- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 15 hours ago by
.
- Posts
@t8 @genebalthrop @Lightenup @berean
@gadam123 @edj @mikeboll64Hey guys! and everyone else I didn’t mention,
Irenaeus wrote around AD 185 and mentions John 1:1 five times.[20]
In one reference he comments, “‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”[21]
Irenaeus understood Jesus as more than “a god” or a divine being of a sort.
He referred to Jesus as God.
Let me repeat what Irenaeus said:
“‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”[21]
That’s my conclusion, too![20] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 8; Book 3, Chapter 11 (3 times); Book 5, Chapter 18.
[21] Ibid., Book 1, Chapter 8.Hi Mike.
YOU: If Rev 3:14 says Jesus is the “first cause” of God’s creation, it means that God isn’t the first cause of His own creation… which is absurd. It becomes even more absurd to think that Jesus would call himself “the creator of the creation by God”. Think about it… “I am the creator of God’s creation!” Laughable.
Of course you’ll say that’s because Jesus IS God. But if Jesus was “God”, then why would Revelation begin like this…
Rev 1:1… The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
Why would “God” give a revelation about coming events to “God”? Wouldn’t “God” already know about these things?
Carmel, your doctrine
requires people to suspend their God-given common sense and believe absurd things… such as Jesus’ God being a servant of Jesus. Absolute nonsense.
ME: ALL THE ABOVE FROM YOUR SIDE IS NONSENSE AND LAUGHABLE!
But let’s take just your last reasoning!
YOU: Why would “God” give a revelation about coming events to “God”? Wouldn’t “God” already know about these things?
ME: I REPEAT IT FOR YOU:
WHY WOULD “GOD” …………
THAT WILL DO Mike,
CAN YOU SEE MY DOCTRINE, Mike?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Hi Gene,
YOU: But to us true believers like Jesus and myself, and those that are true, we “ONLY” HAVE “ONE” GOD that is a True God to us, and there is no other GOD TO US.
YOU: But to us true believers like Jesus….
ME. Gene, TO YOU JESUS IS
A MERE BELIEVER?
YOU: and myself,….
ME: Gene, SO YOU COMPARED YOURSELF WITH JESUS! NO?
YOU: and those that are true,….
ME: Gene, WHO ARE THOSE THAT ARE TRUE, ON THIS PLANET ACCORDING TO YOU?
YOU: we “ONLY” HAVE “ONE” GOD that is a True God to us…..
ME: EXPLAIN PLEASE HOW YOU DETERMINE SOMETHING TRUE ON THIS PLANET!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Hey guys! and everyone else I didn’t mention,
Irenaeus wrote around AD 185 and mentions John 1:1 five times.
In one reference he comments, “‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”
Irenaeus understood Jesus as more than “a god” or a divine being of a sort.
He referred to Jesus as God.
Let me repeat what Irenaeus said:
“‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”
That’s my conclusion, too!Being theos in nature doesn’t make you theos in person.
Just as being adam in nature doesn’t make you Adam in person.
When these writers are talking about theos, you need to distinguish when they are talking about nature or identity.
Origen makes this clearer than most but still agrees with other writers in that time period as the Trinity had not fully formed as a doctrine yet. He wrote a couple of decades or three just after Irenaeus, but they still taught the same thing. Once you can understand when it is about nature and when it is about identity.
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)
And Irenaeus said this:
This, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is One God, the Maker of this universe, He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, 11).
And he said this:
Since, therefore, this is sure and established, 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 sonship, 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 themselves term no one else as “God”, or name as Lord, and what is much more significant, that our Lord, 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…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 One God, and to call Him Alone Father. But He did the rather distinguish those who by word merely are termed gods, from Him who is truly God, that they should not err as to his doctrine, nor understand one 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 befit the good teacher, but a misleading and devious 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. (Book IV, 1).
@dannyd
I should add that when these second century writers talk of theos, they are not always addressing theos in person, but sometimes talking about theos nature. In English it is hard to see this difference. In Greek, the definite article is there whereas we capitalise the first letter. For example, In Greek you say ‘the adam’ vs ‘adam’. In English we say ‘Adam’ vs ‘adam’ or ‘Adam’ vs ‘mankind’. NOTE: ‘adam’ is the word for ‘man’ in Genesis.But God and god in English doesn’t really work because we think big God and little or false god so now you have two or more Gods / gods.
But God is the person and god is God’s nature. Just like Adam is the person and adam is the nature. Except in English ‘god’ is translated ‘divine’ and ‘adam’ is translated as ‘man’.
Are you following that?
And the question about my son being equal to me. Yes in the sense of nature we are both man, thus equal in that respect. Although Adam and Eve were both mankind and I guess equal in a certain respect despite Eve coming from Adam.
But, in the natural world, a father is greater than his son and respect is given to reflect that. However, the son will eventually become a father too and will be given respect from his son and so on. But this is not the case with God and his Son.
The son of God as being an equal person to the Father is a moot argument once you understand the difference between nature and identity.
So one question for you at this stage Danny.
Which of the following are correct statements. Answer with the numbers.
- Eve is Adam
- Eve is adam
- Eve is the man
- Eve is man
- Adam and Eve are Adam
- Adam and Eve are adam
- Adam and Eve are man
Being theos in nature doesn’t make you theos in person.
Just as being adam in nature doesn’t make you Adam in person.
Hi Proclaimer
We still have to agree on what “God in nature” means ….. because if in the end, we do not believe that Christ, the divine and unique SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN IN ETERNITY, DOES NOT HAVE IN HIMSELF THE ATTRIBUTES OF HIS FATHER: OMNIPOTENCE, OMNIPRESENCE, OMNISCIENCE, HE IS NOT THEN THE OWN SON OF GOD DESCRIBED IN HEBREWS 1: 3
…. Who being THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS GLORY, and THE EXPRESS IMAGE IF HIS PERSONAND HE CANNOT
(CONTINUATION OF THE VERSE:)…. uphold all things by the word of his power, ….
Carmel……….By the Spirit of Truth Given us , by God our Father. Just as it says, “brethren , you have no need of a teacher, for the spirit of truth, “itself”, will teach you all things”.
Sorry, but thats how I know what your saying is not the truth Carmel.
peace and love to you and yours………gene
@t8
Hi Proclaimer,
Jesus is God by nature.
I agree with that.
But what’s then the conclusion.
Listen to what Irenaeus also said:
“Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1.)
Is Jesus Christ your God?Now to your question.
I believe 7 is right.
7. Adam and Eve are manHi Danny,
You posted:
Irenaeus wrote around AD 185 and mentions John 1:1 five times.[20]
In one reference he comments, “‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”[21]That which is begotten of the eternal One is part of the family of YHVH and is every bit a YHVH as the eternal One that begat Him.
Would you agree to that?
That which was begotten of Elvis Presley is part of the Presley family and is every bit a Presley as Elvis. Makes sense?
Nice to see you post!
Blessings, LU
Hi LU,
Thanks.
You asked:That which is begotten of the eternal One is part of the family of YHVH and is every bit a YHVH as the eternal One that begat Him.
Would you agree to that?Yes, I agree. That’s the natural conclusion.
You also said:
That which was begotten of Elvis Presley is part of the Presley family and is every bit a Presley as Elvis. Makes sense?
Yes, That’s the natural conclusion, too!
Blessings,
Danny
To All …..something to think about, Is begotten to you, the same as being born ?
To me it is not the Same. Because we are begotten of God, But not yet born, according to this. 1 John 5;18………We know that whosoever is born of God sins not , “But” , he that is “begotten ” of God keeps himself, and that wicked one touches him not.
Has anyone ever noticed the same word translated in English , as begotten, but in the Greek a completely different meaning, it appears as if someone tampered with the text right?
It’s the same word , in our text but being given a different meaning. Wonder why?
peace and love to you all………gene
Hi Proclaimer,
Jesus is God by nature.
I agree with that.
But what’s then the conclusion.
Listen to what Irenaeus also said:
“Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1.)Clearly we read from Irenaeus that there is one God who is the God of Jesus Christ. So either Irenaeus has contradictory view, he changed his mind, he is talking about nature, or he could be talking about how Jesus is above us as our head.
The word ‘theos’ was applied to judges after all. So if he is our judge, then he could in that sense be called theos. But let’s be clear. It in no way says or implies that he is the Most High God. That is exclusively the Father. We have no excuse because it is taught throughout, that Jesus Christ the Lord has a God like we do and that God is the same God.
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
`I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Now to your question.
I believe 7 is right.
7. Adam and Eve are manI would have said the following were correct:
- Eve is adam
- Eve is man
- Adam and Eve are adam
- Adam and Eve are man
Because adam and man are the same word and Both Adam and Eve are man as is each person too.
Are you man? Yes.
Are we both man? Yes.
Regardless, your answer shows that you understand that Eve is not Adam which is really the point.
And for the same reason, Jesus is not God.
@t8
Hi Proclaimer,
Jesus and His Father are both deity not just divine.
I believe this is what John 1:1 teaches.
“what God was, the Word was”The terms “divinity” and “deity” can be confusing. In most cases the terms have identical meanings.
However, some have used “divine” to refer to an angel, since it came from God.
However, an angel would not be a deity, since it is not by its nature God.Hi Gene,
YOU: Carmel……….By the Spirit of Truth Given us , by God our Father. Just as it says, “brethren , you have no need of a teacher, for the spirit of truth, “itself”, will teach you all things”.
Sorry, but thats how I know what your saying is not the truth Carmel.
ME: Honestly speaking, Gene, I don’t know what the hell are you talking about?
It is quite clear to me that you didn’t understand my Post by the look of it, so here it is again in blue for you to analyze it again.
YOU: But to us true believers like Jesus and myself, and those that are true, we “ONLY” HAVE “ONE” GOD that is a True God to us, and there is no other GOD TO US.
YOU: But to us true believers like Jesus….
ME: Gene, TO YOU JESUS IS
A MERE BELIEVER?
YOU: and myself,….
ME: Gene, SO YOU COMPARED YOURSELF WITH JESUS! NO?
YOU: and those that are true,….
ME: Gene, WHO ARE THOSE THAT ARE TRUE, ON THIS PLANET ACCORDING TO YOU?
YOU: we “ONLY” HAVE “ONE” GOD that is a True God to us…..
ME: EXPLAIN PLEASE HOW YOU DETERMINE SOMETHING TRUE ON THIS PLANET!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Hi Danny,
You wrote:
Jesus and His Father are both deity not just divine.
I believe this is what John 1:1 teaches.
“what God was, the Word was”The terms “divinity” and “deity” can be confusing. In most cases the terms have identical meanings.
However, some have used “divine” to refer to an angel, since it came from God.
However, an angel would not be a deity, since it is not by its nature God.Yes Danny, I believe the same.
Proclaimer you wrote to Danny:
I would have said the following were correct:
Eve is adam
Eve is man
Adam and Eve are adam
Adam and Eve are manI believe the following is correct:
The Son is theos
The Son is god
The Father and the Son are theos
The Father and the Son are god.
The Father is not the Son.
Two persons are theos.
Two persons are god.
There is one god.
Two persons act together as one god.
Hi Gene,
You wrote:
To All …..something to think about, Is begotten to you, the same as being born ?
To me it is not the Same. Because we are begotten of God, But not yet born, according to this. 1 John 5;18………We know that whosoever is born of God sins not , “But” , he that is “begotten ” of God keeps himself, and that wicked one touches him not.
Has anyone ever noticed the same word translated in English , as begotten, but in the Greek a completely different meaning, it appears as if someone tampered with the text right?
It’s the same word , in our text but being given a different meaning. Wonder why?
1 John 5:18
New American Standard Bible
We know that no one who has been born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.Gene, both words the the NASB translated as “born” are from the same Greek word. No tampering there. Born agrees with the meaning of the Greek word.
The main thing is that the One that was born of God keeps everyone who has been born of God from the evil one. The only begotten Son keeps those who are born again from the evil one.
I hope that helps, LU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
