Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaterst8  & Is 1: 18


t8

We are all familiar with the Trinity doctrine and many here do not believe in it but think it is a false doctrine and even perhaps part of the great falling away prophesied in scripture.

As part of a challenge from Is 1:18 (a member here, not the scripture) I will be posting 12 scriptures over the coming weeks (perhaps months) to show how the Trinity doctrine contradicts scripture and therefore proving it to be a false doctrine.

The first scripture I would like to bring out into the light is John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This scripture clearly talks about the only true God and in addition to that, Jesus Christ who (that true God) has sent.

Trying to fit this scripture into a Trinity template seems impossible in that Jesus Christ is NOT being referred to as the True God in this scripture. So if Jesus is also God (as Trinitarians say) then that leaves us with John 17:3 saying that Jesus is a false God, (if we also say that there are no other gods except false ones), as the ONLY TRUE GOD is reserved for the one who sent him.

Now a possible rebuttal from a Trinitarian could be that Jesus is not the only True God here because it is referring to him as a man as Trinitarians say that Jesus is both God and Man. But if this argument is made by Is 1:18, then he is admitting that Jesus is not always the only True God and therefore the Trinity is not always a Trinity as would be concluded when reading John 17:3. Such a rebuttal is ridiculous if we consider that God changes not and that God is not a man that he should lie.

Secondly, the Trinity doctrine breaks this scripture if we think of God as a Trinity in that it would read as “the only true ‘Trinity’ and Jesus Christ whom the ‘Trinity’ has sent.

We know that such a notion makes no sense so the word ‘God’ must of course be referring to the Father as hundreds of other similar verses do and to further support this, we know that the Father sent his son into this world.

If a Trinitarian argued that the only true God i.e., that The Father, Son, Spirit decided among themselves that the Jesus part of the Trinity would come to earth, then that would be reading way too much into what the scripture actually says and you would end up connecting dots that cannot justifiably be connected. It would be unreasonable to teach this angle because it actually doesn’t say such a thing. Such a rebuttal is pure assumption and quite ridiculous because the text itself is quite simple and clear. i.e., that the ONLY TRUE GOD (one true God) sent another (his son) into the world. It truly is no more complicated than that.

Such a rebuttal also requires that one start with the Trinity doctrine first and then force the scripture to fit it, rather than the scripture teaching us what it is saying. In other words it is similar to the way you get vinegar from a sponge. In order to do that, you must first soak the sponge in vinegar.

I conclude with an important point regarding John 17:3 that is often overlooked. The fact that we can know the one true God and the one he sent is of paramount importance because we are told that this is “eternal life” and therefore it would be reckless to try and change its simple and straight forward meaning.

My final note is to watch that Is 1:18’s rebuttal is focussed around John 17:3. I wouldn’t put it past him to create a diversion and start talking about the possibility or non-possibility of other gods. But the point in hand here is that John 17:3 says that the only true God sent Jesus, so let us see how he opposes this.




Is 1:18

Nice opening post t8. You have raised some interesting points. Thank you, by the way, for agreeing to debate me, I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it can be as amicable as is possible and conducted in good faith. With that in mind let me start by complimenting you. One of the things I do respect about you is that your theology, as much as I disagree with it, is your own, and I know that the material I will be reading over the next few weeks will be of your own making. Okay, enough of this sycophancy…..

:D

My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3
2. Some contextual issues
3. My interpretation of John 17:3

I’m going to try to keep my posts short and succinct, as I know people rarely read long posts through and sometimes the key messages can get lost in extraneous detail.

Section 1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3

Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:

He doesn’t say:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, a god, whom You have sent.

or this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ a lower class of being, whom You have sent.

and He definitely didn’t say this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ , an untrue God.

So, on the face of it, this verse, in and of itself, is NOT a true refutation of the trinity doctrine. Why? Because clearly a contra-distinction in ontology between the Father and Himself was not being drawn by Yeshua. There is not mention of “what” Yeshua is in the verse. He simply describes Himself with his Earthly name, followed by the mention of His being sent. So because there is no mention of a contrast in ontology in the verse, I dispute that it’s an exclusionist statement at all….and let’s not lose sight of this – “eternal” life is “knowing” The Father and the Son. If Yeshua was contrasting His very being with the Father, highlighting the disparity and His own inferiority, wouldn’t His equating of the importance of relationship of believers with the Fatherand Himself in the context of salvation be more than a little presumptuous, audacious, even blasphemous? If His implication was that eternal life is predicated on having a relationship with the One true God and a lesser being, then wasn’t Yeshua, in effect, endorsing a breach of the first commandment?

But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that that is indeed what Yeshua meant to affirm – that the Father is the true God, to the preclusion of Himself. Does this precept fit harmoniously within the framework of scripture? Or even within the framework of your personal Christology t8?

I say no. There is a dilemma invoked by this precept that should not be ignored.

There is no doubt that the word “God” (Gr. theos) is applied to Yeshua in the NT (notably: John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8…). Although obfuscatory tactics are often employed to diminish the impact of these statements.  You yourself might have in the past argued that the writer, in using “theos”, intended to denote something other than “divinity” in many of them, like an allusion to His “authority” for instance. I, of course, disagree with this as the context of the passages make it plain that ontological statements were being made, but for the sake of argument and brevity I’ll take just one example – John 1:1:-

This following quotation comes from your own writings (emphasis mine):

 

Quote
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word ‘god’ which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

From here

So here we have an unequivocal statement by you, t8, asserting that the word “theos” in John 1:1c is in fact a reference to His very nature. The word choices in your statement (“divine” and “nature”) were emphatically ontological ones, in that they spoke of the very essence of His being. What you actually expressed was – the reason He was called “God” by John was a function of His divine nature! But there is only one divine being t8, YHWH. There is no other God, and none even like YHWH….. 

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me“? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.

BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity?  How implausible.

Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

On one hand you hold up John 17:3 as a proof text, emphatically affirming that it shows that the Father of Yeshua is “the only true God” (The Greek word for “true” (Gr. alethinos) carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.”) – to the exclusion of the Son. But on the other you concede that Yeshua is called “God” in scriptureand acknowledge that the word “theos” was used by John in reference to His very nature. Can you see the dilemma? If not, here it is. You can’t have it both ways t8. If the Son is called “God” in an ontological sense (which is exactly what you expressed in you writing “who is Jesus” and subsequently in MB posts), but there isonly One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

To say otherwise is to acknowledge that John 1:1 teaches that two Gods inhabited the timeless environ of “the beginning” (i.e. before the advent of time itself), co-existing eternally (The Logos “was”[Gr. En – imperfect of eimi – denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past] in the beginning) in relationship (The Logos was “with” [pros] God), and that 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches a True and false god in fact created “all things”. Which aside from being overt polytheism is also clearly ludicrous. Did a false god lay the foundation of the Earth? Were the Heavens the work of false god’s hands? (Hebrews 1:10). How about the prospect of honouring a false god “even as” (i.e. in exactly the same way as) we honour the True one (John 5:23) at the judgement? It’s untenable for a monotheistic Christian, who interprets John 17:3 the way you do, to even contemplate these things, and yet these are the tangible implications and outworkings of such a position.

I would also say, in finishing this section, that if we apply the same inductive logic you used with John 17:3 to prove that the Father alone is the One true God, YHWH, to the exclusion of Yeshua, then to be consistent, should we also accept that Yeshua is excluded from being considered a “Saviour” by Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4 and Jude 25?  And does Zechariah 14:9 exclude Yeshua from being considered a King? And on the flip side of the coin, since Yeshua is ascribed the titles “Only Master” (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1) and “Only Lord” (Jude 4, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4,6), is the Father excluded from being these things to us?

You can’t maintain that the principal exists in this verse, but not others where the word “only” is used in reference to an individual person. That’s inconsistent. If you read unipersonality into the John 17:3 text and apply the same principle of exclusion to other biblical passages, then what results is a whole complex of problematic biblical dilemmas…….

Section 2. Some contextual issues.

Here is the first 10 verses of the Chapter in John, please note the emphasised parts of the text:

John 17:1-10
1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 
2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 
3″This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 
4″I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 
5″Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6″I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 
7″Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 
8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 
9″I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 
10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

I assert that some of the highlighted statements above are utterly incompatible with the notion of a monarchial monotheism statement of exclusion in vs 3, while at least one would be genuinely absurd

 

  • In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?
  • In verse 5 we read that Yeshua, alluding to His pre-existent past, again appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him – but adds “with the “glory” (Gr. Doxa – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship) which I had with You before the world was”. However, in Isaiah 42:8 YHWH said He would not give his glory to another. Now that is an exclusionist statement. What is a lesser being doing sharing “doxa” with the One true God? This puts you in an interesting paradox t8.
    Quote
    With thine own self (para seautw). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. John 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eixon, imperfect active of exw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doch), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” – Robertson’s Word Pictures (NT)
  • In verse 10 we  truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have?  I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

 

Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

I think we both should endeavor to always provide our interpretation of the verses that are submitted to us. Just explaining why the other’s view is wrong isn’t really going to aid in progressing the discussion very far.

My interpretation is this: The overarching context of the seventeenth chapter of John is Yeshua submissively praying as a man to His Father. Yeshua was born a man under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and in that respect, was subject to all of it. His Father was also His God, and had He not been the Law would have been violated by Him, and Yeshua would not have been “without blemish”. So the statement He made in John 17:3 reflected this, and of course He was right – the Father is the only true God. But “eternal” life was predicated on “knowing” the Father and Son.

1 John 1:2-3
2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal lifewhich was with the Father and was manifested to us
3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

So in summary, what we are dealing with here is good evidence for the Father’s divinity and the Son’s humanity. But what we don’t have in John 17:3 is good evidence for the non-deity of the Son. If you argue that it is then would Yeshua calling someone “a true man” disprove His own humanity? No. Yet this is the essence of the argument you are using t8. The verse does not make an ontological contra-distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, as the Son’s “being” is not even mentioned. Furthermore, given that you have previously acknowledged that the reason John ascribed the title “God” to the logos (in John 1:1) was due to His divine nature (in other words He was “God” in an ontological sense) the default position for your Yeshua is false God – if Yeshua made a statement of exclusion in John 17:3. If the Father is the only true God, all others are, by default, false ones. Then all kinds of problematic contradictions arise in scripture:

  • Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?
  • Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?
  • Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
  • Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?
  • Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?
  • Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?The list goes on….

 

If there is a verse that teaches YHWH’s unipersonity, John 17:3 is not that verse. The false god implication bears no resemblance to the Yeshua described in the  New Testament scriptures. In the NT the Logos existed (Gr. huparcho – continuous state of existence) in the form (Gr. morphe –nature, essential attributes as shown in the form) of God (Phil 2:6) and “was God” (John 1:1c), “He” then became flesh and dwelt among us  (John 1:14), yet in Him the fullness of deity (Gr. theotes – the state of being God) dwelt bodily form…..Yeshua is the exact representation of His Father’s “hypostasis” (essence/substance) – Hebrews 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4)….not a false God t8, a genuine One.

Thus ends my first rebuttal, I’ll post my first proof text in three days.

Blessings


Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 701 through 720 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #60575
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 18 2007,23:52)
    No CB, I get my Gospel from here:

    I do not get my Gospel from


    Nice one!

    #60577
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    kejohn:
    John was speaking in 1:7. No reason to assume that this verse belongs to Yeshua, especially since “Almighty” was never attributed to him.

    Mary>>>Heartily agreed that the term “Almighty” has NEVER been applied to Jesus Christ. He is “Mighty” bute is NOT “All-mighty.”

    KEJ>Quote
    Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
    Who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last?
    “I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6)
    Your base verse fell short of proving Yeshua, the rest merely affirm God. Thanks.

    Mary>>Agreed again that the title of Alpha and Omega belongs to God the Father Almighty. But, as in many terms used of various people in scripture (the term “god” being one, having been applied to others besides Almighty God, mos notably to angels and to men) the term Alpha and Omega can have different meaning when applied to one being that it does when applied to another.

    KEJ:Quote
    Turn to Revelation 1:17-18 which says, “Do not be fearful; I am the first and the last, and the living one; and I became dead but look! I am living forever.”
    Is “first and last” a title? Some would have us think so, but can it be something else?

    Mary>>If you look u the Greek words that appear in all those verses, you willfind them different. The words “first and last” are different words than “Alpha and Omega.” Alpha and Omega have SYMBOLIC meaning simply because those two words happen to be the first letter and the last one of the Gk. alphabet. It is similar to us comparing “A and B” and saying it's te same as “first and last,” when it is not the same AT ALL.

    KEJ>1 Cor 15:45 – So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL ” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
    Beyond that, since it is well established that Yeshua existed as the Word with God, “first and the last” can also be applied to him.

    Quote
    Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations:and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

    Are you still using this verse to try to prove Yeshua is God? The winepress belongs to God, Yeshua is the one who is trampling the “bad grapes”. Please read carefully.

    Quote
    Isa 9:6 also describes Jesus as The mighty God
    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    Almighty > Mighty. Besides, “his name shall be called” means he will have a name that reflects this. Since Yeshua has not any of these in his name, we haven't seen the person spoke of in Isaiah 9:6.

    Mary>>>Yeshua WOULD BE called those things in Isaiah's futue. Yes, the world has seen that one who would carry those names, but those names would be applied to him after he accomplished certain things of God's will.
    But,that is getting away from whether or not God exists triune.

    : )

    #60579
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    Quote (OneLadyBand @ July 19 2007,02:32)
    On another topic:
    Does anyone else have trouble with the words on the screen keeping up with your typing? I constantly have to go back and make corrections where letters are left out, becaue it just can't seem to keep up. Irritating. : )

    I haven't noticed. Perhaps you are a much faster typer than me though. Do you have the same problem in other apps?

    Hi, T8:
    I am a touch typer,that is true. This is a brand new keyboard, and works very well other places online. I have AOL, and it works good on their mesage boards.
    Dunno what's the prob. :(

    #60611

    T8

    If you want to continue with this I am happy to oblige!

    You say…

    Quote

    you quote this guy Ignatius and say that he was discipled by John and what he says is significant, and this same man calls you a servant of Satan because you say that Jesus is the Most High God, the very thing that he condemns in his teaching.

    Think about the implications here. His words condemn you, Isaiah, and CultB. He calls you guys Ministers of Satan
    NOTE: that I am not calling you this myself.

    No, this same man does not call Trinitarians ministers of satan, but in fact says that those who say Jesus is not “God” are ministers of satan.

    Lets look closer then.

    You quote…

    Quote
    (emphasis mine)
    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).

    I think he is addressing two heresys of his day.

    1. Unitarians  – “that He is not the Son the Creator.  Who else is Creator but God t8?

    Unitarians believe Jesus is not God in any sense and therefore he is not the creator, nor do they believe he pre-existed. They believe that the creation was done by God with the Son in mind through the thought or plan of God!

    2. Oneness – “that He is Himself God over all”. That Jesus is himself the Father! Jesus only!

    He clarifys this in the context of his writings…

    Quote
    And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).

    And that He Himself is not God over all, *and the Father*, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).

    How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me. (To the Tarsians, VI).

    He is clarifying his postion that Jesus is both God and man!

    In these passages you have 2 options…

    1. Ignatius is saying that Jesus the Word is a god!
    2. Ignatius is saying that Jesus is true God!

    Of course a closer look at the context shows that option 2 is the only option!

    The reason why number 2 is the only option…

    Ignatius is a Monotheist
    Yet Ignatius says in the above…

    * God the Word, who also created all things.

    God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*

    Notice t8 that Ignatius says Jesus created all things, confirming Heb 1:10.

    He also said earlier…
    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born only in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator.

    t8, isn’t this what you believe, that Jesus is not the creator, but that the Father created everything “through him”. You believe that Jesus was just an empty vessel and that he did not lay the foundation of the world according to Heb 1:10.

    It looks like Ignatius is saying that you and NH are ministers of satan!  I am not saying that, but Ignatius is.

    Is not the Creator God over all? So when he says…

     “others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all.”, he is meaning Jesus is not God over the Father.

    For he also says…

    And that He Himself is not God over all, *and the Father*

    Ignatius claims Jesus is the creator. Do you think t8 that he is in opposition to the Hebrew scriptures which says…

    Gen 1:1
    In the beginning “God” created the heavens and the earth!

    Isa 44:24
    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;

    Isa 45:18
    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is none else*.  

    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*,

    And yet he quotes his John several times concerning Jesus being the Word/God the creator…
    John.1
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him; and *without him was not any thing made that was made*.

    How do you explain this t8? Is Ignatius a Polytheist or a Henotheist as you suggest?

    You cant have it 2 ways t8. You want to call Jesus a “divine being” and yet quote John 10:34 an Isolated scripture quoted by Jesus referring to the Pss in defence of him being the Son of God which they interpreted as being equal to God. You also use this as a reason for John using “Theos” in Jn 1:1 and 20:28. So if you think it is scriptural to call Jesus a god, then why arnnt you holding to this translation and say with Thomas my Lord and my god? This is what the JWs did. You say Jesus meant that men were gods in a true sense. But Paul says there is “so called gods” and only One True God, and all other so called gods are not gods at all. Now did Paul hear form the Spirit of Jesus?

    You have yet to show one place in the NT scriptures that the word “Theos” is ascribed in a “true or positive” sense to any other living being at that time other than the Father and the Son.

    If you believe that Jesus is a god or we are gods then why don’t you just say so, all you allude to is what you say is his nature, that he like us is a
    “partaker” of the Fathers divine nature. Where is the scripture that Jesus has “Partaken” of the Fathers divine nature? Jesus is the express Image of the Invisible God, he as the Word/God reveals who the God is because he is God in the flesh. There is a big difference in being the “Epress image of God” and “partaking of his image.

    You t8 are in opposition to the words of Ignatius when he says…

    Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil.

    Notice t8 he says they make Jesus the Son of some other being “Different from him” whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil.

    And again…
    The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

    Again if Ignatius meant that Jesus was “a god” then he sure has confused a lot of people for he speaks of Jesus as his God quite often!

    Look and see…

    * How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    * there is also one Son, God the Word

    **Jesus Christ, our God*

    * *by the blood of God*

    * There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; *God existing in flesh* (1 Tim 3:16)

    * We have also as a Physician *the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ*, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began
    (notice t8 that he says the the Lord our God the Word is before time! Even you t8 dont believe Jesus is not a created being, yet you use Ignatius quote from Proverbs 8 against me. Did he contradict himself? I dont think so? Do you?)

    •For he who shall both “do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom. Matt. v. 19.of*Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ*
    *For our God, Jesus Christ*, was, according to the appointment Or, “economy,” or “dispensation.” Comp. Col. i. 25; 1 Tim. i. 4. of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.
    *God being manifested as a man, and man displaying power as God.

    •He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, *was God the Word,*
    •Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with *Jesus Christ our God*
    •Mary then did truly conceive a *body which had God inhabiting it*. And *God the Word* was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. *He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin*
    •(There he goes again t8 calling Jesus the Creator)
    •Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to* the love of Jesus Christ our God*

    •…who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in* Jesus Christ our God*.

    •the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of *Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour;*

    *For our God, Jesus Christ*, now that He is with [or in] the Father, is all the more revealed [in his glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

    •Permit me to be an imitator of *the passion of Christ, my God*. If any one has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am straitened.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html

    •Since, also, there is but *one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father*; and *one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man*; and *one Comforter, the Spirit of truth*; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;

    •If any one confesses *the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost*
    *God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word*, even as the soul also is in the body, *because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul*
    *I GLORIFY God, even Jesus Christ*, who has given you such wisdom.

    *I give glory to Jesus Christ the God* who
    bestowed such wisdom upon you…
    *God the Word, the only-begotten Son*, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled  by Him…

    •For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And He says to Thomas, “Reach hither
    thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side; and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore *Thomas also says to Him, “My Lord, and my God*. And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes.
    *servants of Christ our God*, who have followed me for the sake of God, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because ye have in every way refreshed them.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.html

    To Polycarp
    8:3  I bid you farewell always *in our God Jesus Christ*, in whom abide ye in the unity and supervision of God. I salute Alce, a name very dear to me.

    Grace shall be with him for ever, and with Polycarp that sends him. I pray for your happiness *for ever in our God, Jesus Christ*, by whom continue ye in the unity and under the protection of God, I salute Alce, my dearly beloved.

    Look for Christ, the Son of God; who was before time, yet appeared in time; who was invisible by nature, yet visible in the flesh; who was impalpable, and could not be touched, as being without a body, but for our sakes became such, might be touched and handled in the body; *who was impassible as God, but became passible for our sakes as man; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.*

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.viii.html
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text….ts.html
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text….ot.html
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.html

    Again…

    Its quite obvi
    ous Ignatius was not a Henotheist, nor a Polytheist, nor a Unitarian. This man of God was a contemporary of John and Paul and quoted such as we have the Word now!

    How do you explain this t8?

    His view seems to align with Jesus and John and Paul and Thomas and Mattew and the Trinitarians.

    But it sure dosnt line up with yours!

    So goes the the fallacious claim that the Trinity was invented by Athanasius!

    Again t8, you quote…

    Quote

    Ignatius said:
    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).

    Of course he is not saying Jesus is the Father as you assume. He is saying as it is in its context that Jesus is God over all but the Father. For who else t8 is the Creator? ???

    Look again my friend, those who deny Jesus is the Creator are ministers of satan. And also he that does cont confess that the Word/God has come in the flesh has denied him, therefore confirming what John his contemporary says.

    For what does it profit, if any one commends me, *but blasphemes my Lord*, not owning Him to be God incarnate? *He that does not confess this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death*. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as *they are unbelievers*; and far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent.

    BTW t8. Ignatius dosnt believe the same as you concerning the Holy Spirit…

    Quote
    .” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.”There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into **three [persons] possessed of equal honour [one name]**

    Do you see the “three persons, possessed of equal honour?  

    You still havn't addressed my post on the Spirit!!!   :)

    #60612
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    God is ONE.
    The rest is in your imagination.

    #60614
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,12:17)
    I think he is addressing two heresys of his day.

    1. Unitarians – “that He is not the Son the Creator. Who else is Creator but God t8?

    Unitarians believe Jesus is not God in any sense and therefore he is not the creator, nor do they believe he pre-existed. They believe that the creation was done by God with the Son in mind through the thought or plan of God!

    2. Oneness – “that He is Himself God over all”. That Jesus is himself the Father! Jesus only!


    Wow that is amazing.

    He actually condemns those who say that Jesus is God over all, which is what you believe and you try and wiggle out of it. You are not doing yourself any favours WJ. It is in your OWN interest to accept a rebuke and change, rather than try to dodge it for prides sake.

    You then go onto to say that Ignatius says that the God over all is actually the Father.

    There it is WJ, it's right there. YOU SAID IT.

    The God over all is the Father. Is that not what I have taught all along, and then after much opposition toward me on this point, you say the same thing in order to wiggle out of a condemning statement directed at people who teach or say as you do.

    Let's recap.

    Ignatius says:

  • that the God over all is the Father (and he excludes the son);
  • that those who say that Jesus is God overall is a minister of Satan.

    You say:

  • that the God over all is the Father (and include the Son), (and Spirit).
  • that Jesus is God over all.

    Ignatius condemns you on both points. It is as clear as day.

    BTW, Ignatius obviously believes that the Word is divine/or came from God having the nature of God. I do to. God the Word isn't the God overall according to Ignatius.

    As far as the creator part. He is either saying that Jesus is the son of the creator or that God created all things through him.

    If he actually says that Jesus is the creator to the exclusion of the Father, then he is wrong.

    I fully expect your rebuttal to argue the second part of this post and ignore the first, but now that I have said this, you may do otherwise to spite what I have written. That is fine with me.

#60631
kejonn
Participant

Some more Ignatius writings that may interest you (excerpts):

Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter VIII.—Caution against false doctrines. Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence,676 and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him. Be not deceived with strange doctrines, “nor give heed to fables and and endless genealogies,”677 and things in which the Jews make their boast. “Old things are passed away: behold, all things have become new.”678 For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utterance, but a substance begotten by divine power, who has in all things pleased Him that sent Him.679

Now that is boldly anti-Trinitarian! Let's read some more of Ignatius

Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter XI.—I write these things to warn you. These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state;706 but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope,707 from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.

These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state;708 but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father’s glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works.709 He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us710 ever be turned aside!

One of the first to teach Trinity? With statements like these? Hmmm…

#60633

Quote (t8 @ July 19 2007,13:23)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,12:17)
I think he is addressing two heresys of his day.

1. Unitarians  – “that He is not the Son the Creator.  Who else is Creator but God t8?

Unitarians believe Jesus is not God in any sense and therefore he is not the creator, nor do they believe he pre-existed. They believe that the creation was done by God with the Son in mind through the thought or plan of God!

2. Oneness – “that He is Himself God over all”. That Jesus is himself the Father! Jesus only!


Wow that is amazing.

He actually condemns those who say that Jesus is God over all, which is what you believe and you try and wiggle out of it. You are not doing yourself any favours WJ. It is in your OWN interest to accept a rebuke and change, rather than try to dodge it for prides sake.

You then go onto to say that Ignatius says that the God over all is actually the Father.

There it is WJ, it's right there. YOU SAID IT.

The God over all is the Father. Is that not what I have taught all along, and then after much opposition toward me on this point, you say the same thing in order to wiggle out of a condemning statement directed at people who teach or say as you do.

Let's recap.

Ignatius says:

  • that the God over all is the Father (and he excludes the son);
  • that those who say that Jesus is God overall is a minister of Satan.

    You say:

  • that the God over all is the Father (and include the Son), (and Spirit).
  • that Jesus is God over all.

    Ignatius condemns you on both points. It is as clear as day.

    BTW, Ignatius obviously believes that the Word is divine/or came from God having the nature of God. I do to. God the Word isn't the God overall according to Ignatius.

    As far as the creator part. He is either saying that Jesus is the son of the creator or that God created all things through him.

    If he actually says that Jesus is the creator to the exclusion of the Father, then he is wrong.

    I fully expect your rebuttal to argue the second part of this post and ignore the first, but now that I have said this, you may do otherwise to spite what I have written. That is fine with me.


  • t8

    You say…

    Quote

    As far as the creator part. He is either saying that Jesus is the son of the creator or that God created all things through him.

    If he actually says that Jesus is the creator to the exclusion of the Father, then he is wrong.

    I see so you take what you want distort it, then say he is wrong on the obvious quotes that he makes that *negates* your distorted view of Ignatius!

    You fail to address my points and ignore my questions.

    This is exactly what you do with John 1:1 and 20:28 and other scriptures that clearly show Jesus is not what you claim him to be.

    :D

    Look at the quotes again…

    Ignatius is a Monotheist
    Yet Ignatius says in the above…

    * God the Word, who also created all things.

    God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*

    Notice t8 that Ignatius says Jesus created all things, confirming Heb 1:10.

    He also said earlier…
    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born only in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator.

    t8, isn’t this what you believe, that Jesus is not the creator, but that the Father created everything “through him”. You believe that Jesus was just an empty vessel and that he did not lay the foundation of the world according to Heb 1:10.

    It looks like Ignatius is saying that you and NH are ministers of satan!  I am not saying that, but Ignatius is.

    Is not the Creator God over all? So when he says…

    “others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all.”, he is meaning Jesus is not God over the Father.

    For he also says…

    And that He Himself is not God over all, *and the Father*

    Ignatius claims Jesus is the creator. Do you think t8 that he is in opposition to the Hebrew scriptures which says…

    Gen 1:1
    In the beginning “God” created the heavens and the earth!

    Isa 44:24
    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;

    Isa 45:18
    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is none else*.  

    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*,

    And yet he quotes his John several times concerning Jesus being the Word/God the creator…
    John.1
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him; and *without him was not any thing made that was made*.

    How do you explain this t8? Is Ignatius a Polytheist or a Henotheist as you suggest?

    Again t8, you quote…

    Quote

    Ignatius said:
    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).

    Of course he is not saying Jesus is the Father as you assume. He is saying as it is in its context that Jesus is God over all but the Father. For who else t8 is the Creator? ???

    Ignatius is negating your proposed view of the above by claiming Jesus is both God incarnate and the Creator!!! :p

    Obviously what you read into it dosnt work does it?

    Look again my friend, those who deny Jesus is the Creator are ministers of satan. And also he that does not confess that the Word/God has come in the flesh has
    denied him, therefore confirming what John his contemporary says.

    1 Jn 4:
    1
    Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    2
    Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ (Word/God) is come in the flesh is of God:

    3
    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ (Word/God) is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    4
    Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

    5
    They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

    6
    We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

    For what does it profit, if any one commends me, *but blasphemes my Lord*, not owning Him to be God incarnate? *He that does not confess this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death*. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as *they are unbelievers*; and far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent.

    BTW t8. Ignatius dosnt believe the same as you concerning the Holy Spirit…

    Quote
    .” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.”There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into **three [persons] possessed of equal honour [one name]**

    Do you see the “three persons, possessed of equal honour?  

    You still havn't addressed my post on the Spirit!!!   :)

    #60636
    kejonn
    Participant

    Looking through Ignatius' writings, he often refers to Yeshua as “God”. I put it in quotation marks because I wonder of it should be capitalized. But I also not that he calls the Father the Almighty God in some places and true God in others. He never uses Almighty or true God to refer to Yeshua. Yet as you can see above, he warns against polytheism by saying there is “one and only true God, His Father”.

    Weird indeed. If I had my guess — and it helps straighten out “My Lord and My God” by Thomas — I'd say that he is referring to Yeshua as God in the same fashion that YHWH told Moses he would be Pharaoh's God (Ex 7:1). How else could you reconcile Ignatius' warning of polytheism by Yeshua making known “the one and only true God, His Father”?

    Thoughts? Or was Ignatius just some wacked out, double-minded dude? ???

    #60640
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You ask
    “Do you see the “three persons, possessed of equal honour? “
    No.
    God is One.

    #60645
    kejonn
    Participant

    WJ,

    I think our struggle is with theos. You see “God” and automatically think Trinity. But my above post using excerpts from Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians points out that he believes the Father is the one true God and Almighty. By calling Yeshua God, he is saying he is God to us because he represented God in the flesh, just like some OT judges, and just like Moses to Pharaoh (Ex 7:1).

    So by pointing out that the Father is the one true God, he is saying that Yeshua was the Word of God in the flesh, and thus God to him. Its not a matter of Yeshua being a false God but being the representation of God among us. Do you see the difference? If you don't you have trouble with Ignatius saying “and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He [Yeshus] made known the one and only true God, His Father”.

    If we accept what Ignatius says as truth, which might be dangerous since it is not in the Bible, we may finally have a very clear understanding of Thomas saying “My Lord and My God”.

    #60646

    kejonn

    Lets look at the same with a different emphasis…

    On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His *Word*, not spoken, but essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utterance, but a substance *begotten by* divine power, who has in all things pleased Him that sent Him.679

    Hebrews 1:
    God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets,  
    2 at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;  
    3 who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the *word of his power*, having made by himself the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high

    And how about this one…

    Col 1
    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  
    16 For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.  
    17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    Then you quote…

    Quote
    Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter XI.—I write these things to warn you. These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state;706 but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope,707 from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.

    These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state;708 but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father’s glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works.709 He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us710 ever be turned aside!

    The key to your claim that because he teaches against Polytheism means that he teaches against the trinity is the fact that he claims Jesus as the Creator!

    Plain and simple.

    Ignatius like John who discipled him believed Jesus to be YHWH in the flesh.

    #60648

    Quote (kejonn @ July 19 2007,16:53)
    Looking through Ignatius' writings, he often refers to Yeshua as “God”. I put it in quotation marks because I wonder of it should be capitalized. But I also not that he calls the Father the Almighty God in some places and true God in others. He never uses Almighty or true God to refer to Yeshua. Yet as you can see above, he warns against polytheism by saying there is “one and only true God, His Father”.

    Weird indeed. If I had my guess — and it helps straighten out “My Lord and My God” by Thomas — I'd say that he is referring to Yeshua as God in the same fashion that YHWH told Moses he would be Pharaoh's God (Ex 7:1). How else could you reconcile Ignatius' warning of polytheism by Yeshua making known “the one and only true God, His Father”?

    Thoughts? Or was Ignatius just some wacked out, double-minded dude? ???


    kejonn

    If you think Ignatius is wacked out, then so was John and Paul and Thomas and the writter of Hebrews for they also believed God came in the flesh!

    :O

    #60654

    Quote (kejonn @ July 19 2007,17:08)
    WJ,

    I think our struggle is with theos. You see “God” and automatically think Trinity. But my above post using excerpts from Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians points out that he believes the Father is the one true God and Almighty. By calling Yeshua God, he is saying he is God to us because he represented God in the flesh, just like some OT judges, and just like Moses to Pharaoh (Ex 7:1).

    So by pointing out that the Father is the one true God, he is saying that Yeshua was the Word of God in the flesh, and thus God to him. Its not a matter of Yeshua being a false God but being the representation of God among us. Do you see the difference?  If you don't you have trouble with Ignatius saying “and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He [Yeshus] made known the one and only true God, His Father”.

    If we accept what Ignatius says as truth, which might be dangerous since it is not in the Bible, we may finally have a very clear understanding of Thomas saying “My Lord and My God”.


    kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    So by pointing out that the Father is the one true God, he is saying that Yeshua was the Word of God in the flesh, and thus God to him.

    There is no way of cutting your statement to be anything other than Polytheism.

    Jesus came to do away with all “elohims” that represented the God of the OT.

    He is the Word/God in the flesh. Jn 1:1 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16, Zech 12 and 14.

    Please show me scripture where any being was considered to be “God” in the flesh!

    Also while you are at it, how about a New Testament scripture where the word “Theos” in a true or positive sense is ascribed to a “living” being in his time other than the Father and Jesus!

    ???

    #60661
    kejonn
    Participant

    WJ,

    I don't doubt that Ignatius felt that God came in the flesh. But I think we don't truly understand the way “God” was used in the first century and before. I think that is where we have the division and th misleadings. Ignatius' writings somewhat confirm this. How can he in some places say that the Father is the one true God, the one and only God, but turn around and call Yeshua God?

    The Trinity tries to make Yeshua, the Father, and the Holy Spirit out as the true God together. However, Ignatius quite plainly refutes this. He boldly states that the Father is the true God. I know that doesn't line up well with you but it cannot be ignored.

    #60663
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Only you guys worship three deities.
    God is one.

    #60666
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,17:08)

    The key to your claim that because he teaches against Polytheism means that he teaches against the trinity is the fact that he claims Jesus as the Creator!

    Plain and simple.

    Ignatius like John who discipled him believed Jesus to be YHWH in the flesh.


    WJ,

    I was wondering where you kept coming up with this “Jesus the Creator” stuff. Now I see, Epistle to the Tarsians. This Epistles was listed under the spurious writings of Ignatius. That is, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xiii.html

    We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.

    In that to the Tarsians there is found a plain allusion to the Sabellian heresy, which did not arise till after the middle of the third century. In the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived. The Epistle to Hero plainly alludes to Manichæan errors, and could not therefore have been written before the third century. There are equally decisive proofs of spuriousness to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians, such as the references it contains to the Patripassian heresy originated by Praxeas in the latter part of the second century, and the ecclesiastical feasts, etc., of which it makes mention. The letter to Maria Cassobolita is of a very peculiar style, utterly alien from that of the other Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. And it is sufficient simply to glance at the short Epistles to St. John and the Virgin Mary, in order to see that they carry the stamp of imposture on their front; and, indeed, no sooner were they published than by almost universal consent they were rejected.

    So to refer to the Tarsians Epistle is grave error. If you want to use Ignatius' writings, at least stay within those that the scholars feel were actually written by him.

    As to your other part of the post, it was off base and stuff already covered many, many times on this board.

    #60669
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,17:22)

    kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    So by pointing out that the Father is the one true God, he is saying that Yeshua was the Word of God in the flesh, and thus God to him.

    There is no way of cutting your statement to be anything other than Polytheism.


    Huh? Ignatius said it, not me. I don't think Yeshua is God. He may be “God” in the sense that Moses was “God” to pharaoh, but he is not the one an only true God, the Father. Even Ignatius said so.

    Quote
    Jesus came to do away with all “elohims” that represented the God of the OT.


    Scripture please. I've never heard that. He came to show us God by his words and actions, and then to die on the cross for our salvation.

    Quote
    He is the Word/God in the flesh. Jn 1:1 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16, Zech 12 and 14.


    Ignatius said as much. But he also said that the Father was the one and only true God, the Almighty. You know, same Almighty as YHWH in the OT.

    Quote
    Please show me scripture where any being was considered to be “God” in the flesh!


    None was. No other man was born of the Holy Spirit and called the Son of God. What is your point?

    Quote
    Also while you are at it, how about a New Testament scripture where the word “Theos” in a true or positive sense is ascribed to a “living” being in his time other than the Father and Jesus!

    ???


    You are running low on excuses. This is one of the most desperate pleas I've seen from you. There was no more representatives of God in the NT. The Apostles carried out what Yeshua started, they were not prophets or judges. They are as we are today: Christians who had the honor to spread the Gospel.

    And BTW, show me where the Bible calls Yeshua God in a manner unlike Ignatius. Since Ignatius made these statements “being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son” and “and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father“, do so in a manner where “one and only true God” or “one God, the Almighty” is said of Yeshua.

    #60670

    Kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    I'm sorry if my answer does not satisfy you. In fact, if you look again at Romans 8:9, you would see that with the separation of “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” in the same verse, you would realize that both Yeshua and the Father influence you through their roles. Would “One God” need to make such distinction? Why the need to have Yeshua and God's Spirit, both the same but with each contributing a little different essence to our lives be necessary?

    That’s the question you have not answered?

    Scripture teaches we can not approach God but through The mediator between God and man the man Jesus. What does it mean through Jesus?

    Does it mean through Jesus Spirit. So the Father is a Spirit and Jesus has a Spirit.

    Well, again there is no way to cut it that that means that we have received 2 Spirits!

    Now when I make that statement then the “Unitarians” “Henotheist” and “Arians” put on their filters and say see Jesus cant be God because he is a man. “How can he be the God he was with?” As if to say it is not possible that God can be ontologically one with the Word and the Holy Spirit!

    Who says so. The scriptures don’t.

    The scriptures say there is One True God, but not at the exclusion of the Son.

    You say…

    Quote
    There is a lesson for you in Romans 8:9-11, and it is not that the Holy Spirit being a third member of a triune God. Haha, in fact, by showing that Yeshua and God each own the Holy Spirit, one sees rather quickly that the Holy Spirit cannot be a third person, but a mutually shared essence. Where do we see “Spirit of God”, “Spirit of Christ” and “Spirit of Holy Spirit”? We don't. Ooops, you're theology stumbles again.

    We don’t, but we see Comforter, Holy Spirit, Finger of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Jesus, Spirit of him…Etc, Etc.

    Its fallacious to say because the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name that he cannot be a person, or that he dosnt exist as another! The Father dosnt have a personal name that we know does he?

    You didn’t answer my post on the following scriptures. Please tell me how you read these and not see “Another”!!!

    Jn 16:
    13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: 1. for he shall not speak of himself; but 2. whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    14 He shall glorify me: 3. for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    15 4. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    1. Does the Father speak of himself?

    2. Does the Father speak only what he hears?

    3. Does the Father take from Jesus and show it to us?

    4. Does he give all things to Jesus then take from Jesus and shew to us!

    Is the Father subservient to Jesus? ???

    Jesus baptises in the Holy Spirit and fire!

    Imagine that! Can a mere man do that?

    Men try to understand the nature of the spirit comparing him to our own personal being. Therefore men would put limitations on him and in so doing put limitations on God.

    The Holy Spirits ministry is not to speak of himself, but to serve the Father and Jesus, For the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

    Rev 22:1
    And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

    This distinction is made between God and the Lamb because Yeshua is also forever God in the flesh!

    #60671
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote
    Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten. (23).


    What is meant by “proper”?

    Quote
    Athenagoras (ca. 175 A.D)
    And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of Spirit, the knowledge and Word of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself,


    Interesting. Here stated that God HAD THE LOGOS IN HIMSELF. How can God have a preexistent son in himself?

    Quote
    Now the energy of the Lord has a relationship to the Almighty, and the Son is, so to speak, an energy of the Father. (Stromata, Book VII, 2).


    Also interesting, refering to the Son – “an energy of the Father.”

    These are quotes taken from t8's post on the early Christian Fathers.

    Viewing 20 posts - 701 through 720 (of 945 total)
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    © 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

    Navigation

    © 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
    or

    Log in with your credentials

    or    

    Forgot your details?

    or

    Create Account