Henotheism, Polythiesm vrs Monotheism&#33;

Participant

Henotheism, Polytheism vrs Monotheism! Part 1

The post below is taken from the Debates catogory “John 17:3” thread. t8 writes…

Quote

A brief history of time

Chapter 1: WorshippingJesus wisdom and conduct

WJ said that Ignatius was a disciple of John and his writings were significant and then used his writings to support his view.

In reality he completely misunderstood Ignatius because Ignatius uses the word “theos” differently to him, and Ignatius said that those who say that Jesus is the God over all are ministers of Satan. He continues to promote this lie even in light of this.

In his defense he said that the God over all was the Father and that Ignatius was simply stating that Jesus wasn't the Father.

Well there you have it, in order for him not be seen (by Ignatius wisdom) as a minister of Satan, he conceded on something that he has been opposing since he came here. Had he not got himself into a corner I guess that he would still oppose the truth that the Father is the God over all and not the son.

So perhaps he needs to stop the pretense and stubbornness. We can all see clearly the holes in his argument. It is of no profit for him to continue in this manner.

Let's recap:
He first rejects what Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught regarding the Father being the only true God and Jesus being the true son of the true God. He then rejects Ignatius teachings of whom he says is significant because he was a disciple of John. And now he continues to promote his faulty argument despite these findings.

What kind of man hears such words from scripture and from a disciple of John (who he says is significant) and continues right on with his crusade?

He respects Ignatius and Ignatius calls him a Minister of Satan and then he continues on as if nothing happened.

If he ignores them, then what chance does anyone here have of showing him the truth?

Source

I thought that I would start a new thread since I couldnt find any thread dealing with the subject

The above post of t8s is a desperate attempt to defend his Henotheistic view and Heavennet.

For those who have been on this sight for some time and have seen his post and the methods he uses in defending his proposed truth, one thing stands out loud and clear.

T8 begins to attack the person and alluding to them being ministers of satan or being deceived by the whore and her doctrines when he is backed into a corner and has no scriptural defense or response for the truth that stares him in the face.

I suppose this is natural for a man who is so steeped in his belief and feels he is called of God as a prophet, and that he has written the only truth by creating a sight like this. Eletism is the word that comes to mind.

Especially in light of his defiance against the over 600 scholars that have brought us the credible english versions that we have on Bible Gateway and Blueletter.com.

Though t8 has no Greek or Hebrew credentials for mis-interpreting scriptures like John 1:1, he still accuses the translators of bias in their translation when he has no proof of such.

This kind of proud opposition to the scriptures is a dangerous thing, especially when scriptures themselves claim that they are not of any “Private” interpretation.

2 Pet 1:
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In his defense though he seems to really believe the deceptions that he believes!

It’s a historical fact that Polytheism, Arainism, Henotheism, Unitarianism, were serious enemys against the early true church and our fathers in the faith.

T8 says I misunderstand Ignatius a disciple of John the beloved, who only echoes Johns words in John 1:1 and 20:28, (Isa 6:1-5 and Jn 12:37-42) and (Zech 12:10 and Jn 19:37).

Here is some quotes of t8s, lets see if we can make out what he means…

T8 says…

Quote

In reality he (WJ) completely misunderstood Ignatius because Ignatius uses the word “theos” differently to him,

t8, in what sense is he using the word “differently”? Is he saying Jesus is a “Smaller god”, or a “divine being”, or an “Angel”, or a “Prophet”, or a “King”, or a “Judge”, or a “Man”, or an “Apostle”?

Of course t8 would say Jesus is “The Son of God”. Yet , t8 you do not tell us what that means. We are sons of God, but are we “The express image of the invisible God”? Do you mean to say Jesus is just a man in every way like us? What does “Only Monogenes Son of God” mean?

Please tell us.For it is unclear what you mean when you allude to Jn 10:24-36 when a Trinitarian quotes scrptures or an early Father calling Jesus God. Are you saying that Jesus is god like men and angels? Is he classified as being one of the “Created”? If not then whats the point of using the scripture to support your belief that there are other gods, which by the way is in direct opposition to the Hebrew scriptures and the Monotheistic view of the Hebrews and the Apostles like Paul who says there is only “One True God”, and all other so called gods are not gods at all. So obviously t8 the view you try to extrapolate from Jesus quote of the Psalmist leaves you with a contradiction.

Here is another example of your evasive teaching…

CB quoted…

Quote

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

T8s response was…

Quote

Why don't you also quote the following:

Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!

Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'

John 10:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

You see the very use of the word 'elohim' and 'theos' doesn't prove that it is the God overall who is being spoken of. In fact in the above verses, it is being used in reference to sons/angels.

Again t8, can you clarify what you mean? Should Thomas had said…”My Lord and my god”, or “My Lord and my son”, or “My Lord and my angel, or “My Lord and my divine
”?

You seem to always allude to there being “other gods”, or “other lords”, or “other divine beings” when it is convenient. But you do it without explanation as to what you mean.

The point is if you are trying to say that the word “Theos” can mean divine or god in the NT then you have to give us a NT example of this word being used or ascribed to a living being or creature other than the obvious opposites of God. Which you have failed to do. The word “Theos” is only found ascribed to the Father and the Son as true God.

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

You accuse Trinitarians of being proud and not willing to accept truth, yet your defiance of the translations shows your own arrogance against the scriptures and against the early Fathers of the faith.

Whats worse is you take isolated text from the early Fathers and twist them to support your view.

For example you have posted quotes from Justin Martyr claiming he is against Trinitarians, yet the following debate with Trypho, a Jew he says…

Chapter LXIII.-It is Proved that This God Was Incarnate.

And Trypho said, “This point has been proved to me forcibly, and by many arguments, my friend. It remains, then, to prove that He submitted to become man by the Virgin, according to the will of His Father; and to be crucified, and to die. Prove also clearly, that after this He rose again and ascended to heaven.”

I answered, “This, too, has been already demonstrated by me in the previously quoted words of the prophecies, my friends; which, by recalling and expounding for your sakes, I shall endeavour to lead you to agree with me also about this matter. The passage, then, which Isaiah records, `Who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken away from the earth, '232 -does it not appear to you to refer to One who, not having descent from men, was said to be delivered over to death by God for the transgressions of the people?-of whose blood, Moses (as I mentioned before), when speaking in parable, said, that He would wash His garments in the blood of the grape; since His blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the will of God. And then, what is said by David, `In the splendours of Thy holiness have I begotten Thee from the womb, before the morning star.233 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, '234 -does this not declare to you235 that [He was] from of old,236 and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted, [he says]: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hast hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. [He hath anointed Thee] with myrrh, and oil, and cassia from Thy garments, from the ivory palaces, whereby they made Thee glad. Kings' daughters are in Thy honour. The queen stood at Thy right hand, clad in garments embroidered with gold.237 Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and the house of thy father; and the King shall desire thy beauty: because he is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.'238 Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things,239 as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget [our] old ancestral customs, when they speak thus:240 `Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear; forget thy people and the house of thy father, and the King shall desire thy beauty: because He is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.' “

Source

So t8, unless you believe that Justin as well as Ignatius and others were polytheist and believe that we can worship other beings or gods, then you have a problem.

You see t8 we can continue the debate about the forefathers if you would like, and you will see contrary to your Henotheistc belief, that the forefathers were not Polytheist nor Henotheist, they did not believe in the existence of any true God (Theos) but One.
Continued…

Edited to fix links.

July 27, 2007 at 11:46 pm#61867

Participant

Henotheism or Polytheism vrs Monotheism Part 2

Henotheism!

(Greek εἷς θεός heis theos “one god”) is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean devotion to a single “God” while accepting the existence of other gods. Müller stated that henotheism means “monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact.”
Source

Monotheism
: the doctrine or belief that there is but one God
Source

Polytheism
: belief in or worship of more than one god
Source

Since t8 says he believes in one “True God”, yet confesses there is other “true gods”, (angels, men, kings rulers etc.) this means he is a Henotheist. Now he may not want to have a label like he labels everyone else, nevertheless, he is a Henotheist. Unless t8 you can concede that there is no other so called gods and that Jesus is simply a man and not god in any sense therefore denying scriptures that he is.

The Hebrew Jew believed that there is no God but one, as shown in the following scriptures…

Deut 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
1 Kings 8:23
And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:

t8 says…

Quote

In reality he completely misunderstood Ignatius because Ignatius uses the word “theos” differently to him…

And…

Quote

I personally think that many including translators don't understand that 'theos' and 'elohim' are not words used exclusively for the Almighty, but are also used in reference to men and angels.

Note: he says, “Even the translators “dont” understand”!

Again showing his arrogance against the translators and the scriptures when he has no credentials at all for translating the scriptures.

While t8 believes that Jesus pre-existed in some “sense” as god, “Theos” or “Elohim”, (for he says Ignatius believed Jesus was god in a different sense than I do), yet that would contradict what the above scriptures say.

There is no god with me.
there is no God like thee.

How do you explain this t8?

Is Jesus not like the Father? Was Jesus not with him?

Isa 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

This scripture blows the “Polytheistic and Henotheistic” view that there are other so called gods that existed in the Hebrew faith. For what they may have called gods or formed as gods are not gods at all.

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

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

Isa 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 45:14
… Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

So t8, based on the above scriptures do you insist that there is any gods in any sense?

Jer 2:11
Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

T8, you have a huge hole in your theology.

For you that there was someone beside the Father, who is in a sense god or divine yet the scriptures says there is “None Beside him”, and “none like him”.

You also claim that God created all things through this other being (which you have yet to classify what he is), called Jesus, when the Hebrew scriptures are clear that there is no other agent beside himself that created all things.

Look and see once again…

Jn 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 we read by a strict Monotheistic Jew…

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*.

As clear as the nose on ones face!

Ps 138:6
Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

Yes it is very pridefull to hold on to a belief that says “God” made all things through a “lessor being” “or a “smaller god', or “a god in some sense”?, than himself when scriptures are clear that “by himself”, “alone” he made all things!

If t8 ignores these truths then how can anyone put trust in any of his writings here?

Truly to reconcile all scriptures, there is only one view that stands the test of time and that is the Trinitarian view.

Edited to fix links!

July 27, 2007 at 11:54 pm#61869

Participant

Hi W,
Funny thing the trinity theory is not to be found in scripture if it is needed to interpret it?

July 28, 2007 at 1:03 pm#61935

Participant

From Against Heresies: Book IV by Irenaeus

Chapter I.—The Lord acknowledged but one God and Father.

1. Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the
Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the
Spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son
of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else as God, or name [no
other] as Lord; and, what is much more important, [since it is true] that our Lord [acted likewise],
who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except Him who is in the heavens, who is
the one God and the one Father;—those things are clearly shown to be false which these deceivers
and most perverse sophists advance, maintaining that the being whom they have themselves invented
is by nature both God and Father; but that the Demiurge is naturally neither God nor Father, but is
so termed merely by courtesy (verbo tenus), because of his ruling the creation, these perverse
mythologists state, setting their thoughts against God; and, putting aside the doctrine of Christ, and
of themselves divining falsehoods, they dispute against the entire dispensation of God. For they
maintain that their Æons, and gods, and fathers, and lords, are also still further termed heavens,
together with their Mother, whom they do also call “the Earth,” and “Jerusalem,” while they also
style her many other names.

2. Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord had known many fathers and gods, He would
not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, and to call Him alone Father? But He did
the rather distinguish those who by word merely (verbo tenus) are termed gods, from Him who is
truly God, that they should not err as to His doctrine, nor understand one [in mistake] for another.
And if He did indeed teach us to call one Being Father and God, while He does from time to time
Himself confess other fathers and gods in the same sense, then He will appear to enjoin a different
course upon His disciples from what He follows Himself. Such conduct, however, does not bespeak
the good teacher, but a misleading and invidious one. The apostles, too, according to these men’s
showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as
God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown—if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore,
will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should
be called Father, thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has
been pointed out.

Chapter II.—Proofs from the plain testimony of Moses, and of the other prophets, whose
words are the words of Christ, that there is But one God, the founder of the world, whom
Our Lord preached, and whom He called His Father.

Chapter XX.—That one God formed all things in the world, by means of the Word and the
Holy Spirit: and that although He is to us in this life invisible and incomprehensible,
nevertheless He is not unknown; inasmuch as His works do declare Him, and His Word has
shown that in many modes He may be seen and known.

2. Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is one God,
who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no
being, all things should come into existence:” He who contains all things, and is Himself contained
by no one. Rightly also has Malachi said among the prophets: “Is it not one God who hath established
us? Have we not all one Father?” In accordance with this, too, does the apostle say, “There is
one God, the Father, who is above all, and in us all.” Likewise does the Lord also say: “All things
are delivered to Me by My Father;” manifestly by Him who made all things; for He did not
deliver to Him the things of another, but His own. But in all things [it is implied that] nothing has
been kept back [from Him], and for this reason the same person is the Judge of the living and the
dead; “having the key of David: He shall open, and no man shall shut: He shall shut, and no man
shall open.” For no one was able, either in heaven or in earth, or under the earth, to open the
book of the Father, or to behold Him, with the exception of the Lamb who was slain, and who
redeemed us with His own blood, receiving power over all things from the same God who made
all things by the Word, and adorned them by [His] Wisdom, when “the Word was made flesh;”
that even as the Word of God had the sovereignty in the heavens, so also might He have the
sovereignty in earth, inasmuch as [He was] a righteous man, “who did no sin, neither was there
found guile in His mouth;” and that He might have the pre-eminence over those things which
are under the earth, He Himself being made “the first-begotten of the dead;” and that all things,
as I have already said, might behold their King; and that the paternal light might meet with and rest
upon the flesh of our Lord, and come to us from His resplendent flesh, and that thus man might
attain to immortality, having been invested with the paternal light.

Chapter XXIV.—The conversion of the Gentiles was more difficult than that of the Jews; the
labours of those apostles, therefore who engaged in the former task, were greater than those
who undertook the latter.

1. Wherefore also Paul, since he was the apostle of the Gentiles, says, “I laboured more than
they all.” For the instruction of the former, [viz., the Jews,] was an easy task, because they could
allege proofs from the Scriptures, and because they, who were in the habit of hearing Moses and
the prophets, did also readily receive the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of
God, —Him who, by the spreading forth of hands, did destroy Amalek, and vivify man from the
wound of the serpent, by means of faith which was [exercised] towards Him. As I have pointed out
in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the
superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of
the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He,
in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and
conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary. But although
they who were of the circumcision still did not obey the words of God, for they were despisers, yet
they were previously instructed not to commit adultery, nor fornication, nor theft, nor fraud; and
that whatsoever things are done to our neighbours’ prejudice, were evil, and detested by God.
Wherefore also they did readily agree to abstain from these things, because they had been thus
instructed.

Chapter XXXIII.—Whosoever confesses that one God is the author of both Testaments, and
diligently reads the Scriptures in company with the presbyters of the Church, is a true spiritual
disciple; and he will rightly understand and interpret all that the prophets have declared
respecting Christ and the liberty of the New Testament.

3. [This spiritual man] shall also judge all the followers of Valentinus, because they do indeed
confess with the tongue one God the Father, and that all things derive their existence from Him,
but do at the same time maintain that He who formed all things is the fruit of an apostasy or defect.
[He shall judge them, too, because] they do in like manner confess with the tongue one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, but assign in their [system of] doctrine a production o
f his own to the
Only-begotten, one of his own also to the Word, another to Christ, and yet another to the Saviour;
so that, according to them, all these beings are indeed said [in Scripture to be], as it were, one;
[while they maintain], notwithstanding, that each one of them should be understood [to exist]
separately [from the rest], and to have [had] his own special origin, according to his peculiar
conjunction. [It appears], then that their tongues alone, forsooth, have conceded the unity [of
God], while their [real] opinion and their understanding (by their habit of investigating profundities)
have fallen away from [this doctrine of] unity, and taken up the notion of manifold deities,—[this,
I say, must appear] when they shall be examined by Christ as to the points [of doctrine] which they
have invented. Him, too, they affirm to have been born at a later period than the Pleroma of the
Æons, and that His production took place after [the occurrence of] a degeneracy or apostasy; and
they maintain that, on account of the passion which was experienced by Sophia, they themselves
were brought to the birth. But their own special prophet Homer, listening to whom they have
invented such doctrines, shall himself reprove them, when he expresses himself as follows:—
“Hateful to me that man as Hades’ gates,
Who one thing thinks, while he another states.”
[This spiritual man] shall also judge the vain speeches of the perverse Gnostics, by showing
that they are the disciples of Simon Magus.

Chapter XXXVI.—The prophets were sent from one and the same Father from whom the
Son was sent.
1. Which [God] the Lord does not reject, nor does He say that the prophets [spake] from another
god than His Father; nor from any other essence, but from one and the same Father; nor that any
other being made the things in the world, except His own Father, when He speaks as follows in
His teaching: “There was a certain householder, and he planted a vineyard, and hedged it round
about, and digged in it a winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into
a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants unto the husbandmen,
that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants: they cut one to pieces,
stoned another, and killed another. Again he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto
them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his only son, saying, Perchance they will
reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the
heir; come, let us kill him, and we shall possess his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him
out of the vineyard, and slew him. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will
he do unto these husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy these wicked men,
and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season.”
Again does the Lord say: “Have ye never read, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore
I say unto you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof.” By these words He clearly points out to His disciples one and the same
Householder—that is, one God the Father, who made all things by Himself; while [He shows] that
there are various husbandmen, some obstinate, and proud, and worthless, and slayers of the Lord,
but others who render Him, with all obedience, the fruits in their seasons; and that it is the same
Householder who sends at one time His servants, at another His Son. From that Father, therefore,
from whom the Son was sent to those husbandmen who slew Him, from Him also were the servants
[sent]. But the Son, as coming from the Father with supreme authority (principali auctoritate), used
to express Himself thus: “But I say unto you.” The servants, again, [who came] as from their
Lord, spake after the manner of servants, [delivering a message]; and they therefore used to say,
“Thus saith the Lord.”

July 28, 2007 at 9:29 pm#61989

Participant

Kejonn

Hello my friend! HMMM! There has been a lot of discussion on this forum and blasting the pages by the “Unitarians”, yet you have been silent!

However when a Trinitarian makes a post you are on it like flies on honey!

Kejonn, are you on t8s payroll?

To the subject at hand.

First kejonn, my quoting the early church fathers is in no way to say that I agree with everything that they say or that they are inspired writings.

My purpose is to show that the fallacious accusations of the Henotheist, Polytheist, and the Arians and Unitarians against the Trinitarian view, is from the third century is false.

Also to show that the early fathers did not preach against the Trinity and that they surely didn’t hold the same Henotheistic views of this sight.

I said in the above…

Quote

Whats worse is you take isolated text from the early Fathers and twist them to support your view.

Now it seems you have done the same.

First of all none of the highlights you show of Irenaeus is saying Jesus is not God, but rather the Father is the One true God.

But as you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus also is the one true God as well as the Spirit.

God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit!

Now lets see if Irenaeus contradicts this.

First of all it must be pointed out that Irenaeus was speaking against the heresies of his day in particular Gnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Here is some background concerning your post…

Quote

The purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign praising the pursuit of “gnosis” in Irenaeus' bishopric. Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best-surviving description of Gnosticism. According to most biblical scholars, the findings at Nag Hammadi have shown Irenaeus' description of Gnosticism to be largely inaccurate and polemic in nature.[2][3] Though correct in some details about the belief systems of various groups, Irenaeus's main purpose was to warn Christians against Gnosticism, rather than accurately describe those beliefs. He described Gnostic groups as sexual libertines, for example, when their own writings advocated chastity more strongly than did orthodox texts.[4][5]
Irenaeus also wrote The Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, an Armenian copy of which was discovered in 1907. This work seems to have been an instruction for recent Christian converts.[6] Various fragments of other works by Irenaeus have been found, and many lost works by him are attested by other ancient writers. These include On the Subject of Knowledge, On the Monarchy, or How God is not the Cause of Evil, On the Ogdoad, an untitled letter to Blastus regarding schism, and others. All these works are attested by Eusebius.[7][8]

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who is said to be a disciple of John.

Irenaeus is not at all anti-Trinitarian for he believes in the “Unity of God”…

Quote

Irenaeus' theology and Contrast with Gnosticism
The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine “Aeons”, and their distinction between the utterly transcendent “High God” and the inferior “Demiurge” who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle[10]. John used Logos theology in the Gospel of John and book of 1 John. He prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the “hands of God”.

Irenaeus believes in God incarnate…

Quote

Irenaeus conceives of our salvation as essentially coming about through the incarnation of God as a man. He characterises the penalty for sin as death and corruption. God, however, is immortal and incorruptible, and simply by becoming united to human nature in Christ he conveys those qualities to us: they spread, as it were, like a benign infection. Irenaeus therefore understands the atonement of Christ as happening through his incarnation rather than his crucifixion, although the latter event is an integral part of the former.

By comparison, according to the Gnostic view of Salvation, creation was perfect to begin with; it did not need time to grow and mature. For the Valentinians, the material world is the result of the loss of perfection which resulted from Sophia's desire to understand the Forefather. Therefore, one is ultimately redeemed, through secret knowledge, to enter the pleroma of which the Achamoth originally fell.

Now here is some writtigs of Irenaeus…

Chapter IX.-Refutation of the Impious Interpretations of These Heretics.

2. The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man **this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own**, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,-these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. http://biblefacts.org/ecf/vol1/anf01-58.htm

Above you see Irenaeus claiming Jesus as the creator of the world.

Is this a contradiction? Earlier you quoted him saying…

Quote

The apostles, too, according to these men’s
showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as
God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown—if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore,
will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should
be called Father, thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has
been pointed out.

Chapter II.—Proofs from the plain testimony of Moses, and of the other prophets,
whose
words are the words of Christ, that there is But one God, the founder of the world, whom
Our Lord preached, and whom He called His Father.

“the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father”
Now either he is looney or confused or he is defending the view of the Father as the only God and creator against the Gnostics view of creation, but not to the exclusion of the ontological nature of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.

Chapter X.-Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World.

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations132 of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,”133 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, **our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King**, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess”134 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,”135 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
http://biblefacts.org/ecf/vol1/anf01-58.htm

Above we see him call the Father the Almighty and creator and yet in the same breath mentions our belief in Jesus who became incarnate and then claims Jesus to be our Lord and God and Saviour and King.
Also other writings of Irenaeus shows him quoting John 1:1 without changing the text.

Tell me kejonn, do you think these men new the Hebrew scriptures that says God alone made all things?
Do you think they were Polytheist?

July 28, 2007 at 9:32 pm#61991

Participant

Hi w,
You say
“But as you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus also is the one true God as well as the Spirit.

God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit!”

And then you ask of others.

“Do you think they were Polytheist? “

Ask yourself first.

July 28, 2007 at 9:48 pm#61995

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2007,09:32)

Hi w,
You say
“But as you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus also is the one true God as well as the Spirit.

God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit!”

And then you ask of others.

“Do you think they were Polytheist? “

Ask yourself first.

No NH!

Trinitarians are not Polytheist Nor are they Modalist.

One God, Three persons, One Spirit!

You should believe all the scriptures!

July 28, 2007 at 9:59 pm#61998

Participant

Hi W,
God is one.

July 29, 2007 at 1:03 am#62041

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,11:44)

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hi WJ,

Great post.

I was reading in my NIV Study Bible today and the notes surrounding this passage agree that in Hebrews the “O God” is a title *only* being given to Christ. They even use the lower case “g” for “god” to denote their meaning. I can quote out what it says if you'd like, or I'm sure you can look it up for yourself. I did not come away with the idea that the writers of Hebrews meant for Christ to be equated with God.

July 29, 2007 at 1:13 am#62042

Participant

Hi Not3,
And being a quote from God Himself we know He is not speaking to any God of His
because none are His equal.

July 29, 2007 at 7:03 am#62076

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 29 2007,13:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,11:44)

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hi WJ,

Great post.

not3

I have looked for those notes. Cant find them.

But if the NIV notes used the lower case “g” to denote their meaning, why didnt they translate it that way?

Also, if they use “Theos”, 'god' with a lower case, then they are aligning themselves with the JWs that Jesus is “a god”, or classifying him as one of the oposites of God, since the word “Theos” is not found in the NT ascribed to any being other than the Father and the Son in a true sense!

The word “Theos” is found in NT scriptures as either negative, “so called gods or false gods”, or positive, “True God”.

At least 1336 times. That says something. I looked at them all!

July 29, 2007 at 2:44 pm#62118

Cult Buster

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 29 2007,17:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,11:44)

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hi WJ,

Great post.

Hi Not3in1

How many “gods” have you got?

Have you got a big one and a little one?

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

July 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm#62119

acertainchap

Participant

I'd stick with Monotheism and the belief in the one true God.

July 29, 2007 at 7:21 pm#62140

Participant

Hi CB,
You ask
“How many “gods” have you got?”
You alone here have three deities you have told us.

July 29, 2007 at 9:00 pm#62152

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2007,19:03)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 29 2007,13:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,11:44)

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hi WJ,

Great post.

not3

I have looked for those notes. Cant find them.

But if the NIV notes used the lower case “g” to denote their meaning, why didnt they translate it that way?

The word “Theos” is found in NT scriptures as either negative, “so called gods or false gods”, or positive, “True God”.

At least 1336 times. That says something. I looked at them all!

Hi WJ,

Here are the notes quoted directly from the NIV Study Bible:

Regarding Psalm 45:6

O God. Possibly the kings' throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as “god.” The Davidic king (the LORDS's anointed,” 2 Sa 7:14, 1 Ch 28:6 and 89:27).

In this Psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his “splendor and majesty”, it is not unthinkble that he was called “god” as a title of honor (Isa 9:6). Such a descrption of the Davidic king attains it's fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8-9).

What do you think?

July 29, 2007 at 9:05 pm#62154

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ July 30 2007,02:44)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 29 2007,17:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,11:44)

You defy the translators and would have us interpret scriptures like Heb 1:8 as…

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, (O divine, or O god) is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Every major translation has this verse as…
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hi WJ,

Great post.

Hi Not3in1

How many “gods” have you got?

Have you got a big one and a little one?

Hi CB,

I believe in one true God who is a singular person in his own right…..the Father.

I believe the Father had a literal/biological Son, who is Jesus my Lord. He is a legitimate heir as he was taken from the “body” of his Father and was not adopted. As the only such “Son” of God, he can and is called a “god” in scripture. This is fitting language for such a person as Jesus (as the NIV attests to). Even Jesus said that to those whom the word came were considered “gods.” So, how much more would that term “god” be appropriate for the one who was born of God!

July 30, 2007 at 1:38 am#62207

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,16:29)

Kejonn

Hello my friend! HMMM! There has been a lot of discussion on this forum and blasting the pages by the “Unitarians”, yet you have been silent!

However when a Trinitarian makes a post you are on it like flies on honey!

Kejonn, are you on t8s payroll?

Hey WJ! No, not on the payroll…does he have one :laugh: ? Let me sign up. I don't think the pay would be all that great though…

I have made a few other posts though so I'm not just hanging out waiting for the Trinitarians to come back .

Quote

To the subject at hand.

First kejonn, my quoting the early church fathers is in no way to say that I agree with everything that they say or that they are inspired writings.

My purpose is to show that the fallacious accusations of the Henotheist, Polytheist, and the Arians and Unitarians against the Trinitarian view, is from the third century is false.

Yeah, I figured as much. But I was reading Irenaeus and I saw some good stuff . I actually find his writings fairly interesting. Have you downloaded the early apostolic father's writings on PDF? If you get acrobat 8 you can do a lot of work with their writings without searching through web pages.

Quote

Also to show that the early fathers did not preach against the Trinity and that they surely didn’t hold the same Henotheistic views of this sight.

I said in the above…

Quote

Whats worse is you take isolated text from the early Fathers and twist them to support your view.

Now it seems you have done the same.

Well, I really do not know. I asked the question of Is 1:18 of what he thought angels were. Are they divine in the similar sense that God is? I do not believe Yeshua is God Almighty nor an angel, but something totally unique. So does that make me henotheistic? I think it does if I consider Yeshua a “lesser God” but I don't. I consider him Yeshua, Son of God, Son of Man, savior and Lord. Totally unique but yet still not God in the same sense as YHWH.

And as far as twisting them, I just searched through Irenaeus' works for “one God” and put some in here. No twisting, just showing an alternate view. That is, some of the early father's had a different view.

Quote

First of all none of the highlights you show of Irenaeus is saying Jesus is not God, but rather the Father is the One true God.

I've seen this idea batted around but I've never seen anyone address it adequately. What does it mean if the Father is the one true God? I think it means that YHWH (who I believe to be the Father) is the God of gods, the one true God who created all things. I believe He did so through His Son in a pre-earth form, as well as His Holy Spirit. I believe that Yeshua can be called God (or god) in the sense that he represented God to the people. He was and is God manifest in the flesh.

So then, is Yeshua a “false god”? No, not in the sense that God chose him to represent YHWH to people, but he is not “The God”. I think that somewhere along the line we have lost the meaning that the original Christians and maybe even Jews had when they used the term of another who represented YHWH to the people.

Quote

But as you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus also is the one true God as well as the Spirit.

God the Father, God the Son, And God the Spirit!

Now lets see if Irenaeus contradicts this.

First of all it must be pointed out that Irenaeus was speaking against the heresies of his day in particular Gnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Here is some background concerning your post…

Quote

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who is said to be a disciple of John.

Irenaeus is not at all anti-Trinitarian for he believes in the “Unity of God”…

Quote

Irenaeus' theology and Contrast with Gnosticism
The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine “Aeons”, and their distinction between the utterly transcendent “High God” and the inferior “Demiurge” who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr. Irenaeus was a student o
f Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle[10]. John used Logos theology in the Gospel of John and book of 1 John. He prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the “hands of God”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticism[/URL

I believe Irenaeus was speaking against those who had a polytheistic viewpoint. These Gnostics were an odd bunch and it seems they tried to tie Greek religion in with Christian. No doubt they too saw much in “exploiting” Yeshua. He was the most dynamic man of God in all history.

Quote

Irenaeus believes in God incarnate…

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticism[/URL

Again, Gnostic versus his own viewpoint. I would agree with any of the early fathers against Gnosticism. I don't know that the above is not something that is easily identified in scripture. However, I would need to read the Irenaeus more to see if I agree with their assessment. He made quite a big deal of separating Yeshua and calling him the “Word of God” rather than God.

I will split this reponse becuase the user “unfriendly” Ikonboard says I have too many emoticons….

July 30, 2007 at 1:42 am#62209

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2007,16:29)

Now here is some writtigs of Irenaeus…

Chapter IX.-Refutation of the Impious Interpretations of These Heretics.

Above you see Irenaeus claiming Jesus as the creator of the world.

I happen to agree with Irenaeus. So here you and I agree (I think). I think Yeshua, as the Word of God, created all things through the power and guidance of YHWH. God spoke, the Word carried it out. He indeed created. I don't care what anyone says, I see too much evidence of Yeshua existing in some form before his earthly incarnation to deny it. I just disagree that he is part of a triune God and that is where you and I will continue to disagree (for the foreseeable future).

Quote

Is this a contradiction? Earlier you quoted him saying…

Quote

I don't think he was looney . But I do think that you and I see this differently here. You see one part of Trinity, I see the Word. Same action, but different degree of “divinity”. Maybe supernatural is a better word to describe Yeshua but I'm not sure.

Quote

Chapter X.-Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World.

I would hope he doesn't change the text! I've seen many try to say what the text “should” read but too many experts have already shown us how it should read. But I will ask ou this WJ: if Irenaeus calls the Father “Almighty” but he does not do the same with Yeshua, what does that say to you? That perhaps Yeshua is not equal with the Father. This then presents an issue because it would either make Irenaues henotheistic (he called Yeshua “God”) or it would mean that our idea of polytheism and henotheism is different today then it was in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Something just doesn't jive here.

But I agree that Irenaeus called Yeshua “God” on more than one occasion. What does this mean? Do we truly know what they mean by this today? Was it “the God” or just “God” and therefore possibly “god”? I think this is where we get hung up.

Look at the Greek and Roman gods. They all represented a different “purpose”. God of war. Goddess of love. Etc. But we don't see the true distinction in the Father and the Son. They both had the same overall purpose: the salvation of mankind. And that is what makes Yeshua and YHWH totally unique.

Quote

Tell me kejonn, do you think these men new the Hebrew scriptures that says God alone made all things?
Do you think they were Polytheist?

No…but it all hinges on the use of “theos”. This would require some indepth study to rectify. I don't know if we will have it available (sadly). But the fact is that we have a dilemma when we see that the Father was called “true God” in many places but Yeshua never was. Not once. He was called “God” but never “true God”. Not to my knowledge but I will look some
more. If you find an instance, please list it and we will move forward with it.

July 30, 2007 at 1:49 am#62210

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ July 29 2007,09:44)

Hi Not3in1

How many “gods” have you got?

Have you got a big one and a little one?

Hey CB,

If I were to marry triplets — all three human, all three virtually indistinguishable, would I be a polygamist?

July 30, 2007 at 5:59 am#62232