- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,11:18) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,20:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:15)
KathiI find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
The next page of your source says (emphasis mine)…
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, “that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular“. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say “THAT THE VERY SUPREME TRINITY ITSELF IS THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet “NOT THREE GREATS, BUT ONE GREAT”. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God alone.”573573 Ps. lxxxvi. 10 And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, save one, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, “Good Master,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None is good, save one, that is, God.”574574 Luke xviii. 18, 19 For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; “BUT BY THE NAME OF GOD, BOTH HIMSELF AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD. Source
So you see they do not agree with your understanding of the words “unbegotten” and “begotten” Gods. You want to go down that road we can but I assure you that the final conclusion of the church was Jesus is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no beginning. The Athanasian Creed does the final blow to the Arians and the RCC has not tossed out the Nicene Creed which only means that their understanding of the two agrees whereas yours doesn't.
WJ
Keith,
Do you always agree with everything the people you quote believe?
Hi KathiNo I don't, but I do not quote them out of context and use their words as a means of teaching something they did not conclude at all.
WJ
Keith,
I don't quote them out of context either. I often include a whole paragraph and leave the link. I come to the conclusion that they are one in essence. I may not word it like you think I should but I still have the main thing, the main thing. We need the Father, Son and their Spirit for salvation.Kathi
Mike,
About your dog analogy…I was thinking that if you used the word 'canine' it would be a little more compatible as an example. For instance…
In the beginning was the word, the word was with the canine, the word was canine. The 'the' is necessary, the 'a' would not be. I wouldn't capitalize canine because our language doesn't have a significance for that.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,13:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,11:18) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,20:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:15)
KathiI find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
The next page of your source says (emphasis mine)…
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, “that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular“. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say “THAT THE VERY SUPREME TRINITY ITSELF IS THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet “NOT THREE GREATS, BUT ONE GREAT”. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God alone.”573573 Ps. lxxxvi. 10 And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, save one, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, “Good Master,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None is good, save one, that is, God.”574574 Luke xviii. 18, 19 For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; “BUT BY THE NAME OF GOD, BOTH HIMSELF AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD. Source
So you see they do not agree with your understanding of the words “unbegotten” and “begotten” Gods. You want to go down that road we can but I assure you that the final conclusion of the church was Jesus is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no beginning. The Athanasian Creed does the final blow to the Arians and the RCC has not tossed out the Nicene Creed which only means that their understanding of the two agrees whereas yours doesn't.
WJ
Keith,
Do you always agree with everything the people you quote believe?
Hi KathiNo I don't, but I do not quote them out of context and use their words as a means of teaching something they did not conclude at all.
WJ
Keith,
I don't quote them out of context either. I often include a whole paragraph and leave the link. I come to the conclusion that they are one in essence. I may not word it like you think I should but I still have the main thing, the main thing. We need the Father, Son and their Spirit for salvation.Kathi
KathiBut your teaching that the Father and Jesus are two seperate “Gods” are not what they believe the unbegotten Father and begotten Son are. Therefore your use of the terms and quotes made by them is not in line with what they believe “unbegotten God” and “begotten God” means at all.
Your source even says that the terms are interchangeable like God the Father and God the Son who they say are “One God” not 2 or 3 “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,
Do you think that God, the unbegotten is the same one as God, the begotten? If not, then you have two. The oneness is in their essence and how they act as one mind. Therefore you can say, for us there is one God, the Father, the unbegotten God and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the begotten God. Would you say that last sentence would be correct according to the source below:Quote The terms “unbegotten” and “begotten” are interchangeable with the terms Father and Son. This follows from the relation of a substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense a substantive is employed, in the same sense must the adjective formed from it be employed. Consequently, if the first person of the Trinity may be called Father in a sense that implies deity, he may be called Unbegotten in the same sense. And if the second person may be called Son in a sense implying deity, he may be called Begotten in the same sense. The Ancient church often employed the adjective, and spoke of God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12, 13. Clem. Alex. Stromata v. xii.). This phraseology sounds strange to the Modern church, yet the latter really says the same thing when it speaks of God the Father, and God the Son.—W.G.T.S.] Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,22:02)
Mike,
Jesus was tempted according to the flesh, not according to His perfect God nature. Also, Jesus died according to His flesh and not according to His perfect God nature. One is God of the other but that doesn't mean one is perfect and the other isn't as perfect otherwise the other wouldn't be perfect at all.
Hebrews 5
8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.Hi Kathi,
It sounds to me like “perfect God” must not have begotten “perfect Son”. If you mean “perfect” as when a mother and father thank God their child was born perfect with all ten fingers and all ten toes, then I agree. If you mean “perfect” as in Jesus couldn't possibly do any wrong, then I disagree. I don't know of any creation of God who doesn't have the free will to choose right from wrong. The angels have that free will, and so do humans, so I would assume God's own Son also has that free will to choose right from wrong. I don't think God wanted a “yes-man robot” for a Son, do you? And if God absolutely CAN'T do wrong, and Jesus possibly could have, and still could, there is a big difference between them, don't you think?
Anyway, you'll notice from the scripture above that Jesus was MADE perfect, which implies he wasn't that way to start with. You'll also notice that once he was MADE perfect, it was THEN that he BECAME the source for our eternal salvation. You might also take notice that it was THEN that God designated him to the position of HIGH PRIEST. Now when in scripture did anyone ever WORSHIP their PRIEST to God? (That's off topic, as is this whole line of discussion, but I couldn't resist.)
Hebrews 7:26-28 also sheds some light on the fact that Jesus was MADE perfect, and is now a PRIEST to his God, who intercedes with God on our behalf. Look up “intercede” to get an idea of what role Jesus plays between us and God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,22:02)
As far as Jason, if he doesn't deal with the 'the' in part b then what he says about the 'a' in part c has little bearing.
I'm sure he does deal with it. I just don't have the whole book yet. I'll let you know when I get it. I disagree with your opinion anyway. We in English can capitalize the first letter in lieu of the definite article. After praying, we can say, “I prayed to the god” or “I prayed to God”. Capping the “G” makes up for not including “the”. It's like when we cap the “G”, others in our society automatically assume we're speaking of “THE God”, and since there is only ONE “THE God”, there should be only one capitalized “God” IMO. And that's the problem I see with capping the “G” in 1:1c: It either gives the impression of “THE God” when it doesn't refer to “THE God”, or it gives the impression that we have TWO Gods Most High, or TWO “THE Gods”, both of which are contradictions in terms.In the Greek language, they didn't have the option of capping the “G” or adding an “a” to show what they meant. When they finished praying, they would have to say, “I prayed to THE god”. If they didn't add the definite article, they could be saying they prayed to A god. And that is why the definite article being used only in referrence to ONE of the two theos mentioned in 1:1 is so important in the GREEK language. It's the only tool John had to distinguish THE God from the other god he mentioned. It's not as important to us in English, because the “THE” is already implied by capping the “G”.
Kathi, I think we've come to the end of our “a god” discussion. Here's where we ended up, as far as I can tell:
YOUR preferred version:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.”You feel the definite article is enough to distinguish between the two gods mentioned, the indefinite article is not necessary (even though TWO gods are spoken of), and both gods should be capped because both are divine.
MY preferred version:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”I too know that TWO different gods are spoken of. But I feel the definite article is not necessary in English, for the capped “G” implies the definite article anyway. I feel that capping the “G” in part c is confusing because of the implied definite article. And considering we only have ONE true God, the Father, I feel we should only capitalize one “God” throughout scripture, to set God Almighty apart from any other god, including His Son. And since I know John speaks of TWO gods in 1:1, and only one of them is “THE God, the Father”, then I see no harm in adding the “a” to make clear that the Word is A god who is not THE God. In fact, since that IS what John is teaching – that A god was with THE God in the beginning – I find it irresponsible to omit the “a” when it is needed to clarify what John was teaching. And finally, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Jason BeDuhn that translating 1:1 the way all the Trinitarian supported translations do is cowardly, and just goes to confirm that they must “doctor” God's Book to make sure THEIR message is received, and not necessarily the message that was intended in the first place. And that tells us all that apparently “their truth” is not evident enough from the scriptures themselves, and so they must force their truth through faulty and slanted translations.
Thanks for doing this discussion with me, Kathi. I was about to pull my hair out until you came back.
Are we ready to discuss the fact that even left anarthrous, 1:1c still doesn't support a trinity?
Or do you have comments about this post?peace and love to you my friend,
mikeHi Mike,
The 'perfect' in Heb 8:5 means:
to bring to an end, to complete, perfect.A good translation to help clarify this says:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
After he had finished his work, he became the source of eternal salvation for everyone who obeys him.Can you see that? It is not about his nature. The same Greek word is in Hebrews 7:28.
Quote I'm sure he does deal with it. I just don't have the whole book yet. I'll let you know when I get it. I disagree with your opinion anyway. We in English can capitalize the first letter in lieu of the definite article. After praying, we can say, “I prayed to the god” or “I prayed to God”. Capping the “G” makes up for not including “the”. It's like when we cap the “G”, others in our society automatically assume we're speaking of “THE God”, and since there is only ONE “THE God”, there should be only one capitalized “God” IMO. And that's the problem I see with capping the “G” in 1:1c: It either gives the impression of “THE God” when it doesn't refer to “THE God”, or it gives the impression that we have TWO Gods Most High, or TWO “THE Gods”, both of which are contradictions in terms. I know that we can leave off the 'the' and capitalize the G but it makes it look like possibly like a proper name in the 'b' phrase.
When the Greeks read this, they read it with the 'the' in it and the word 'theos' in part b and c. In the early church father's writings, they did not conclude that John meant a god. They knew he was speaking of one that had the nature of deity.
As far as your summing up of our two differences, you are correct…good job!
You ask if we are ready to discuss the fact that even left anarthrous, 1:1c still doesn't support a trinity?
I never said that it supported a trinity or didn't support a trinity so I don't think we need to discuss that. I think that it supports Jesus' divinity.Glad to help your hair
Peace and love to you also Mike,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:04)
In the early church father's writings, they did not conclude that John meant a god. They knew he was speaking of one that had the nature of deity.
You don't know that. The first early church fathers spoke Greek, so when we read English renderings of their words, they could have also been saying “a god”, but it's just not translated that way into English. And this is why I want to discuss it as anarthrous. I wasn't implying that YOU supported the Trinty, for I know you don't. But Jack started this thread to make me and the “a god” translation look bad, and it has backfired on him…………as usual. My first task was to show that the very best of Greek experts admit that “a god” is a possibility, even if they don't approve of that translation for personal reasons. I've done this.And I will continue to prefer “a god” because I know John speaks of a god who was with THE God in the beginning. You also know this, but for some reason don't want to clarify it to the world.
Anyway, assuming it is anarthrous, what does it mean? I think all of us except for Keith will agree that an anarthrous theos in 1:1c does not mean the Word was THE God he was with. I know that you agree with this. So, how far do we take this anarthrous theos? And why? Do we take it as far as saying the Word was EVERYTHING that THE God in part b was? If so, why?
Your thoughts?
mike
Mike,
Maybe we should have a thread in the 'other writings' section about the ante-nicene church fathers understanding of John 1:1. How about it?Quote Anyway, assuming it is anarthrous, what does it mean? I think all of us except for Keith will agree that an anarthrous theos in 1:1c does not mean the Word was THE God he was with. I know that you agree with this. So, how far do we take this anarthrous theos? And why? Do we take it as far as saying the Word was EVERYTHING that THE God in part b was? If so, why?
He was everything according to what would be necessary to be true and most high begotten deity. He wasn't everything technically as in his roles. He wasn't His own Father, for instance. I believe He was eternal in essence and that essence was a Son essence with the same nature as the Father. I think that is essential for Him to be an exact representation of the Father. I also think that He was/is almighty as the begotten God. There, for starting with the bottom liners.BTW, do you understand and agree now about the word 'perfect' in Hebrews?
Kathi
Hi.
Not interested AT ALL in this conversation (I dont read here nor plan to)…. Just doing a favour for someone;
JA wants to say the following:
Quote “if Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he EMPTIED HIMSELF
and came as MAN?”
“If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he DIED on the Cross?”
“If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the HIGH PRIEST OF GOD?”
“If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the PRINCE of PEACE?”
“Just Asking – just Interested… !”Bye!
Hi Karmarie,
Well, I don't know who he is 'just asking' but I will put down my answers.
Quote “if Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he EMPTIED HIMSELF
and came as MAN?”Well, He emptied Himself of His riches in heaven and became poor.
He emptied Himself of His recognition due Him as the Begotten God.
He emptied Himself of His memory…imo.
He did not empty Himself of who He truly was, the Begotten God or His history even though He gave up the memories for a time.
He emptied Himself of sharing the glory with the Father that He had from the beginning.
He emptied Himself of His power.
Those are what comes to mind, there may be others.Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he DIED on the Cross?” His died according to the flesh, not the eternal, immortal spirit.
Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the HIGH PRIEST OF GOD?” He is not ONLY the High Priest of God, btw. He is the High Priest according to His being a man, He is sitting on the throne of the Father according to His being the eternal Son of God and reigning with the Father as one mind.
Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the PRINCE of PEACE?” Because He is the Son and not the Father.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
Mike,
Maybe we should have a thread in the 'other writings' section about the ante-nicene church fathers understanding of John 1:1. How about it?
Why? Do you have the Greek mss of those writings? Would we be able to see when they say “Jesus is god” that it wasn't a case where the indefinite article should be added? If not, then why bother? Because we would only be reading Trinitarian ENGLISH translators words. What would make those Trinitarian words any more reliable than the English words they use to render John 1:1?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
He was everything according to what would be necessary to be true and most high begotten deity. He wasn't everything technically as in his roles. He wasn't His own Father, for instance. I believe He was eternal in essence and that essence was a Son essence with the same nature as the Father. I think that is essential for Him to be an exact representation of the Father. I also think that He was/is almighty as the begotten God.
And you get all this from the single word “theos” in 1:1c? Let's break it down:
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
I believe He was eternal in essence and that essence was a Son essence with the same nature as the Father.
Why? You agree he was begotten. What SCRIPTURE makes you think he “existed” inside of God or whatever before God actually caused him to exist?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
I think that is essential for Him to be an exact representation of the Father.
I disagree. For the Father is FROM eternity TO eternity. Jesus will NOW be TO eternity, but he wasn't created that way. He died, remember?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
I also think that He was/is almighty as the begotten God.
The term “Almighty” means the same as “MOST High”. Only ONE can be the MOST or the Almighty. Those titles belong to the Father and God OF Jesus. If Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus cannot be Almighty, because only ONE can be Almighty.But Kathi, we are getting off into your opinions on lots of things. I'm asking what exactly the anarthrous theos in 1:1c tells us. Surely that one little word can't tell you all those things?
After all, it is a simple word that was also used to describe Satan, angels, and human beings. Would it also mean all those things you describe when used for those others? Or could it be something as simple as calling the Word “mighty”, like elohim is translated here:Genesis 23:6
NET © “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us! You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead.”NIV ©
“Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.”NASB ©
“Hear us, my lord, you are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our graves; none of us will refuse you his grave for burying your dead.”NRSV ©
“Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold from you any burial ground for burying your dead.”NKJV ©
“Hear us, my lord: You are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us will withhold from you his burial place, that you may bury your dead.”All those bolded “mightys” are the word “elohim”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,20:59)
BTW, do you understand and agree now about the word 'perfect' in Hebrews?
I understand what you claim, but no, I don't agree with it. And neither does the scripture itself. Your translation would allow for THE WORK HE DID to be “completed” or “finished”. But Jesus is the subject of that scripture, not THE WORK HE DID. So if you want to use “finished/completed”, then you must say that Jesus became “finished/completed”.But it was off topic, and that's why I didn't respond. For once, I was willing to let YOU have the last word……….but you wouldn't let me let you.
mike
Hi Mike,
(This post is in reference to Mike's last post here.)
Quote Why? Do you have the Greek mss of those writings? Would we be able to see when they say “Jesus is god” that it wasn't a case where the indefinite article should be added? If not, then why bother? Because we would only be reading Trinitarian ENGLISH translators words. What would make those Trinitarian words any more reliable than the English words they use to render John 1:1? Too late…already started it
Quote And you get all this from the single word “theos” in 1:1c? Well, that and John 1:18.
Quote Why? You agree he was begotten. What SCRIPTURE makes you think he “existed” inside of God or whatever before God actually caused him to exist? God the Father must be self-sufficient by definition. He must contain the ability to create and relate to creation, also to save if need be without needing to make another being. Those things must not be impossible for Him to do, so therefore, the Son and Spirit must have been from eternity. The Son could exist from eternity before He was begotten in a comparable way, though not exact, as my son existed within me and part of me before I beget/gave birth to him as a separate person. Also, for the Son to be truly of the same nature as the Father, He would have to have always existed because that is paramount to being a true God.
Quote I disagree. For the Father is FROM eternity TO eternity. Jesus will NOW be TO eternity, but he wasn't created that way. He died, remember? He only died according to the flesh. His spirit from ancient times did not die.
Quote The term “Almighty” means the same as “MOST High”. Only ONE can be the MOST or the Almighty. Those titles belong to the Father and God OF Jesus. If Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus cannot be Almighty, because only ONE can be Almighty. I disagree.
The word 'almighty' is not defined as most high but as most powerful and 1) he who holds sway over all things
2) the ruler of all
3) almighty: God
according to this lexicon:
here for the Hebrew word:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang….6&t=KJV
and here for the Greek word:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang….1&t=KJVI believe they are equally the most powerful in terms as it would befit the Unbegotten and as it would befit the Begotten.
Quote But Kathi, we are getting off into your opinions on lots of things. I'm asking what exactly the anarthrous theos in 1:1c tells us. Surely that one little word can't tell you all those things? After all, it is a simple word that was also used to describe Satan, angels, and human beings. Would it also mean all those things you describe when used for those others? Or could it be something as simple as calling the Word “mighty”, like elohim is translated here: Ahhhh…not in the capital 'G' sense.
Quote I understand what you claim, but no, I don't agree with it. And neither does the scripture itself. Your translation would allow for THE WORK HE DID to be “completed” or “finished”. But Jesus is the subject of that scripture, not THE WORK HE DID. So if you want to use “finished/completed”, then you must say that Jesus became “finished/completed”. GOD'S WORD
Heb 5:9
After he had finished his work, he became the source of eternal salvation for everyone who obeys him.
Heb 7:28
Moses' Teachings designated mortals as chief priests even though they had weaknesses. But God's promise, which came after Moses' Teachings, designated the Son who forever accomplished everything that God required.He is the subject in this translation too.
Well, good night and sweet dreams dear Mike,
KathiKathi said to Keith:
Quote Do you think that God, the unbegotten is the same one as God, the begotten? If not, then you have two.
You have two PERSONS but not two Gods. The the original male and the female were two PERSONS but not two Adams.Moses said, “And so God made Adam in His own image; male and female He created them.”
Two PERSONS but not two Adams.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 30 2011,04:42) Kathi said to Keith: Quote Do you think that God, the unbegotten is the same one as God, the begotten? If not, then you have two.
You have two PERSONS but not two Gods. The the original male and the female were two PERSONS but not two Adams.Moses said, “And so God made Adam in His own image; male and female He created them.”
Two PERSONS but not two Adams.
Keith,Kathi says that we have TWO Gods. Isn't it incredible how Polytheists can have the audacity to accuse Trinitarians of having more than one God?http://www.pic4ever.com/images/306.gif%5B/img%5D
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,23:14) All those bolded “mightys” are the word “elohim”.
And that is why those scriptures were translated “Mighty” princes because they were not “mighty” gods.
When are you going to get it Mike?The word “elohim” can be translated as “rulers, judges, men, god or God” etc., but not all judges, rulers, men, or God, are “gods”. Context dictates how the word is used.
Why would you always assume the word “elohim” always means “a god” or any one definition, when you would not always translate it as “The One True God” or God?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:08) Keith,
Do you think that God, the unbegotten is the same one as God, the begotten? If not, then you have two. The oneness is in their essence and how they act as one mind.
Hi KathiThat is not at all what your source is saying is it?
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit according to the scriptures and the Forefathers are three persons who are One God.
This is what your source says on the next page…
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular. “For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but ONE GOD“
So once again the writer is not at all in support of what you believe. I think the the Forefathers would not be very happy for you to use their words to convey something entirely different than what they believed.
WJ
Keith said to Mike:
Quote When are you going to get it Mike? The word “elohim” can be translated as “rulers, judges, men, god or God” etc., but not all judges, rulers, men, God are “gods”.
Keith,Mike gets it. He is just being subborn because he has not the truth.
Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,17:33) Hi Karmarie, Well, I don't know who he is 'just asking' but I will put down my answers.
Quote “if Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he EMPTIED HIMSELF
and came as MAN?”Well, He emptied Himself of His riches in heaven and became poor.
He emptied Himself of His recognition due Him as the Begotten God.
He emptied Himself of His memory…imo.
He did not empty Himself of who He truly was, the Begotten God or His history even though He gave up the memories for a time.
He emptied Himself of sharing the glory with the Father that He had from the beginning.
He emptied Himself of His power.
Those are what comes to mind, there may be others.Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then what was he when he DIED on the Cross?” His died according to the flesh, not the eternal, immortal spirit.
Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the HIGH PRIEST OF GOD?” He is not ONLY the High Priest of God, btw. He is the High Priest according to His being a man, He is sitting on the throne of the Father according to His being the eternal Son of God and reigning with the Father as one mind.
Quote “If Jesus is ETERNALLY GOD, then why is he only the PRINCE of PEACE?” Because He is the Son and not the Father.
Kathi
Hi Kathi.JA's reply'
Quote JA…
Quote You say Jesus emptied himself of his Godship – then denied it.
You say Jesus emptied himself of his memory – then denied it.
You say Jesus died – but then denied it (No one said that the Spirit
dies – it can only be destroyed)
You say Jesus is Only a Prince of Peace because he is the Son – but
confess that Jesus IS GOD… God the Son, God the Prince Son? Ummm…
Either he IS GOD or he IS NOT GOD! whether he is Son or Holy Spirit or
the Father, that Trinity says they are the SAME but clearly one is
more powerful and in Authority over the others – so they are NOT
EQUAL:
God the Father controls HIS Holy Spirit AND HIS Son.
God the Father GIVES HIS Holy Spirit TO the Son.
The Son is Priest to HIS Father showing a subservient position.
God the Father is Eternally God from Everlasting – even if Jesus were
'God' he DIED and was ineffective while in the grave. If he did not
die, all his sweating blood and fear and pleading with his Father for
'Another way' was for nought.
Jesus was raised up BY the Father's Holy Spirit. If Jesus did not die
but only 'in the flesh not spirit' then he would have raised himself
up a new body – but he did not!!! The Temple Reference, I believe was
to his CHURCH… while he was dead his disciples 'ran away'. Jesus
RAISED IT BACK UP AGAIN after the third day… It certainly didn't
mean he raised himself up again as many misinterpret the verse in a
vain attempt to show Jesus as God since a miriad of verses state over
and over that it was the Holy Spirit of God that raised him up…
The book of John is full of strange anomalies that are not supported
elsewhere in Scriptures – not 'WRONG' – just Anomolous!Hi Karamarie,
It is clear that JA misunderstood what I said and is interested in debating the matter. Presently I have too much going on with the members here to take him on also. Please understand. I answered his questions but I am not interested in debating him at this time. Maybe someone else is interested.
Thanks,
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,13:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:08) Keith,
Do you think that God, the unbegotten is the same one as God, the begotten? If not, then you have two. The oneness is in their essence and how they act as one mind.
Hi KathiThat is not at all what your source is saying is it?
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit according to the scriptures and the Forefathers are three persons who are One God.
This is what your source says on the next page…
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular. “For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but ONE GOD“
So once again the writer is not at all in support of what you believe. I think the the Forefathers would not be very happy for you to use their words to convey something entirely different than what they believed.
WJ
Keith,
The person that I quoted was not the author of the next page, he was just the author of a note within someone else's writings. They are not the same person.Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
