- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Cato
Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56) Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…””
Our? why not my?
Ambiguous! This could be Yeshua who we know is supernatural, and that he is the “Image of God”, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…“”, and we also know that it was by and through Yeshua all things were made that was made.. John 1:3, Col 1:16, 17, Hebrews 1:10.Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Gen 3:22 “And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”
One of us, why not like me?
Is man supernatural? The kicker was “knowing good and evil”, untill this point man was not one of them in that respect.Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Deu 10:17, Psa 136:2, Dan 2:47, Dan 11:36 all quote God of gods.
Why if there are no gods?Again, I see no divine qualities or supernatural abilities ascribed to these so called gods in these scriptures. Remember, man made gods whether it be Kings or Pharaohs or Idols, were and are common in the world, but by no means are they to be construed as gods for folowers of YHWH, and surely they are not of God, but in fact were in opposition to God.
Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Psa 82:1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the “gods”:
Seems pretty clear here.What is clear? Psalms 82 is speaking of wicked kings and judges. No indication of these gods being divine or supernatural. Here is an example of God giving judgment among the gods…
1 Kings 18:21-
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he [is] a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, [or] peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
36 And it came to pass at [the time of] the offering of the [evening] sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou [art] God in Israel, and [that] I [am] thy servant, and [that] I have done all these things at thy word.
39 And when all the people saw [it], they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he [is] the God; the LORD, he [is] the God.
40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Gen 31:53 May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.”
Why not the God of Abraham and Nahor?HUH? Are you reading into this more than one God? That’s a stretch. The point being made here is the children served the same God as their fathers through generations.
Exod 3:6
Moreover he said, I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.Are you saying that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob had different Gods?
Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Judges 11:23 “Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess.This seems to imply that “your god” Chemosh is more then imaginary does it not?
Of course Chemosh is not imaginary, but is Chemosh divine or of God or does Chemosh have supernatural powers?
Nope just another false god that is an enemy of God, and who was not a god at all. You can read more about him here.
Quote (Cato @ May 23 2008,23:56)
Psa 89:6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD ?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround himHeavenly beings, holy ones?
Sounds like that there are other divine beings or for lack of a better word gods.
But the problem you have with this quote is it doesn’t ascribe the words “Divine” or “Elohiym” to these heavenly beings, does it?
Cato, my question was…
I challenge you to show me one instance in OT or NT scriptures that ascribes the words “eloyhim” or “theos” to any supernatural being that has divine qualitys or is like YHWH other than Yeshua.
Where are the Angels of God, Men of God, that “eloyhim” or “theos” is ascribed too? You didn't even touch on the word “Theos”.
Like I said, I may be missing something, but I don't think so.
Polytheism and Henotheism is opposed to the Monotheistic faith found in the scriptures.
Blessings!
From the NET Bible which was praised by WJ on another thread.
Gen 31:53 May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor, 1 the gods of their father, judge between us.” Jacob took an oath by the God whom his father Isaac feared
The God of Abraham and the god of Nahor. The Hebrew verb translated “judge” is plural, suggesting that Laban has more than one “god” in mind. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX, apparently in an effort to make the statement monotheistic, have a singular verb. In this case one could translate, “May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” However, Laban had a polytheistic world view, as evidenced by his possession of household idols (cf. 31:19). The translation uses “God” when referring to Abraham’s God, for Genesis makes it clear that Abraham worshiped the one true God. It employs “god” when referring to Nahor’s god, for in the Hebrew text Laban refers to a different god here, probably one of the local deities.
Psa 82:1 A psalm of Asaph. God stands in the assembly of El; 3 in the midst of the gods 4 he renders judgment
3 tn Heb “and I will not lift up their names upon my lips.” The expression “lift up the name” probably refers here to swearing an oath in the name of deity (see Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). If so, the third masculine plural suffix on “names” likely refers to the pagan gods, not the people/leaders. See the preceding note
4tn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beings
So in at least this translation elohim refers to gods of the Canaanite religion.
Psa 82:6 I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’ 2
2 sn Normally in the OT the title Most High belongs to the God of Israel, but in this context, where the mythological overtones are so strong, it probably refers to the Canaanite high god ElSo it appears there are some indications of henotheism in pre-babylonian OT.
Quote (Cato @ May 24 2008,15:23) From the NET Bible which was praised by WJ on another thread. Gen 31:53 May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor, 1 the gods of their father, judge between us.” Jacob took an oath by the God whom his father Isaac feared
The God of Abraham and the god of Nahor. The Hebrew verb translated “judge” is plural, suggesting that Laban has more than one “god” in mind. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX, apparently in an effort to make the statement monotheistic, have a singular verb. In this case one could translate, “May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” However, Laban had a polytheistic world view, as evidenced by his possession of household idols (cf. 31:19). The translation uses “God” when referring to Abraham’s God, for Genesis makes it clear that Abraham worshiped the one true God. It employs “god” when referring to Nahor’s god, for in the Hebrew text Laban refers to a different god here, probably one of the local deities
Hi Cato.
I highlighted the part that shows Laban had a world view. Again, no supernatural beings, no indication of these beings having Divine qualities. This just shows again that the “local deities” as far as YHWH and the Hebrew faith are concerned were “not gods at all’ but manmade idols or false gods in opposition to YHWH. God has clearly shown that Monotheistic faith is what he required and that we are not to have any other gods.
Quote (Cato @ May 24 2008,15:23)
Psa 82:1 A psalm of Asaph. God stands in the assembly of El; 3 in the midst of the gods 4 he renders judgment3 tn Heb “and I will not lift up their names upon my lips.” The expression “lift up the name” probably refers here to swearing an oath in the name of deity (see Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). If so, the third masculine plural suffix on “names” likely refers to the pagan gods, not the people/leaders. See the preceding note
Cato. Could you tell me where the above #3 is found or relates to Pss 82:1?
This is what #3 reads…
3tn The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (’adat ’el, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT. (1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly. (2) Others take אֵל as a superlative here (“God stands in the great assembly”), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ’dt ’ilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5:533-36.
So again this is ambiguous as to YHWH promoting Polytheism or Henotheism. No indication of these so called gods as being supernatural or definitely not of God or having divine qualities. The Canaanite gods were manmade and opposed to YWHW.
In fact while men saw them as gods, YHWH emphatically states they shall die as men because they were men.
Quote (Cato @ May 24 2008,15:23)
4tn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beingsSo in at least this translation elohim refers to gods of the Canaanite religion.
Yes YHWH derogatively refers to these wicked rulers as being gods. If YHWH was acknowledging some kind of deity here then he would be contradicting himself.
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 44:8
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.Pss 82:6 is the only text that ever mentions such and is ambiguous at best.
Quote (Cato @ May 24 2008,15:23)
Psa 82:6 I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’ 2
2 sn Normally in the OT the title Most High belongs to the God of Israel, but in this context, where the mythological overtones are so strong, it probably refers to the Canaanite high god ElSo it appears there are some indications of henotheism in pre-babylonian OT.
Of course Henotheism and Polytheism were present, but not practiced by the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, or followers of YHWH.
Again these were Canaanite gods which were manmade and not gods at all.
Still no Angels of God, or Men of God, or Heavenly beings referred to as “Eloyhim” or “Theos” only ambiguous inferences to such.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 23 2008,18:09)
I challenge you to show me one instance in OT or NT scriptures that ascribes the words “eloyhim” or “theos” to any supernatural being that has divine qualities or is like YHWH other than Yeshua.Again I may be missing something, but I still don’t think that the challenge has been met.
Blessings!
An example of polytheism is acceptance of a 3 person God.
When we talk to a being we address the identity of the person. We don't often say “hello human”, “hello man”, hello woman”. No we say “hello Bill”, “hello Jill”, “Dear Father”.
So praying to a 3 person God should use language like “how are all of you”, “I love you all”, “Dear Father Son and Spirit, hallowed be your names”.
Some here teach polytheism and yet accuse others of being polytheists when they should see the log in their own eye.
Quote (kejonn @ July 29 2007,01:03) 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 t
he 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 of 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.”
I believe this pretty says it all. Just study it and think about it.peace …………………gene
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2008,11:13) An example of polytheism is acceptance of a 3 person God. The acceptance of “plurality of oneness” agrees with the words “elohiym” and “theos”.
Henotheism and Polytheism is opposed to the Monotheistic faith in scriptures.
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2008,11:13)
When we talk to a being we address the identity of the person. We don't often say “hello human”, “hello man”, hello woman”. No we say “hello Bill”, “hello Jill”, “Dear Father”.And when someone speaks to you then you should be able to address the identity of the one speaking. Yet you can not address if it is the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit that speaks when God speaks to you.
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2008,11:13)
So praying to a 3 person God should use language like “how are all of you”, “I love you all”, “Dear Father Son and Spirit, hallowed be your names”.Again, I repeat…
“Your logic betrays you. This is such a straw. The carnal mind of man will not accept that God is three persons, for it defies logic for an infinite God to be such.
Tell me t8, when God speaks to you, is it the Father, or is it the Son, or is it the Holy Spirit? Can you tell? If the Spirit of Christ is in you and he speaks to you do you say the Father spoke to you but Jesus didn’t speak? Do you say they spoke to me? Why not? It is the Father and the Son that you have fellowship with right? The Father has spoken unto us in these last days by the Son, right? If the Father only speaks through the Son and by his Spirit is it only the Fathers words? If so then you would say that Jesus never speaks to you but it is only the Father.
But if it is Jesus speaking the words of the Father then why don’t you say “They spoke to me”? But you say “He spoke to me”? Who t8? Did the Father or Jesus or the Holy Spirit speak? Or did they speak to you? I have never heard you say “They spoke to me”, but hopefully they did! Or has he?”
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2008,11:13)
Some here teach polytheism and yet accuse others of being polytheists when they should see the log in their own eye.Please show me t8 where the Trinitarian belief teaches there is more than “One Divine Being”?
The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God, three persons, one Spirit.
On the hand Henotheist teach there are one divine God and many smaller divine gods.
Please tell me if I have this wrong before you accuse me of having a log in my eye.
Blessings
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 26 2008,08:15)
I believe this pretty says it all. Just study it and think about it.peace …………………gene
GB, and here is my response to that post…
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/GnosticismHere 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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticismIrenaeus 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”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticism
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….sticism
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.htmAbove 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?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2008,08:39) Hi WJ,
Irenaeus has no divine anointing on his words.
NHHow do you know?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2008,17:43) Hi WJ,
Do you believe he has?
NHDo you always answer a question with a question?
WJ.
You teach that we should worship 3 persons as God.
I teach that we should worship one God the Father.So you teach that there are three and I teach that there is one (God who is the Father).
And then you call me a Polytheist.
Can you see the irony.
What are you going to do about the log?
t8……..Trinitarians are polytheists though they try to deny it by saying there all one when Scriptures plainly show Jesus is not one and the same origin, being or essences of God the Father either.
There teachings are pure garbage, and has caused so much pain and confusion. IMO……..gene
So are you Arians. You teach that Jesus is Just a “demi god”(1 person) and that the Father is the Almighty God. (2 person) You teach 2 gods The Father as one and the son as a demi god.( 2 gods) Take a look at yourselves.
gsilva72…….If you understood that the word GOD does not imply Deity and that Jesus said the Father was the (ONLY) TRUE GOD, you wouldn't have a problem with what were saying would you. Just believe what Jesus Himself said and everything will fall into place.
peace ……gene
Quote So are you Arians. You teach that Jesus is Just a “demi god”(1 person) and that the Father is the Almighty God. (2 person) You teach 2 gods The Father as one and the son as a demi god.( 2 gods) Take a look at yourselves. Hello gsilva,
I have found a lot of people are confused by the word “god.”
GOD IS A WORD THAT MEANS “MIGHTY ONE” OR “POWERFUL ONE” OR “STRONG ONE.”
There, now everything makes sense.
Satan is called a god. Certainly he has a lot of power. “the whole world is lying in his power.” He is “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” He can be called a god.
The angels have a lot of power or strength (compared to us) so they are also called gods.
Judges of Israel had a lot of power (compared to other israelites) so they were called gods.
Jesus of course is second only to the Creator, the Almighty, so he has vast amounts of power, strength, mightiness.
But, compared to Jehovah, who alone is ever called “Almighty” (43 times) meaning, he is “all mighty” without limit to his mightiness, power, etc, compared to him, no one is mighty, hence, he has no god.
He alone can be called Almighty God. He has no God. In other words, there is no one that is mighter than he is.
Yet, about 5 times in the Bible, we're told that Jesus has a God–that being Jehovah, his Father.
Yes, the Bible says there is only one true God, only one true mighty one. But, this certainly doesn't prevent us from saying others are mighty. The Bible itself called angels and judges gods (mighty ones.) But of course, ultimately, there is only one, who is above all, only one who is almighty, without limit, only one who has no one above him and that is why there is only one TRUE God, Jehovah.
david
ROMANS 16:27
“to God, wise alone, be the glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”–NW
“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”–KJDoes saying that Jehovah is wise alone mean that no one else is wise? No, IT MEANS THAT COMPARITIVELY speaking, no one else is wise.
Similarly, with this:
(Mark 10:18) “Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”
Does this mean that no one else is good? Of course, many people are rightly called “good.” But that was not the point being made.Similarly, when we read:
(John 17:3) “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”We see 2 distinct ones here: Jesus and the one that sent Jesus, the only true God.
Yet Jesus is also called God elsewhere. Does this mean he is the only true God, or does it mean that compared to all else, Jehovah is God Almighty, the only “true” “mighty one.”God basically means powerful one or mighty one. Hence, the angels, satan, human judges, all called gods. They were all mighty ones.
An angel is a mighty one to us, but not to Jehovah. Jehovah is a mighty one (God) to them, to everyone.
Jesus is certainly a mighty one (God) to us, but not compared to Jehovah who alone is called “Almighty” in scripture.So, the explanation for verses calling Jesus “God” is basically:
God means “mighty one.”
Jesus certainly is a mighty one.
But Jehovah alone is God compared to everyone else, hence, the only true mighty one.Quote (gsilva72 @ May 28 2008,04:09) So are you Arians. You teach that Jesus is Just a “demi god”(1 person) and that the Father is the Almighty God. (2 person) You teach 2 gods The Father as one and the son as a demi god.( 2 gods) Take a look at yourselves.
Scripture is quite clear. God has a son and that is what I teach. The invisible God has an image, and I teach that too.God and his son. The essence of the New Testament besides the salvation of man and a truth that is attacked from all angles.
So there is nothing wrong in teaching such. To add the Trinity is to add a doctrine that came 300 or so years later. A doctrine that is not mentioned in the Old or New Testaments and a doctrine that Paul, Peter, nor Jesus taught.
Scripture is enough for me and people can label me as they will, but I only care what God thinks.
Matthew 16:13-18
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.I teach and agree with Peter's confession about who Jesus is/was. Peter received this revelation not of man, but by God. Therefore I teach and believe that revelation.
The Trinity has had many proponents, but the one who pretty much started it, or at least got it recognised on a big scale was Athanasius of Alexandria.
If I had to choose between Athanasius or God, who do you think I should chose when it comes to identifying who Jesus is?
You still believe in more than one God. You believe in the Father and the Son and that is 2 seperate persons. You also claim that Jesus is a seperate “god” than the Father. Explain to me how that is not Polythiesm?
I claim that he is the son of the living God and not the son of himself.
I just repeat scripture and if anyone has a problem with what I repeat then they have a problem with scripture.
Quote You also claim that Jesus is a seperate “god” than the Father. Explain to me how that is not Polythiesm? Jesus is the son of the Father and the Father is the one true God. If you don't believe me then believe Jesus.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.The above statement is eternal life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
