Henotheism, Polythiesm vrs Monotheism&#33;

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 30 2007,18:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2007,17:59)

Why did the 100 scholars of the NIV and the other 500 or so in all the other major translations sign off on it being “Theos”, with a big “G”. God?

I did quote my source – it's the NIV STUDY BIBLE.

not3

Sorry! I didnt catch that!

I will look into it. However, I dont think it will have any impact on me, for I see it as the publishers of the NIV Study Bible putting a shadow on the translation that they are publishing!

Blessings!

July 30, 2007 at 7:09 am#62240

Participant

WJ,

Why do you think the translators capitalized “God” in Psalm 45:6, which the Hebrews 1:8 passage is based on, when it referred to an earthly king? If an earthly king can be called “God” in the OT, what makes the title so special in the NT?

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

July 30, 2007 at 7:14 am#62241

Participant

Hi W,
If you knew God you would not be floundering around trying to describe Him.
He is not His Son.
Wake up.

July 30, 2007 at 3:11 pm#62315

Participant

From http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103406.htm

Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 6)
Explanation of the words of Christ, “No man knows the Father, but the Son,” etc.; which words the heretics misinterpret. Proof that, by the Father revealing the Son, and by the Son being revealed, the Father was never unknown.

1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him].” Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22 Thus has Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

I just wanted to break here because I do not want you to misunderstand my highlighting. I do not accuse Trinitarians of Gnosticism (here Irenaeus is speaking against them) but I do want to point out that Trinitarians always assume that the God revealed in the Old Testament was the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Irenaeus disagrees with anything but that the God of the OT was indeed the Father and no one else. So Irenaeus is basically saying that the God of the OT, YHWH, was none other than the Father of the NT. Read further and I think you can see how he clarifies this position by claiming that Yeshua is the Word of God, the one who reveals God in both Old and New Testaments. We know he certainly revealed God to those in the 1st century in fleshly form as Yeshua.

2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation. For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: “I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.”
3. For no one can know the Father, unless through the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing [Him]; neither can he have knowledge of the Son, unless through the good pleasure of the Father. But the Son performs the good pleasure of the Father; for the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes. And His Word knows that His Father is, as far as regards us, invisible and infinite; and since He cannot be declared [by any one else], He does Himself declare Him to us; and, on the other hand, it is the Father alone who knows His own Word. And both these truths has our Lord declared. Wherefore the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation. For the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father; for all things are manifested through the Word. In order, therefore, that we might know that the Son who came is He who imparts to those believing on Him a knowledge of the Father, He said to His disciples: “No man knows the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him;” thus setting Himself forth and the Father as He [really] is, that we may not receive any other Father, except Him who is revealed by the Son.
4. But this [Father] is the Maker of heaven and earth, as is shown from His words; and not he, the false father, who has been invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the “Gnostics,” falsely so called. For none of these was the Son of God; but Christ Jesus our Lord [was], against whom they set their teaching in opposition, and have the daring to preach an unknown God. But they ought to hear [this] against themselves: How is it that He is unknown, who is known by them? for, whatever is known even by a few, is not unknown. But the Lord did not say that both the Father and the Son could not be known at all (in totum), for in that case His advent would have been superfluous. For why did He come hither? Was it that He should say to us, “Never mind seeking after God; for He is unknown, and you shall not find Him;” as also the disciples of Valentinus falsely declare that Christ said to their Æons? But this is indeed vain. For the Lord taught us that no man is capable of knowing God, unless he be taught of God; that is, that God cannot be known without God: but that this is the express will of the Father, that God should be known. For they shall know Him to whomsoever the Son has revealed Him.
5. And for this purpose did the Father reveal the Son, that through His instrumentality He might be manifested to all, and might receive those righteous ones who believe in Him into incorruption and everlasting enjoyment (now, to believe in Him is to do His will); but He shall righteously shut out into the darkness which they have chosen for themselves, those who do not believe, and who do consequently avoid His light. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like others, have seen, but have not, like others, believed.
6. For by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator; and by means of the world [does He declare] the Lord the Maker of the world; and by means of the formation [of man] the Artificer who formed him; and by the Son that Father who begat the Son: and these things do indeed address all men in the same manner, but all do not in the same way believe them. But by the law and the prophets did the Word preach both Himself and the Father alike [to all]; and all the people heard Him alike, but all did not alike believe. And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: “We know You who You are, the Holy One of God.” Mark 1:24 And the devil looking at Him, and tempting Him, said: “If You are the Son of God;” Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3 —all thus indeed seeing and speaking of the Son and the Father, but all not believing [in them].
7. For it was fitting that the truth should receive testimony from all, and should become [a means of] jud
gment for the salvation indeed of those who believe, but for the condemnation of those who believe not; that all should be fairly judged, and that the faith in the Father and Son should be approved by all, that is, that it should be established by all [as the one means of salvation], receiving testimony from all, both from those belonging to it, since they are its friends, and by those having no connection with it, though they are its enemies. For that evidence is true, and cannot be gainsaid, which elicits even from its adversaries striking testimonies in its behalf; they being convinced with respect to the matter in hand by their own plain contemplation of it, and bearing testimony to it, as well as declaring it. But after a while they break forth into enmity, and become accusers [of what they had approved], and are desirous that their own testimony should not be [regarded as] true. He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knows the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself. But the Son, administering all things for the Father, works from the beginning even to the end, and without Him no man can attain the knowledge of God. For the Son is the knowledge of the Father; but the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son; and this was the reason why the Lord declared: “No man knows the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal [Him].” For “shall reveal” was said not with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. For the Son, being present with His own handiwork from the beginning, reveals the Father to all; to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. Wherefore, then, in all things, and through all things, there is one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in Him.

The reason I highlighted “very God” above was to show that Irenaeus indeed called Yeshua “God”. But he also makes clear distinctions that Father and Son were not the same, but that they were revealed in one another. See the last sentence: “one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son”. The “one God” is attached to the Father.

If Irenaeus makes this distinction, I think we have a new thought process on polytheism or even henotheism. Think about all other religions that practiced a form of polytheism or henotheism: their gods all had different purposes. Therein lies the biggest difference in Christianity: can anyone say the same about Father and Son? Are they to be worshipped for different reasons? Is Yeshua “god of war” or “god of the crops” or “god of love”? No, in Father and Son, we see no such distinction. They both encompass all things. All things were created by both, with YHWH as the source and initiator and the Word as the one who carried out His Father’s works and revealed God to all throughout history.

At this point you may say that since there is no distinction, that I agree with the Trinity. No, I do not. I still believe that the Trinity gives the Son equal standing with the Father in all ways and I believe that to be false. I also do not see the Holy Spirit as another “person” but an extension of who the Father is. And now the Son as well.

As I’ve said before, I believe the Trinity blurs the lines on who YHWH truly is. Irenaeus basically says above that He is the Father of the NT, and the God of the OT. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I want to do as Yeshua told me and offer true worship to the Father, and to pray to the Father. But I can only do so because Yeshua is my mediator and great High Priest. He has become that because of his willingness to take on flesh and walk among us. No longer must we go to another man to make our supplications known to God; Yeshua eliminated that once and for all.

I still think that the Trinity doctrine was formulated because people were accusing certain Christians of polytheism and this was supposedly a way to make a triune God only one God of three “persons”. I think the failure here is that Christianity is unique in that Father and Son work in unison in all things whereas other religions with multiple gods have gods who serve different purposes. Therefore one is worshiped for one reason, another is worshiped for a different reason. However, we worship both Father and Son for the same reasons: for their glory, honor, and love. And we know they can fulfill all things and that we do not look to another for different needs.

On the flipside, all others who make Yeshua out to be merely an anointed man, they too are trying to avoid polytheism by making Yeshua something else. What other anointed man was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit? What other man was begotten of the Father? He alone was the most unique of any man to walk the earth: he was the Word in the flesh.

I want to thank you for bringing forth the writings of the apostolic fathers. I don’t hold them as valid as scripture, but I think they do have great value. These men were taught by those who encountered Yeshua personally and their words are more valid, IMO, than writers who came many more years after who allowed all sorts of pagan ideals to enter in.

Finally, one last note: “very God” above. What does this mean? I know what it means to you but to me it means that Yeshua’s nature was straight from YHWH Himself. I do not believe that YHWH is a God of 3 persons, but that YHWH is the Father, the God of the OT. The Word is the Word, and became the Son. The Word proceeded forth directly from God and was His very essence. But by taking on flesh, he became distinct from his Father and a new relationship was made. Yet even now, the Word has returned to continue to serve God’s purpose. I can say this because I believe the Bible supports it. I have no such luck with supporting the theory of a triune God.

July 30, 2007 at 4:06 pm#62320

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2007,19:02)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 30 2007,18:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2007,17:59)

Why did the 100 scholars of the NIV and the other 500 or so in all the other major translations sign off on it being “Theos”, with a big “G”. God?

I did quote my source – it's the NIV STUDY BIBLE.

not3

Sorry! I didnt catch that!

I will look into it. However, I dont think it will have any impact on me, for I see it as the publishers of the NIV Study Bible putting a shadow on the translation that they are publishing!

Blessings!

The NIV Bible is long known for it's Trinitarian spin on scripture. The “study” part of it is no exception; however, there are certain places where they conceed that it is not “unthinkable” that it could read this way or that way (non-Trinitarian view). It's interesting to me, and has helped me to see that there ARE various views to consider, and that there ARE various ways the scripture lends itself.

July 30, 2007 at 6:41 pm#62333

Participant

Kejonn

I am limited as to my time for rebuttal to your responses. However I will get to them when possible!

You say…

Quote

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.

Here it seems you are saying there is “One” God, yet there are more since you are in a sense saying Jesus is a lessor god. For if the scriptures call Jesus “God”, then he is either “God” or not!

1 Cor 8:
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but *one God*, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I don’t believe Paul was putting Yeshua in the “so called gods” class.

You say…

Quote

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.

This is what the JWs and the Mormons teach. That Jesus is “a god”.

There is no more “Agency”. As you said above Jesus is God manifest in the flesh!

There are no more mediators between God and man. Jesus is the only mediator. It takes God and Man to bring us back to him. He is the second Adam, the Lord/YHWH from heaven.

1 Cor 15:47
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

You can not reconcile “all” of scriptures apart from the “Trinitarian view”.

If you say Jesus is a “god” or a “divine” being by which God created all things, then you have a huge contradiction in the 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:

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.

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.

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.

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*.

You say…

Quote

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).

See above!

You say…

Quote

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.

No Polytheism is the belief in more than one God. Letting scriptures interpret themselves, we know that the early Fathers did not believe there are other “Gods” and that “so called gods” are not gods at all.

Jesus is not put in that category by the Apostles or the Translators or in my opinion by the early church Fathers.

You say…

Quote

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.

I think if we take “ALL” scriptures in consideration we do know what this means.

The ontological nature of the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the same.

The Trinitarian view leaves you without contradictions.

You say…

Quote

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.

No it dosnt just hinge on the word “Theos”. For as I have shown to believe Jesus is a lessor being than the Father, and that the Father created all things through this lessor being is a blatant contradiction to the Hebrew scriptures. Not to mention scriptures that were ascribed by the Apostles like John to Jesus which clearly had their fulfillment in YHWH alone.

However the word “Theos” in the NT and the Apostles use of it to Yeshua builds a strong case.

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!

The Apostles could have used another word rather than “Theos”, to describe the Son but didn’t.

Truly Yeshua is God manifest in the flesh. “He is My Lord and My God”!

Blessings

July 30, 2007 at 6:52 pm#62337

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ July 30 2007,19:09)

WJ,

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

kejonn

Because the translators knew Pss 45 was prophetic of Jesus.

There was no other way to tranlsate it without introducing Polytheism or Henotheism into the Christian faith.

The writer of the book of Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit to elevate Pss 45:6 to the Father speaking to the Son.

No where is the word “elohim”, “Theos” ascribed to any other being other than Yeshua in this manner.

July 30, 2007 at 6:52 pm#62338

Participant

Hi W,
Yeshua in the flesh told Mary Magdalene of his God.[Jn19]
Who was that?

July 30, 2007 at 6:56 pm#62341

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 31 2007,06:52)

Hi W,
Yeshua in the flesh told Mary Magdalene of his God.[Jn19]
Who was that?

The Father!

Your point?

July 30, 2007 at 7:07 pm#62343

Participant

Hi W,
So the Father is the God of Jesus and our God.
So why would you try to elevate the Son of God to be that God?

July 30, 2007 at 7:36 pm#62347

Mr. Steve

Participant

To Worshipping Jesus;

Are you worshipping Jesus when what you believe makes Christ a liar? The Father seeks those to worship him in spirit and in truth. For Christ to state “in truth” it must be very important for us to know the truth so we know who we are worshipping.

Consider the following;

Some believers assert that Jesus is Jehovah. (I'm not saying you do) Most do innocently from what I can see and believe that they are greatly glorifying God. However, if Christ is Jehovah, then the Father cannot be Jehovah, too, unless you believe that Christ is also the Father. If the truth is that Christ is the Father and Jehovah that would make Christ a liar because Christ said the Father sent him. Christ did not say he sent himself. He said he came not of his own will, but the will of him who sent him. If Christ is Jehovah then Christ lied because he came of his own volition and lied about being sent in just about every chapter in the Gospel of John.

Christ also said that what he taught was not his doctrine, but his Father's. Now someone's not telling the truth. The vast majority of preachers today preach that Christ is the Word in John 1:1 Most trinitarians use this passage as primary authority of the trinity when such an interpretation contradicts what Christ expressly taught with respect to the Word being his doctrine. If Christ is the Word instead of the Word made flesh, then the apostle John got it all wrong. More importantly, Jesus lied again when he said the doctrine wasn't his, but his Father's.
All of these statements would be lies because if Christ is Jehovah (The God and Father of Christ) all truth would belong to him.

It's also very problematic if Christ is Jehovah (the Father) for Jesus to state some 25 times in the Gospel of Matthew “your heavenly Father, which is in heaven”, if he were the Father in the flesh standing before their very eyes. This again would make Christ a liar if he was really the Father or Jehovah in the Flesh.

The truth is God was manifest in Christ, but God the Father the person was still in heaven.

Mr. Steve

July 30, 2007 at 9:18 pm#62381

http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm

Participant

Quote (Mr. Steve @ July 31 2007,07:36)

To Worshipping Jesus;

Consider the following;

The truth is God was manifest in Christ, but God the Father the person was still in heaven.

Mr. Steve

Mr Steve

No Jesus is not the Father.

I think you should go and study the “Trinitarian” view before you accuse one of making Jesus a liar.

Have you all truth my friend?

Check these sights out for starters…

http://www.gospelway.com/god/deity-jesus-passages.php

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03a.html

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

Obviously you do not understand what a Trinitarian believes!

July 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm#62383

Participant

Hi W,
What is the point if the doctrine is foreign to scripture?

July 30, 2007 at 9:32 pm#62388

Participant

To all:
I am going to chop up several quotes into posts and not make one long post. Since this seems to be a thread that involves early apostalic fathers, the following posts will be quotes fom some of them. The first is from Justin Martyr.

The First Apology of Justin
Chapter VI.—Charge of atheism refuted.
Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught
Chapter XIII.—Christians serve God rationally.
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.
Chapter LXI.—Christian baptism.
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
Chapter LXXVI.—From other passages the same majesty and government of Christ are proved.
“For when Daniel speaks of ‘one like unto the Son of man’ who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying ‘like unto the Son of man,’ He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression ‘it was cut out without hands’ signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth.

Here we see that Justin Martyr made bold statements in the regards to the Father. He also called Yeshua “God” in other places, but he makes clear distinctions on who is the God of all: the Father.

So then, was Justin Martyr a poly or henotheist then?

July 30, 2007 at 9:38 pm#62392

Participant

The next few will be from Irenaeus.

Against Heresies: Book I
Chapter IX.—Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics.
Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the Æons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the first book against heresies, Irenaeus says Yeshua is the “Only-begotten Son of the only God”. How can Yeshua be God — not in name only but true nature — if he is said to be the Son of the only God? I think I will show that the title of “God” was used in relation to God Himself, as well as those who were part of his family by birth or adoption. This will be seen in a few posts. But The Father — who I believe to be YHWH — is the only true God. All else who are of the family of God are so in name only, not complete nature.

July 30, 2007 at 9:47 pm#62393

Participant

Irenaeus, from Against Heresies: Book II

Preface
It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.
Chapter XXVIII.—Perfect knowledge cannot be attained in the present life: many questions must be submissively left in the hands of God.
For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, who has a real existence, but whom ye style the Demiurge; since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I shall show from His very words, —when ye style this very Being the fruit of defect, and the offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as being ignorant of those things which are above Him, with the various other allegations which you make regarding Him,—consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God.
But it is much more suitable that we, directing our inquiries after this fashion, should exercise ourselves in the investigation of the mystery and administration of the living God, and should increase in the love of Him who has done, and still does, so great things for us; but never should fall from the belief by which it is most clearly proclaimed that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who both formed this world, fashioned man, and bestowed the faculty of increase on His own creation, and called him upwards from lesser things to those greater ones which are in His own presence, just as He brings an infant which has been conceived in the womb into the light of the sun, and lays up wheat in the barn after He has given it full strength on the stalk.
For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father; while we hope ever to be receiving more and more from God, and to learn from Him, because He is good, and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom without end, and instruction that can never be exhausted.
Chapter XXX.—Absurdity of their styling themselves spiritual, while the Demiurge is declared to be animal.
Or, again, if (which is indeed the only true supposition, as I have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, “by the word of His power;” and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God, as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Æons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable Æon, nor, in fact, any one of those things which are madly dreamt of by these, and by all the heretics. But there is one only God, the Creator—He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom— heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.
Chapter XXXV.—Refutation of Basilides, and of the opinion that the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of different gods.
Now, that the preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets, the dictated utterances of the apostles, and the ministration of the law—all of which praise one and the same Being, the God and Father of all, and not many diverse beings, nor one deriving his substance from different gods or powers, but [declare] that all things [were formed] by one and the same Father (who nevertheless adapts [His works] to the natures and tendencies of the materials dealt with), things visible and invisible, and, in short, all things that have been made [were created] neither by angels, nor by any other power, but by God alone, the Father—are all in harmony with our statements, has, I think, been sufficiently proved, while by these weighty arguments it has been shown that there is but one God, the Maker of all things.

Again we see that Irenaeus is making a very strong case that the Father is God alone, by name and Being. All others who are of the family of God, whether by birth (Yeshua) or adoption (true Christians) inherit the name “God”. Let me be clear — this is Iranaeus' words and not mine. However, I agree that we are “born from above” of the Spirit, just as Yeshua was born of the Spirit. Therefore, we become of the family of God and inherit his name only. Not his true power, but we have access to it by asking. Scripture says as much. But just like Yeshua, it is not ours but the Father's. We will all rule with Him some day as we will inherit Yeshua's throne as he shares his Father's throne (see Revelation).

July 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm#62394

Participant

Irenaeus in Against Heresies: Book III

Chapter V.—Christ and His apostles, without any fraud, deception, or hypocrisy, preached that one God, the Father, was the founder of all things. They did not accommodate their doctrine to the prepossessions of their hearers.
Our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies; and whom He knew to have taken origin from a defect, He never would have acknowledged as God, even the God of all, the Supreme King, too, and His own Father, an imperfect being as a perfect one, an animal one as a spiritual, Him who was without the Pleroma as Him who was within it.
And again, the apostles taught the Gentiles that they should leave vain stocks and stones, which they imagined to be gods, and worship the true God, who had created and made all the human family, and, by means of His creation, did nourish, increase, strengthen, and preserve them in being; and that they might look for His Son Jesus Christ, who redeemed us from apostasy with His own blood, so that we should also be a sanctified people,—who shall also descend from heaven in His Father’s power, and pass judgment upon all, and who shall freely give the good things of God to those who shall have kept His commandments.
Chapter IX.—One and the same God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is He whom the prophets foretold, and who was declared by the Gospel. Proof of this, at the outset, from St. Matthew’s Gospel.
This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; —it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.
Chapter XV.—Refutation of the Ebionites, who disparaged the authority of St. Paul, from the writings of St. Luke, which must be received as a whole. Exposure of the hypocrisy, deceit, and pride of the Gnostics. The apostles and their disciples knew and preached one God, the Creator of the world.
For when it has been manifestly declared, that they who were the preachers of the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no one else God, or named him Lord, except the only true God the Father, and His Word, who has the preeminence in all things; it shall then be clearly proved, that they (the apostles) confessed as the Lord God Him who was the Creator of heaven and earth, who also spoke with Moses, gave to him the dispensation of the law, and who called the fathers; and that they knew no other.
Chapter XXV.—This world is ruled by the providence of one God, who is both endowed with infinite justice to punish the wicked, and with infinite goodness to bless the pious, and impart to them salvation.
Over and above what has been already stated, I have deferred to the following book, to adduce the words of the Lord; if, by convincing some among them, through means of the very instruction of Christ, I may succeed in persuading them to abandon such error, and to cease from blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

More of the same of the last post, but here we see that Irenaeus is making the claim that Yeshua himself only claimed one God, the Father. We see that in

Jhn 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' “

And remember, this was Yeshua after the resurrection.

July 30, 2007 at 10:03 pm#62397

Participant

Irenaeus in Against Heresies: Book IV

Preface
Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, “Let Us make man.” This, then, is the aim of him who envies our life, to render men disbelievers in their own salvation, and blasphemous against God the Creator. For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.

I have to break in here. This is the most interesting passage I have found yet in Irenaeus' works. Here he is saying that God is not only the Father of all, but the Son and those who possess the adoption! So I think we are getting closer to revealing what the early Christians meant by “theos”. If Irenaeus can call those who possess the adoption “God”, what does that say of the Son? But yet Irenaeus never calls Yeshua the “true God”. I think that this says that the Son is “God” by name (Isaiah 9:6 now falls in place) but only the Father is God by nature and being. How else could he make the bold assertion that those who possess the adoption are called “God” as well?

Chapter I.—The Lord acknowledged but one God and Father.
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.
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 XXXV.—A refutation of those who allege that the prophets uttered some predictions under the inspiration of the highest, others from the Demiurge. Disagreements of the Valentinians among themselves with regard to these same predictions.
But as we follow for our teacher the one and only true God, and possess His words as the rule of truth, we do all speak alike with regard to the same things, knowing but one God, the Creator of this universe, who sent the prophets, who led forth the people from the land of Egypt, who in these last times manifested His own Son, that He might put the unbelievers to confusion, and search out the fruit of righteousness.
Chapter XXXVI.—The prophets were sent from one and the same Father from whom the Son was sent.
Both the Lord, then, and the apostles announce as the one only God the Father, Him who gave the law, who sent the prophets, who made all things; and therefore does He say, “He sent His armies,” because every man, inasmuch as he is a man, is His workmanship, although he may be ignorant of his God.

The first part of this post is very, very intriguing. Irenaeus is saying that “there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption.” It is almost as if we have inherited the family name of “God” according to his assertion. Thus, if we too can be called “God” how much more so can the only begotten Son?

Again, I won't touch on this too much right now. This is a scary thought for me because I would never myself take the claim of the name “God”. Yet Irenaeus seems to have not qualms in doing so.

What then does this potentially mean when we see verses such as Thomas' exclamation of “My Lord and my God”? The reaction to his exclamation was not met with any notice by any others present, only an acknowledgement by Yeshua that Thomas now believes that he has risen. I have always wondered why this was not recorded by the other Gospel writers but Irenaeus' assertion puts things in a new light. Its as if the exclamation was not that big of an issue by those present and it should have been.

July 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm#62400