Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
    You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.
    So am I to understand that you deny that the One God was always a Trinity of Persons? And because I do not deny that God [Yehwah] is the One God whom the three Persons, The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are, you make the false accusation of "Tritheism."

    The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be God's Son.. He is of the Father, yes. But they are the one[echâd] Yehwah [Self-Existent].

    ". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.

    ". . . that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him." -- Deuteronomy 4:35.

    ". . . I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: . . ." -- Isaiah 45:5.

    ". . . for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9.

    ". . . I [am] the LORD your God, and none else: . . ." -- Joel 2:27.

    As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth.
    No, there is only one[echâd] YHWH.

    "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4.

    Do you believe, when Jesus was on earth,there were two who were the Son of man?

    "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13. Jesus being on earth as the man, was also in heaven.

    "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

    " To him[Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." -- Acts 10:43. What Name do all the prophets use, YHWH.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Originally posted by apostoli
      You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies. From memory you advocated That the Father, Son and Spirit have always been the Father, Son and Spirit. That is only possible if you have three Gods who are independent of each other but choose to role play.
      So am I to understand that you deny that the One God was always a Trinity of Persons?
      Be aware that you are very close to introducing the heretical 4th man

      The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.

      Originally posted by 37818 @post #202
      There is a problem of terminology. And a problem of conveying truth using the proper words.
      Just as an observation: You seem to be inclined to introduce a 4th person into your explanations of your perspective. Maybe it is just your phrasing (?) but be aware in times past a couple of heresies grew from such carelessness.

      Drawing on your numerous posts for inspiration, I'll rephrase the bit I've bolded above to highlight what I perceive you as actually saying: "the one God exists as a Trinity of Persons". Is that close to what you mean? If so you seem to want company with a range of heresies. As I remarked in an earlier post "You regularly advocate some kind of mix of Tritheism and other heresies". Thus you confuse me and, from their responses to you, most of your other correspondents.

      The Trinity as advocated by the Nicene churches (Catholic & Orthodox) starts with God the Father as the only true God (Jn 17:1-3 cp. 1 Cor 8:6, 12:6; Eph 4:6), and following scripture it is advocated that the harvest of all the activity of the Son and Spirit is ultimately directed towards the Father (cp. Phil 2:8-11; 1 Cor 15:24,28 "Then cometh the end, when he [the Son] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto [God the Father who] put all things under [the Son], that God [the Father] may be all in all."). In Nicene thought: relationally, the Son is homoousios with the Father as a result of his begetal by the Father, and the Spirit is homoousios with the Father due to her progression from the Father, and consequently is homoousios with the Son via relation. Thus as each is homoousios with the Father, the Son and the Spirit are each held to be true God in equivalence to the Father. In ousia the three are unified and comparable. Their godship is essential to the definition of their ousia. As for the three being the one God to us, see below...

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      And because I do not deny that God [Yehwah] is the One God whom the three Persons, The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are, you make the false accusation of "Tritheism."
      There is that 4th person again, to whom you make the three persons of the Trinity subordinate. Have a study of John 1:1-2, particularly study the word "pros" and you'll see how glaring your error actually is...

      Not a false accusation, but a reality you have created for yourself. In your posts here at Theologyweb you advocate that there are three persons who have no origination, three unbegotten Gods. Such opinions are the mainstay of Tritheism.

      In one of your posts (#209) you seem to have tempered your opinion, by suggesting that you would conditionally accept that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages, and is natural offspring of the Father. Your condition/s: as long as the Son is "not begotten in any temporal sense" and "without any temporal sense of being an offspring". My response: God is Spirit (John 4:24), so it is inconceivale that his operations are functionally comparable to the operations of things temporal.

      Trinitarians teach there is only one unbegotten God, the Father, who is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. Exclusively, the Father begat the Son before all ages (cp. John 1:1-3), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (cp. John 15:26). The begetal and the procession occured from within eternity (cp. John 1:1a). By definition, there are no beginnings or ends in eternity. By definition, eternity is timelines. So it can't be said as the Arians demanded "there was when the Son was not". The idea "was" is a reference to time, and by definition, eternity is devoid of time. As you might see, the Nicenes attempted to divest themselves of temporal perspectives. However, without inventing a new vocabulary, the fathers used words that were familiar to them and conveyed the appropriate images.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be God's Son..
      That is true. To be a son or daughter is an inescapable consequence of being begotten. Thus the Trinitarian church teaches that as the Son is truely son, he is the natural offspring of the Father, and as a consequence of being the natural offspring of his Father, the Son is endowed with an exact replica of his Father's concrete and essential existence (compare Heb 1:3 which uses the Greek words charaktēr & hypostasis to express this truth).

      The opinions you have expressed in your various posts, on face value, are in direct conflict with Hebrews 1:3 and consequently are a direct denial of the Nicean teaching concerning the homoousios (consubstantiality). In my observation, Hebrews 1:3 does great damage to your opinions.

      In respect of Hebrews 1:3: The consequence of your opinions is that it would be necessary for the ousia of the Father to be imposed upon the person and so the endowment would be unnatural - foreign to the integrity of the person's existing hypostasis. Thus, your idea that the Son is without origination (is unbegotten) doesn't stand up biblically. Your opinion that the Son is unbegotten requires that the Son, is son in name only. Without begetal/birth (two things you have rejected out of hand) the only way the Son could actually become son is through the imposition of adoption.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      He is of the Father, yes. But they are the one[echâd] Yehwah [Self-Existent].
      No ancient, medieval or modern Hebraist advocates that YHWH means "self existing". All agree that nobody born within the last 2000+ years knows what the Tetragammaton actually means or indicates. Most Hebraists agree that the phrase "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" with which God chose to memorialise himself indicates "continuous existence" and such fits perfectly with the context of Exodus 3:13-14

      "Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

      "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" affirms that the God who spoke with Moses was existent with Moses' fathers - Abraham, Isacc and Jacob.

      For your benefit, once again I will cite the authoritive medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides, whose writings have been preserved and protected by the Church...

      "...all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never win be without existence..."
      http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      ". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.
      Interesting! Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      ". . . that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him." -- Deuteronomy 4:35.

      ". . . I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: . . ." -- Isaiah 45:5.

      ". . . for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9.

      ". . . I [am] the LORD your God, and none else: . . ." -- Joel 2:27.
      The context of all these passages, is YHWH's superiority to the man made idols which having been formed by man, remain impotent and inanimate. There is nothing that mankind might label god that can compete with the God of Israel. Ask any Rabbi what these passages indicate and they'll recite something along the lines that I've stated...

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Originally posted by apostoli
      As noted in previous posts, scripture has it there are two YHWHs, one in heaven who interacted with the other on earth.
      No, there is only one[echâd] YHWH.
      Guess you haven't read Genesis 2:23-24. In verse 24 we encounter the word echad used in reference to two people. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be echad flesh."

      At Genesis 19:24 we find that the YHWH who had been visiting Abraham and, at the time was resident on earth (Gen 18), "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from" the YHWH in heaven. As persons, that makes two YHWHs.

      I notice that below you attempted to address this but, apparently you are unaware that the clause in Jn 3:13 is considered to be spurios by a significant number of translators, and so is omitted from many modern translations. In anycase you paint yourself into a corner, as the clause you make yourself reliant upon is in direct conflict with texts such as John 6:32. See below...

      We have previously agreed that the Father, Son and Spirit each have, as a personal possssion, the same name (Mt 21:19 cp. Phil 2:9). Additionally, I assume you acknowledge the distinct functionality of each of the three eg: neither the Father nor the Spirit were incarnated as man, but the Son was! Within this concept of functionality and the biblical witness, I understand the God of the Israelites to be the Memra of YHWH=the Logos of God=the Word of God=the angel of the LORD=the pre-incarnate Son of God. Always remember that no man has ever seen God and lived, yet Abraham saw him face to face, and Moses glimpsed the back of him, and both survived...

      If you closely read the OT you will note that the word "God" when referring to YHWH is never used without qualification. Thus we read of "my God", "your God", "our God", "the God of Israel", "YHWH God", etc. Be very aware that in the OT the idea "God" is a man made accolade bestowed by men on idols, angels, demons, men and even YHWH. Basically, anyone or anything they feared got the title "God".

      Remember A.Paul's witness "...there are gods many, and lords many. But to us there is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Cor 8:5-6)

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: . . ." -- Deuteronomy 6:4.
      Have a read of Deut 6:3 "...the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee...". Imu, Deut 6:3-4 is simply saying that "this YHWH is the same YHWH encountered by our fathers". There were no intervening YHWHs.

      (nb: I wonder how the Sadduccees in Jesus' time interpreted Deut 6:3-4 given they held that all appearances of YHWH were transient).

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Do you believe, when Jesus was on earth,there were two who were the Son of man?
      Why would I!!! See below...

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13. Jesus being on earth as the man, was also in heaven.
      It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

      " To him[Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." -- Acts 10:43. What Name do all the prophets use, YHWH.
      In the OT, YHWH is the God of Israel and all things are attributed to him. In the NT, the apostles attributed all creation and salvation etc to the activities of the Son of God, the son of man born to Mary, who was named Jesus (well actually "Yeshua", which means "YHWH is salvation"), and according to A.Paul God has exhalted the name Jesus above every other name....

      I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        Be aware that you are very close to introducing the heretical 4th man

        The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.
        In orthodox Trinitarian thought, there is no such concept as "before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit."
        If you closely read the OT you will note that the word "God" when referring to YHWH is never used without qualification. Thus we read of "my God", "your God", "our God", "the God of Israel", "YHWH God", etc. Be very aware that in the OT the idea "God" is a man made accolade bestowed by men on idols, angels, demons, men and even YHWH. Basically, anyone or anything they feared got the title "God".

        It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.
        Regardless, AFAIK is is generally accepted that Jesus was omnipresent as God even while incarnate (see John 1:48). The Orthodox position is that He certainly was. From the Paschal Hours:
        In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, filling all things, Yourself uncircumscribed.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Originally posted by apostoli
          The Nicene churches which formulated the Trinitarian belief defended by all the Catholic & Orthodox faiths (and most Protestants) hold that before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit, the Son and Spirit existed in potentiality, for the Father has never been devoid of his wisdom and power etc. All the greats of the Trinitarian church in their battles with the Arians and others have advocated such in defense of the Trinitarian faith.
          In orthodox Trinitarian thought, there is no such concept as "before the manifestation of the Son and Spirit."
          You are dead right. However, "before" in English has two usages, the one I meant was that of precedence, not that of time. The EOC & ROC insist that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit...such requires precedence... (nb: it was one of the Orthodox teachings that the EOC/ROC were insistent that the RCC confirm during the reconciliation talks).

          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Originally posted by apostoli
          It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss. Thus it is uncommon to encounter the phrase in contemporary translations. In any case, the phrase is in conflict with passages such as John 6:32 "what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" One cannot go to a place where they are already in place.
          Regardless, AFAIK is is generally accepted that Jesus was omnipresent as God even while incarnate (see John 1:48). The Orthodox position is that He certainly was. From the Paschal Hours:
          In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you, O Christ, filling all things, Yourself uncircumscribed.
          "In the grave with the body, and in hades with the soul as God; in paradise with the thief...":

          I have no problem with this view. After all Jesus died in the completeness of the hypostatic union. When Jesus was in paradise with the thief, both resided in Hades. This was in accord with Jewish and Christian expectation, to be in paradise was to be at Abraham's bosom, thus assured of the resurrection. A.Paul tells us that God [the Father] raised Jesus from the dead.

          "on the throne with the Father and the Spirit were you":

          Such a thought does not conform with the biblical witness. One example: at John 17:5 Jesus prayed that the Father would restore his former glory. Imu, this was to be again seated at the Father's right hand. I presume that the author of the hymn took poetic licence to describe an emotional attachment rather than a tangible one.

          A thought: Consider Luther's proposition...

          If Jesus was simultaneously son of man and Son of God in his hypostasis, then he had to die in his entirety. As Luther put it for effect: God died upon the cross and was buried. To separate the divinity and the humanity as being in separate locations is a denial of Chalcedon.
          Last edited by apostoli; 07-17-2015, 02:00 AM.

          Comment


          • apostol,

            Do you count one or two saviours?
            One.

            It is widely accepted amongst modern translators that the text "which is in heaven" isn't well supported in the mss.
            So you think 1% of the mss is to be well supported, as opposed 98.4% which has the reading? And 98.4% is not limited to just one ms family. Except ms family 35 which base in all the mss families.

            I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9.
            Yes, and context. I'm sure you agree.
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Originally posted by apostoli
              Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).
              One.
              So you reject Titus' witness that indisputably calls two persons (hypostases) "saviour". And do you reject the testimony of the author of Genesis (and Jesus' later preaching) that two people become echad (one)?

              You probably aren't aware of it but iby your flippant answer you deny Christ! For the ancient churchmen all acknowledge that the Son has his own hypostasis and the Father has his own hypostasis and their hyposases' are not to be confounded nor confused...

              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              So you think 1% of the mss is to be well supported, as opposed 98.4% which has the reading? And 98.4% is not limited to just one ms family. Except ms family 35 which base in all the mss families.
              I just related the current state of play amongst translators and antiquarians. I don't have an opinion on the matter (the mss), other than the text is considered dubious by various scholars and is contradicted by a significant number of new testament witnesses.

              I am not aware of anywhere in the NT that supports the idea that the Son's hypostasis is divided (and except for possibly a Nestorian, I'm not aware of any churchman that would contradict Chalcedon and advocate such).

              Come to think of it, I vaguely recall there was a gnostic heresy (Phantasm?) that had the Son's divinity residing in heaven while the guy on earth was just a shell animated by the Son's spirit (presumably transmitted from heaven).

              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Originally posted by apostoli
              I recommend to everyone serious contemplation of Phil 2:9.
              Yes, and context. I'm sure you agree.
              From the text it seems Jesus/Yeshua replaces YHWH as the name above every other name.
              Last edited by apostoli; 07-18-2015, 10:07 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                So you reject Titus' witness that indisputably calls two persons (hypostases) "saviour". And do you reject the testimony of the author of Genesis (and Jesus' later preaching) that two people become echad (one)?

                You probably aren't aware of it but iby your flippant answer you deny Christ! For the ancient churchmen all acknowledge that the Son has his own hypostasis and the Father has his own and their hyposases' are not to be confounded nor confused...

                I just related the current state of play amongst translators and antiquarians. I don't have an opinion on the matter (the mss), other than the text is considered dubious by various scholars and is contradicted by a significant number of new testament witnesses.
                Well you are wrong on two counts. Paul in the letter to Titus by what he wrote acknowledges the deity of Christ and in so doing does not deny hypostasis of the Father and and their hyposases'.

                ". . . of God our Saviour; . . . after a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour." -- Titus 1:3-4. ASV.

                In Ephesians calls Christ God, ". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. Made clear in the Darby translation.



                From the text it seems Jesus/Yeshua replaces YHWH as the name above every other name.
                You can understand it that way. I'm fine with that. But as you rightly pointed out Jesus' name means YHWH is salvation.

                ". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:10, 12.
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Well you are wrong on two counts. Paul in the letter to Titus by what he wrote acknowledges the deity of Christ and in so doing does not deny hypostasis of the Father and and their hyposases'.

                  ". . . of God our Saviour; . . . after a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour." -- Titus 1:3-4. ASV.
                  You are an amusement. In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  In Ephesians calls Christ God,". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. Made clear in the Darby translation.
                  You are either illiterate, a fool or an idiot. Ephesians 5:5 speaks of two persons (1. Christ, 2.God) as does the whole of the epistle. Notice Ephesians 5:2 "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

                  Next time you go mining for scriptures, read the whole book. Scripture itself makes you look the total fool and your deceit highlights you are totally devoid of integrity.

                  Try reading Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." A.Paul throughout his epistles distinguishes between God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. God to A.Paul is exclusively the Father. cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

                  ps: I went and checked Darby, he agrees with every other translation, translating the Greek literally "Christ and God"=""τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ". You should note the text does not read "τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν θεοῦ"="Christ our God", which is what you require...Please, in future don't insult me with your pretense at scholarship, it is painfully obvious that you are bone lazy in such matters...

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  You can understand it that way. I'm fine with that. But as you rightly pointed out Jesus' name means YHWH is salvation.

                  ". . . by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:10, 12.
                  Very true!!! Which leads us back to you only counting the identification of one saviour in Titus, whereas A.Paul identifies two hypostases (persons) each of whom is our savior. You have locked onto the Hebrew word "echad" and have determined it is exclusive, whereas scripture makes it plain that "echad" is inclusive eg: Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
                  Last edited by apostoli; 07-19-2015, 03:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • ps 37818:

                    Have a read of Titus 3:4-6 which is a little more expansive that Titus 1:3-4, but again identifies two saviours...

                    "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour".

                    pss: You misread Titus 1:3-4, they do not speak of Jesus as being God. Titus 1:1 should have made that obvious to you "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ...". Two distinct people 1.God, 2.Jesus Christ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      You are an amusement. In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?
                      Of course not. Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior. Both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ are that one Savior. Yes, Paul does refer to them separately as Savior. But at no time does he suggest they are two saviors. Do not forget the Son is called God and has a God, God His Father, yet they are not two God's, but they are the one God.

                      You are either illiterate, a fool or an idiot. Ephesians 5:5 speaks of two persons (1. Christ, 2.God) as does the whole of the epistle. <snip> ps: I went and checked Darby, he agrees with every other translation, translating the Greek literally "Christ and God"=""τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ". You should note the text does not read "τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν θεοῦ"="Christ our God", which is what you require...Please, in future don't insult me with your pretense at scholarship, it is painfully obvious that you are bone lazy in such matters...
                      No. The Greek refers to Chirst as God there: . . . του χριστου και θεου. Look up the Granville Sharp's Rule in Greek grammar.


                      Try reading Ephesians 1:2 "Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." A.Paul throughout his epistles distinguishes between God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .
                      Not just there, but throughout Paul's letters.


                      Very true!!! Which leads us back to you only counting the identification of one saviour in Titus, whereas A.Paul identifies two hypostases (persons) each of whom is our savior. You have locked onto the Hebrew word "echad" and have determined it is exclusive, whereas scripture makes it plain that "echad" is inclusive eg: Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
                      I'm glad you noticed.

                      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      ps 37818:

                      Have a read of Titus 3:4-6 which is a little more expansive that Titus 1:3-4, but again identifies two saviours...

                      "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour".

                      pss: You misread Titus 1:3-4, they do not speak of Jesus as being God. Titus 1:1 should have made that obvious to you "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ...". Two distinct people 1.God, 2.Jesus Christ...
                      That God the Father and the Lord Jesus Chrsit are two Persons is not at issue. That they are the same God and they are the one Savior.

                      Remember Jesus was addressed as both Lord and God (John 20:28).

                      ". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.

                      ". . . I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." -- Jesus, John 8:24.

                      There is only one Savior.
                      Last edited by 37818; 07-19-2015, 03:48 PM.
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • Hello 37818,

                        In earler posts you suggested your opinions are guided by the witness of the scriptures, and though we disagree on a few things, trust in the scriptures is something we seem to have in common. With that in mind I will attempt to keep my direct comments/opinion to a minimum, and rely on scripture to communicate my understanding of things. Thus my reponses might be a little more lengthy than usual and might come across as a bit preachy...

                        To keep myself on track I'll harken back to the chain of ur conversation to remind me of your chain of thought...

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        ". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD[Yehwah]; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10-11.
                        Originally posted by apostoli
                        Interesting! Have you read Titus 1-4 where both God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ are individually described as our saviour. Do you count one or two saviours? I count two, but given they are known to operate in unison I determine there is one (it is just a matter of perspective! Consider Gen 2:24 where we have two people who are described as one (echad).
                        One
                        Originally posted by apostoli
                        ...In your previous post you said you only counted one saviour in Titus. What do you now say? Does A.Paul talk of one or two hypostases (persons) who are each our saviour?
                        Of course not. Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior. Both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ are that one Savior. Yes, Paul does refer to them separately as Savior. But at no time does he suggest they are two saviors. Do not forget the Son is called God and has a God, God His Father, yet they are not two God's, but they are the one God.
                        According to Jesus, he did not instigate his participation in the salvation plan (cp. John 8:42, "for I have not come on my own initiative but He sent Me" (on my own inititive=NASB, NET; of my own accord=ESV, RSV; of myself=KJV and most others)). So if there is only one saviour, then it must be God the Father, and so you make Jesus just a tool. Alternatively, you have the Father being scourged, crucified, dead and buried along with Jesus, for in scripture, Jesus' status as our saviour is dependent on his dieing for our sins, and the Father resurrecting him (cp. 2 Tim 1:8-10). Your ideas just don't compute. It seems you haven't thought through your proposals, if you had consulted the scriptures for guidance you might have realised how off beam you are...maybe you just haven't communicated your ideas adequately. May I suggest you blend the scripture that supports whatever it is you wish to communicate into your responses. At the moment you just randomly quote scripture leaving me to figure out what you are attempting to demonstrate.

                        A.Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.

                        In an earlier post you misrepresented (or misread) Titus 1:3-4 to prove your one God, one Saviour theory. Unfortunately for you, I'm not as gullible as you would wish, and so I pointed you to Titus 1:1 & 3:4-6 which demonstrate how folish your misrepresentation (misreading) was/is. What worries me about you is that you are so tangled up in dogmaticism that you are blind to the simple message of scripture. Have a think on Mt 13:13-15.

                        Instead of mining scripture and deceiving yourself, I encourage you to actually study the NT and become enlightened with the truth! We wouldn't have a saviour of any type, or the hope of the resurrection, if God the Father hadn't sent his only begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world! (cp 1 John 4:14; John 3:17). So amoungst the several ways the Father is our Saviour, the Father is our Saviour because he sent his only begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world. Amoungst the several ways the Son is our Saviour, the Son is our Saviour because he obeyed his Father, obedient even unto death (cp. Phil 2:8-11), and so the Father raised him from the dead (Acts 4:10; 10:40; 13:30,37; Romans 4:24; 6:4; 10:9; etc etc).

                        Jesus himself tells us he did not come of his own volition but was sent (John 8:42). We also learn from scripture that it was the Father's will that the Son should suffer so that you might gain the promise of eternal life (cp. Luke 22:42; John 3:17; 5:24; Rom 5:10; Heb 2:9; etc etc). So, according to scripture the Father is the architect and instigator of our salvation The sole source, cause and direction of our salvation. Whereas, the Son's obedience to his Father is the mechanism (the plan) through which salvation has been made available to us, and for which the Son has been rewarded with a name above every other name (Phil 2:9).

                        You said "Just as there is only one true God, there is only one Savior..."

                        Hmmm. Lets see what what scripture says...

                        A.Paul in 1 Corinthians talks about the diversity of function amoungst the members of the one body (the Church). He emphasises that though there are many members there is only one body. The same is understood of the Godhead by all Trinitarians, three distinct hypostases (persons), each with an exclusive function...but homoousios...

                        Jesus declared his Father to be exclusively "the only true God" (John 17:3). The apostle Paul emphatically demands that "to us there is but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor 8:6) and at Ephesians 4:6 the apostle Paul declares "[There is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". On these witnesses the Father is the only genuine God, but...

                        Lets also see what the teaching of the Church has been since the day dot, and the consequent affirmations made by all Catholic and Orthodox Christians (and most Protestants)...

                        The Nicene & Nicene-Constantinopole creed/s demand we swear that "I believe in one God, the Father..."

                        The Father as the only true God is the starting point in the understanding of the teaching of the Trinity. In reciting the Nicene creed Catholics declare that we also believe in "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father".

                        Exclusively, we derive the phrase "only true God" from John 17:3. Here the Greek word translated as "true" is "alēthinon", it can mean true, real or genuine. The only verse in the NT I've detected where the later meanings might properly be applied is 1 Thessalonians 1:9 which could be translated "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and real (or genuine) God".

                        I hold that John 17:3 corresponds with John 3:33 "He who has received [the Son's] testimony has certified that God is true" (NKJV) and John 8:26 "...He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.". From the majority witness of scripture and John 3:33-34 where vs34 says "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God", I determine that John 3:33, 8:26 and 17:3 are better understood as "God is truthful", "He who sent me is truthful" and "the only truthful God". For through the Son, the Father has fulfilled his promises, giving us the hope of the resurrection and eternal life. "...I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us — eternal life" (1 John 2:21,24-25).

                        A question that puzzles some: Why does the creed call Jesus "true God from true God"? Well for a starter, at Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is described as having an exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis. As you know, in English we don't have a word to translate "hypostasis" so it is usually rendered "person". As you also know, a hypostasis is the "concrete reality" of a particular thing, loosely what it is to itself. The original Greek version of the creed speaks of the homoousios (English: consubstantiality) of the Father and the Son. As you know, Homoousios, means "of the same ousia". Loosely translated "ousia" is the "concrete reality" of a group of identical things (eg: what it is that defines human, or for that matter what it is that defines God). So if the Father is true/real/genuine God, so the Son... Also consider: if God the Father who made the promises is truthful, so the Word of God (the Son of God) through whom the promises were delivered and fulfilled...

                        1 John 5:20 also comes into play "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ." For the reasons given above, I think where "true" is rendered, we should read "truthful". For scripture reveals that God the Father's promises and the witness of his Son, and the fulfillment by the Son, that if believed, all lead to eternal life, and are not made up of empty words...

                        In summary: functionally there are two saviours, God the Father and God the Son (cp. Isaiah 19:20). Imo, though it isn't plainly stated in scripture there are actually three saviours, each with a different function - the third is the Spirit of truth whose function is to intercede for us...(cp. John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13-15:; Rom 8:26; 1 John 5:6)

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        That God the Father and the Lord Jesus Chrsit are two Persons is not at issue.
                        At least we agree on that point.

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        That they are the same God and they are the one Savior.
                        You didn't complete your thought but I've guessed what it might have been.

                        Obviously you reject the doctrine of the Trinity, for the Father is defined by both scripture and the creeds as the "one God" we believe in. The Nicean and the Nicean-Constantinople Creed/s testify that "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"; 1 Cor 8:6 declares "for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him" and Eph 4:6 states "[there is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all". In Trinitarian thought, the Godhead begins with the Father, the Son and Spirit are homoosios (consubstantial) with the Father.

                        As for your "one saviour" idea, there isn't any New Testament support, so it is some delusion of your own making. Jesus does say at John 14:10-11 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." Compare this with John 17:22-23 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.". From these verses, what conclusion do you come to?

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        Remember Jesus was addressed as both Lord and God (John 20:28).
                        If you had read what A.John actually wrote you'd ralise that Thomas did not respond to Jesus' offer by addressing him as Lord and God, but Thomas responded to Jesus' offer with a belated realisation, saying "My Lord, and my God". Have a read of John 14:4-10 "Thomas said to [Jesus], Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way? Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works...”

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        There is only one Savior
                        If so then according to Jesus' witness it is the Father alone. After all Jesus says "the Father who dwells in Me does the works" (John 14:10). Yet despite this, A.Paul is fond of calling the Father saviour and calling the Son saviour. The scriptural witness is that each is our saviour in a particular way. So the scriptural witness is there are two saviours, one who sends and the other who is sent, each working towards the same result.

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        ". . . I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.
                        First point: Jesus was begotten not made (formed). Second point: Notice Isaiah 19:20 "they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and [the LORD] will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." It seems your mining of the scriptures has failed you again...

                        Originally posted by 37818
                        "... I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." -- Jesus, John 8:24.
                        You really should try to find the context of a verse. Have a read of vs25 "Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He certainly wasn't claiming to be "the being" of Ex 3:14, the LXX rendering "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" = "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, HO ON has sent me to you."  I suggest Jesus was refering to himself as the Messiah. Now have a read of vs28-30 "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him." It is little wonder they now believed in him, given he cited Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah!

                        Just as an aside:

                        If you were attentive to scripture you would know that Jesus never declared himself to be the Messiah to any Jew, including the disciples, so it is little wonder that Jesus' audience asked "“Who are You?”. Jesus did hint at being the Messiah to the blind man, and he stated it plainly that he was the long awaited Messiah to the Samaritan woman, and when Peter was quizzed and responded that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus said "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Mt 16:17)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                          Obviously you reject the doctrine of the Trinity, . . .
                          That is a falsehood, and is inflammatory!


                          . . . for the Father is defined by both scripture and the creeds as the "one God" we believe in. The Nicean and the Nicean-Constantinople Creed/s testify that "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"; 1 Cor 8:6 declares "for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him" and Eph 4:6 states "[there is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all". In Trinitarian thought, the Godhead begins with the Father, the Son and Spirit are homoosios (consubstantial) with the Father.
                          I agree with this. While I do disagee with the unbiblical parts of such creeds/statments of faith.

                          Your opening comment though is appreciated. Thank you.
                          In earler posts you suggested your opinions are guided by the witness of the scriptures, and though we disagree on a few things, trust in the scriptures is something we seem to have in common. With that in mind I will attempt to keep my direct comments/opinion to a minimum, and rely on scripture to communicate my understanding of things. . .
                          According to Jesus, he did not instigate his participation in the salvation plan (cp. John 8:42, "for I have not come on my own initiative but He sent Me" (on my own inititive=NASB, NET; of my own accord=ESV, RSV; of myself=KJV and most others)). So if there is only one saviour, then it must be God the Father, and so you make Jesus just a tool. Alternatively, you have the Father being scourged, crucified, dead and buried along with Jesus, for in scripture, Jesus' status as our saviour is dependent on his dieing for our sins, and the Father resurrecting him (cp. 2 Tim 1:8-10). Your ideas just don't compute. It seems you haven't thought through your proposals, if you had consulted the scriptures for guidance you might have realized how off beam you are...maybe you just haven't communicated your ideas adequately. May I suggest you blend the scripture that supports whatever it is you wish to communicate into your responses. At the moment you just randomly quote scripture leaving me to figure out what you are attempting to demonstrate.
                          Hmm...

                          So you want my comments to explain the holy scriptures I might cite.

                          A.Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.
                          A couple things here. First my quoting Isaiah 43:11, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. " God claims there is no other Saviors besides Himself.

                          As for Isaiah 19:20, "And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." -- NKJV

                          It my understanding that this refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. So no, God does not tell Isaiah that He would send saviors.

                          My point, the only Savior is God, and through the One whom He sent. God is the Savior alone. Jesus Christ our Lord is how. The Son of God being in the incarnation being both God and the Son of man is that Savior.

                          Is that understandable to you?

                          A side point, who raised Jesus from the dead?

                          God the Father: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

                          Jesus Himself: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . _ . . . But he spake of the temple of his body." -- John 2:19, 21.

                          The Holy Spirit: ". . . the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead . . ." -- Romans 8:11.

                          Who raised Jesus from the dead, the Holy Trinity.

                          At issue:
                          . . . "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"
                          I do not dissagree that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." I do disagree with what I omitted and noted. Since true God is not begotten. If you want to deal with that, please do. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son. Since He was not begotten to become the Son. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.

                          You really should try to find the context of a verse. Have a read of vs25 "Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He certainly wasn't claiming to be "the being" of Ex 3:14, the LXX rendering "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" = "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, HO ON has sent me to you."  I suggest Jesus was referring to himself as the Messiah. Now have a read of vs28-30 "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him." It is little wonder they now believed in him, given he cited Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah!
                          You cite the LXX which is a translation, not actually what translates from the Hebrew, the "ho on" is more an interpretation of YHWH for the "I AM" than a translation of the "I AM."

                          "I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is [oh on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." -- Revelation 1:8. ASV

                          "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." -- Revelation 1:17, 18. ASV

                          Jesus to John identifies Himself as the Lord God.

                          " Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] [the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." -- Isaiah 44:6.

                          There are not two "first and lasts."

                          "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • Hello 37818,

                            I'll respond to your post #222 (your latest post) more fully either later today or tomorrow, but for now, in an effort to avoid going back into our loop, I wish to concentrate on one subject...

                            Originally posted by 37818
                            Originally posted by apostoli
                            .Paul "does refer to them separately as Savior" simply because how they are our saviour is different for each. Titus 3:4-6 makes this plain. So, your statement that "at no time does he suggest they are two saviors" has no scriptural foundation. Given your emphatic statement (proved in error), I find it amazing that you hadn't noticed that at no time, nor anywhere in scripture, does A.Paul suggest that the Father and Son are one Saviour, or that there is a single, unique saviour. Your appeal to Isaiah 43:10-11 was foolish as Isaiah 19:20 makes it plain that YHWH sends saviours to act for him. Just as he sent his Son to be the saviour of the world.
                            A couple things here. First my quoting Isaiah 43:11, "I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. " God claims there is no other Saviors besides Himself.
                            Ah! But what was his meaning? The OT has God sending to the Israelites (or promising to send) what are called "saviours" from time to time (eg: 2 Kings 13:5; Isaiah 19:20 etc).

                            Isaiah 63:7-9 is interesting: "I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses.For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he [YHWH] was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old."

                            Notice that there are two saviours: the one that does the actual saving (the angel of YHWH's presence) and the one who is credited with the saving (YHWH). Here we have that "sender (God the Father) and the one sent (the Son of God)" scenario that we find in the NT. As you know I acknowledge the Memra of YHWH=the Word of God=the angel of YHWH=the angel of YHWH's presence as being the Son of God (our Messiah).


                            Jamieson, Fausset & Brown :: Commentary on Isaiah 63 has two notes I think are worthy of attention...

                            so--in virtue of His having chosen them, He became their Saviour. So the "therefore" ( Jer 31:33 ). His eternal choice is the ground of His actually saving men ( Eph 1:3, 4 ).

                            angel of his presence--literally, "of His face," that is, who stands before Him continually; Messiah ( Exd 14:19 23:20, 21 Pro 8:30 ), language applicable to no creature ( Exd 32:34 33:2, 14 Num 20:16 Mal 3:1 ).


                            Originally posted by 37818
                            As for Isaiah 19:20, "And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them." -- NKJV

                            It my understanding that this refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. So no, God does not tell Isaiah that He would send saviors.
                            You are off beam again, following your wishful thinking rather than paying attention to what the scriptures tell us. I'm sure you are aware that in the OT YHWH sent to the Israelites a Messiah (Saviour), who was a devout pagan = Cyrus the Great of Persia. See Isaiah 45:1 where he is called in English translations "the anointed", whereas the Hebrew calls him "mashiyach" = "messiah"). At Isaiah 44:28 he is even called YHWH's “Shepherd”. Why was this so? Well he saved Israel from the Babylonians, freed them from their captivity and decreed that the Jerusalem Temple be rebuilt. Of course Isaiah 45:1 tells us YHWH made this possible beacuse YHWH held Cyrus' right hand so he could subdue all the nations before him. Thus again we seem to have the sender and the one sent scenario. At Isaiah 45:15 & 21 YHWH is credited with the salvation, even though Cyrus did all the actual saving work. Cyrus is an obvious proof that YHWH stands by his word, for as promised (Isaiah 19:20) YHWH did send a saviour = Cyrus.

                            You said: "It my understanding that [Isaiah 19:20] refers to our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Father sent". Well, it seems your understanding is lacking as the case in point concerning Cyrus demonstrates. This is what I meant when I observed that you are so bound up in dogmatism that you are blind to the simplicity of scripture. For some reason unbeknown to me, you get a pig headed idea in your head and then start to delete or ignore any scripture that is at odds with your imagination.

                            [
                            Originally posted by 37818
                            ]My point, the only Savior is God, and through the One whom He sent. God is the Savior alone. Jesus Christ our Lord is how. The Son of God being in the incarnation being both God and the Son of man is that Savior.
                            In the OT all credit of any salvation act is given to whoever does the sending of the actual saviour (in the above case YHWH, the saviour in the minds of men). Whoever does the hard yards in the actual saving gets little credit (Jesus is the exception), even though he is the saviour in the eyes of men eg: Cyrus. So, as I remarked in my previous post, if there is only one Saviour, then it is the Father who sent the Son.

                            Now there is a little twist in the NT idea of two saviours instead of one: In the OT, the saviours YHWH sent were transient - just means to an end, they came and went, they died and were mostly forgotten. YHWH is forever credited exclusively with the historical salvation event.

                            In the NT, our hero does not die and is not forgotten! Instead he is rewarded with eternal life, the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18). Thus through the knowledge that God the Father rose Jesus from the dead we have a hope...

                            Now have a think on Colossians 1:18. I'll quote Darby "And *he* is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that *he* might have the first place in all things". Now if your view has any validity, how is that your God died and was buried? God cannot die but Jesus in the completeness of his hypostasis, in the completeness of the hypostatic union of the physes (natures) of God and man did die, as the Son of God and the son of man he died, was buried and on the third day his Father rose him from the dead! Also, how is it that the Son as God (as opposed to the Son of God) lacked preeminence in anything? I leave you to the mercy of the scriptures to find the answer/s!
                            Last edited by apostoli; 07-21-2015, 04:57 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Ease off the number of question and exclamation marks, it makes you look aggressive and irrational, which is not what you should be trying to convey. Right now we're all struggling to understand you.

                              We know that the Son was not created, 37818, but they were responding to what you said. They thought you meant that The Son was created ("What is not taught in the Bible is the idea that the Son was begotten before His creation."). Since none of them ever brought up the idea that The Son was created, we assumed that you believed that he was, or at least that yet again your use of language terrible confuses what you're trying to convey.

                              . . .
                              Ah ha. When I said "His creation" I was referring to Him as the Creator, not the created!
                              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                How is someone who is called 'the only-begotten son not identifiable as begotten?
                                The Greek for only-begotten does not mean in Greek to be "begotton." It can and often is used of persons who were, but it, the Greek word translated sometimes as "only-begotten" does not contain the Greek which means "begotten."
                                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X