then? Did it even happen in the NT? And when you say distinct, what do you mean? Was Jesus' spirit really the Father's, or did He have His own spirit? If He had his own spirit, where did it go?

 

[Bananna]

Excellent post Jeff,
However I can see that some definitions differ to the point of causing confusion. In some ways it is better to go back to using the Hebrew or the Greek transliteration, simply to avoid the apples exchanged for oranges.
I agree

Yehoshuah humbled himself as a man:

Jam 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Where I get lost on your proof is the difinition you give to divinity. Do you believe that we all are made in the image of the Father and there fore are divine? IE we are all sons of God?

Bananna

 

[jeffC]

Excellent post Jeff,
However I can see that some definitions differ to the point of causing confusion. In some ways it is better to go back to using the Hebrew or the Greek transliteration, simply to avoid the apples exchanged for oranges.
I agree

Yehoshuah humbled himself as a man:


Where I get lost on your proof is the difinition you give to divinity. Do you believe that we all are made in the image of the Father and there fore are divine? IE we are all sons of God?

Bananna

Thank you, but I am sure that there are some weaknesses in my arguments. I hope everyone will continue to point them out - it's always good to examine conclusions from alternate points of view.


My answer to your question is yes and no. I believe that we are all children (sons/daughters) of God (our spirits are anyway) in the image of God, and so we are divine. But, our divinity is more potential than fact. Whatever our final state, it is in the future. We must however admit that we have the potential to accept whatever blessings God chooses to bestow on us.

These biblical scriptures help me understand how we are sons of God: John 1:12; Gal 4:6,7; Philip 2:15; Heb 12:7; 1 Jn 3:1-2;

And these give indications of our divine potential: Matt 5:48; John 10:34; Acts 17:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Rev 3:21, 21:7.

The best passage (IMO) describing us as sons of God, and explaining the ramifications, is Romans 8. Just an excerpt:

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God [spiritually; My view is everyone has the same potential to be led by the Spirit].
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (cf. Heb 2:11)
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

However, for us (and Christ) there is but one God: the Father. Whatever divine potential God granted unto us does not diminish His glory or my worship of Him; rather for me, it enhances it. Also, I feel it important to emphasize a crucial fact: though it is possible for any of us to be a joint-heir with Christ, this does not mean that anyone will ever fully equal (in authority) Christ. Just as Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father, it is impossible for any joint-heir to be anything other than subordinate to Christ, though he too be "given all things". Christ was fully divine before the earth was even formed. Further, Christ is the sanctifier while we are the sanctified:

For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers, Heb 2:11 (WEB)

Does this clarify my views on our divinity and how it is the same and how it is different from that of Christ and the Father?

 

[Bananna]

Well I hope you will accept my sincere appology for all those times I listened to gossip/slander about Mormons and their beliefs.

Shalom Aleichem
bananna

 

[jeffC]

Well I hope you will accept my sincere appology for all those times I listened to gossip/slander about Mormons and their beliefs.

Shalom Aleichem
bananna

That is very kind of you. Wouldn't the world be much more wonderful if everyone gossiped and slandered just a little bit less? I'll start with myself.

Shalom

 

[The Gregorian]

[Staff Edit] Thankyou goodbye!

So... you just think about it... and whatever you end up assuming to be true, you claim god told you... and that if you think of something (obviously meaning God or Satan spoke to you) you can absolutely judge whether it's right (and therefore God talking) or wrong (therefore satan)?

That's... a pretty dangerous assumtion there. What about the times God has told people to kill... is killing not a sin? But sometimes evil must be done for the greater good.

 

[Bananna]

Greg thats a bit harsh.
Not all have the same spiritual gifts. Discernment, knowledge and even foreknowledge are give by God to whom he will and frankly them things are not taken seriously enough by our generation so no one has taught how to test and use such gifts properly in this generation.

I had a hard time sifting through all the faith Healing garbage to get the gems of what God wanted me to do with my gift of Knowledge and sometimes foreknowledge. It is a scary thing at times and You just can't explain it to someone who does not have the gift. It just has to be tested. And if you don't believe in such gifts all the signs and wonders in the world won't make you consider them from God.

Ask and you will receive if you ask in faith. Faith is an action word that mean acting on it as if it were true and obeying the Torah. If the path you go down is not correct the scriptures suddenly come to mind and the desire to change direction comes from the spirit.

But ofcourse you have to be learning Torah, studying torah, living Torah then comes understanding of Torah.

bananna

 

[The Gregorian]

aye. It was a little harsh... but I've been talking to some scientologists recently so the whole "I just close my eyes and let my mind wander, and whatever I think of must be true, even though it makes no sense whatsoever" thing... it just... bothers me.

However, it's VERY possible for God to be speaking to him, or anyone... he does that a lot regardless of whether you listen or not. And I agree partially with how he says it to... In my experience he doesn't flat out say 'this is god... here's what I want you to know,' rather he points things out in a way that makes it fairly obvious that I had some help.

But... I would definitely be careful about the whole "God told me the bible was a bunch of rubbish" thing. Because that very well could have been another influence talking. True... you said that influence told you that God wouldn't allow that influence to betray you if you didn't realize it... but... if that influence is less honest (for example: the father of all lies), What better way to make you believe you can trust him than by saying "Yes, satan can talk to you, but this isn't him right now... really.... now don't believe anything the bible says."

Yes, it IS VERY possible... I'm just saying everyone needs to be careful when they just "have a feeling that something's right" because it might not be God giving them that feeling. It could be satan, or it could just be an active imagination (i.e. scientology).

 

[Bananna]

I agree, saying the bible is just a bunch of babble is dangerous theologically.

I think we should test the voice that leads us.

I find that scipture becomes self explanitory dispite little translation difficulties, when kept in context and take at face value.

So has anyone leared anything new in the scriptures from this lively discussion?
I learned that Mormons do not teach a theology all that different from the Catholic or Baptist churches, though they have some definitions that are different.

bananna

 

[The Gregorian]

Mormonism is just like islam... in a way. Both consider themselves to be to christianity as christianity is to the jewish faith. I.e. Everyone agrees in the O.T. Jews stop there considering Jesus a wise man... but not worth overthrowing the laws in the O.T. Christians, muslims, and mormons all agree that christ had the right to overthrow those laws and the N.T. Was written. That's where Christians stop. Muslims and mormons believe Muhammad and Joseph Smith Came along and wrote yet another set of laws that overrule the OT and NT books of the bible.

It's an interesting relationship between the 4 religions. Another point many people make here are that mormons aren't christians... and... they aren't. At least... as much as christians aren't jews. Just thought that'd be an interesting Brain teaser especially for the mormons out there... Because another set of books was added to the OT and NT, you are no more "Christian" than "Jew." ... In a way. kind of...

Did that make any sense?

 

[Bananna]

I'm Messianic,

I believe that you have made too broad a statement. Acceptance of prophetic writing outside the bible happens in many Christian denominations, but the majority claim everyone else is apostate. I don't get hung up over the "EXTRA" writings of Joseph Smith, NT, DL Moody, Spergeon or who ever. The problem is that people grab hold of the new and ditch the old. If you think that the NT is better than the Talmud you are simply being bias. The Original scriptures of TORAH is what we should measure all other writings by and if it does not agree with what GOD himself dictated to the prophets to write down, then it should be tossed out pepriod. Most so called christian commentaries should be burned as they are misleading the people with Knowlege the stumbling block preventing understanding.

Bananna

 

[Godfixated]

Here is something I wrote a while ago in the Church and State forum:
In my defense of the topic of Jesus Christ not being God, I first want to say that I studied the Word quite a bit so that I knew that I was right according to the Word. I was raised to not go to the Word with a subjective mind and I to let the Word speak for itself. This is a somewhat serious topic so it was extremely critical that I follow, 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." I have memorized this first to always keep it in my head so that I would get my own meaning out of the Word, but God's alone.
I find that to have a better understanding of the Word is to sometimes go to the Hebrew and Greek texts. These have opened my eyes on seemingly "vague" verses. As you probably know, God has many names. He should because He is so wonderful. He is referred to Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah, and Ho theos, just to name a few. It is interesting to note that Jesus Christ is never called one of these names. He has been referred to as adoni, kurion, and theos. These, of course, are not all of His names, but these are the main ones. Adoni andkurion are always human. Theos can be translated into god, but it was a common practice in Greek to call your human lord theos. Ho theos only refers to God almighty. Some examples of these being used are Psalm 110:1, John 20:28, and Acts 2:36. It is also interesting to note that God is called God thousands of times in the Bible, but Jesus Christ is only called God twice. John 20:28 is one of them and the other is in the Old Testament but I not sure exactly where, I think it is in Amos.
Psalm 110:1," The LORD (God, Adonai) said unto my Lord (Jesus Christ, Adoni), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
John 20:28,"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord (kurion) and my God (theos)."
Acts 2:36,"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord (kurion) and Christ.
Another place where the Greek texts make a difference is John 10:30 and John 1:1, which you have already mentioned. John 10:30 cleary states,"I and My Father are one." This can easily be taken to say that He is God, but if you look at the Greek, this just isn't so. The word, one, in this verse is derived from the Greek word, hen. Hen means oneness of purpose, it does not mean the same exact. In John 1:1, it says," In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is one of those so called "vague" verses that people just put their own meaning to. If you look at the Greek texts, you immediately see that the word "with" in the verse is the Greek word pros and it means to be together with, but distinctly independent of. So obviously can't mean what most Trinitarians think it means. Pros is used in John 1:2, as well. "The same was in the beginning with (pros) God." If you read the context of the rest of John 1, it never even hints that Jesus Christ is God, but that Jesus was in God's foreknowledge. It, also, mentions that we were in God's foreknowledge, also. So, technically, we were with Him in the beginning, as well. So John 1:1 can be seen as this,"In the beginning was God, and the Word made flesh was together but distinctly independent of God, and the foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was God."
Here are some other verses to consider just by reading them.
John 10:33-38,"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
If Jesus was claiming to be God, shouldn't this had been a good time to say so? He never says that He is God. Actually, He says that He is not God.
Deuteronomy 6:4,"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
1 Corinthians 8:6,"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
Ephesians 4:6,"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
1 Timothy 2:5,"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
Where in these verses does it mention that God is three in one? None. In fact there is not one place that says that there is a triune God. Oh wait, you might say look at 1 John 5:7-8.
1 John 5:7-8,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
There is one big problem. The part that says,"...in heaven,the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth," did not appear in any Greek texts prior to the 16th century.
So the verse should, actually, say,"For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." This makes alot more sense anyway and it flows better."
Well, that is all for now. I know there is alot of info, but it requires alot of info to be presented

 

[2ducklow]

"Justin wrote that the "first-begotten," the Logos, is the "first force after the Father:" he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure." Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 268.

"The first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son. Justin Martyr (c.160,E) 1.164

from the book A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,David Bercot,2003,p.695.

"Then I replied, 'Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.'" Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch LVI.

Justin wasn't exactly a heavy weight when it comes to doctrine, He didn't believe God the Father had a name. God the Father's name is Yahweh. eveybody knows that.

"As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,......if anyone dares to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. Justin Martyr (c. 160,E), 1.183.

ibid., p.313.

1 Kings 8:43 Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name.kjv

"Thus while really distinct, the Three are from another point of view one; as he expresses it [Dial. Heracl. 2], 'we are not afraid to speak in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.'" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines quoting Origen Dial. Heracl. 2). "and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,"' has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12)

as well. as believing in 2 gods.

Whatever is a property of physical bodies cannot be attributed to either the Father or the Son. What belongs to the nature of diety is common to the Father and Son. Even the Son himself did not say in the Gospel that no one has seen the Father except the Son. Nor did He say that no one has seen the Son except the Father. Rather, His words are: "No one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son.''......Origin (c. 225, E)4.357

Ibib. p. 310.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.kjv.

Seems Origen is in outer space on this one. But as to the verse Origen is refering to it is evident that he left of a very important qualifier.

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Apparently Oigen didn't know the bible very well.

We know the Father because the son has revealed him to us Justin.

 

[jeffC]

Justin wasn't exactly a heavy weight when it comes to doctrine, He didn't believe God the Father had a name. God the Father's name is Yahweh. everybody knows that.

Actually, I agree with Justin on this one.


In a previous post in this thread, I shared what I consider keys to understanding the relationship between Jesus and the Heavenly Father in the Bible:

1) Jesus and His Father are separate individuals (John 20:17, 1 Cor 8:6, John 3:16, Rom 15:6).
2) God the Father made Jesus a God; (Acts 2:36, Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 15:28, John 3:35, John 5:26, Rev 3:14).
3) Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament (see post #13 & #17)
4) Jesus represents His Father and His Father's will in all things. Jesus is the mediator of dealings between the Heavenly Father and man. (Col 1:19, Col 2:9, 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Jn 2:1)

I've asked this question before in this thread, and haven't gotten an answer yet: Where in the NT does Jesus identify God the Father as YHWY? To the contrary, Jesus is identified as YHWY. I gave some reasons why this is so in post 64. Also, from post 64 "It is in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods, so it is also from the NT that we learn which one was LORD in the OT."

as well. as believing in 2 gods.

I've read with interest many of your posts on this forum. From them I gather that you hold Jesus and God the Father to be seperate, numerically distinct persons (please correct me if I have misunderstood). This has been my stance throughout this discussion. If so, how do you explain plentiful NT statements declaring Jesus God? When God Himself declares Jesus God, how are there not two Gods in some very real sense?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.kjv.

Seems Origen is in outer space on this one. But as to the verse Origen is referring to it is evident that he left of a very important qualifier.

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Apparently Oigen didn't know the bible very well.

We know the Father because the son has revealed him to us Justin.

So, which version of the Bible do you think Origen was using?


Origen (and Justin Martyr too for that matter) was regarded very highly by contemporary theologians; Even most of those that disagreed with him on various issues (including this one) showered him with accolades. From my experience reading much of their works, your assertions that Justin and Origen were doctrinal lightweights do not persuade me. That said, I do not consider any of the early church fathers or apologists to have been inspired. To the contrary, I see them brining Hellenistic philosophies into their teachings and confusing doctrines, especially those regarding what would become the doctrine of the Trinity. However, all of the theologians before Athanasius (320 AD) taught some form of subordinationism. On this matter they were closer to the LDS viewpoint (and also the Bible's) on the relationship of Jesus to God the Father than to Their conflation at the Council at Nicea. The early christian fathers were also closer to any original teachings of the the apostles not found in the Bible than later writers. So I find their insight valuable, though not on par with the words of the apostles found in the Bible.




As an aside, I also disagree with your take on John 1:18. Many scriptures indicate that prophets have indeed seen God: Matt 5:8, Acts 7:56, John 6:46, Gen 32:30, Ex. 33:11, Deut 34:10, Rev. 4:2-3 for starters. John himself clarifies his meaning just a few chapters later in 5:37 “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” and 6:46 “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” The phrase “not seen the Father,” applied to Jesus' present audience, and indeed to most people, but not to the exclusion of the possibility.

 

[Der Alte]

I see a lot of 2d-3d-4th hand quotes about Justin.

Justin according to Justin

Click link, to Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; (ca. 150 a.d.)

1. "[SIZE=+1]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.[/SIZE]
   [*] Our Priest, who is God, and Christ the Son of God.
   [*] Christ is called God, He is God and Appeared to the Patriarchs.
   [*] The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as [size=+1]a Person[/size] Begotten of the Father's Substance.
   [*] He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God [size=+1]indivisible and inseparable[/size] from the Father.
   [*] Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.
   [*] When God said, “Let Us make”, God conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being.
   [*] (In Gen 1), there are persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two.
   [*] This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.
   [*] (God speaking of the Son,) “Your holiness have I begotten Thee from the womb, before the morning star.”
   [*] (God calls the Son, God,) “Thy throne, O God is forever,”
   [*] (God calls the Son, God,) “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness.”
   [*] (Jesus), Deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ
   [*] The true God, God who made all things, is Lord alone.
   [*] The Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
   [*]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.​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I've asked this question before in this thread, and haven't gotten an answer yet: Where in the NT does Jesus identify God the Father as YHWY? To the contrary, Jesus is identified as YHWY. I gave some reasons why this is so in post 64. Also, from post 64 "It is in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods, so it is also from the NT that we learn which one was LORD in the OT."[/SIZE]

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]/”YHWH”], whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]/”YHWH”] thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Matt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 

[Der Alte]

Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 40:25, 45:5, 6, 21-22; 46:5,9

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is none else.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,​