- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (JustAskin @ May 25 2010,15:22) WJ, what is Ontology – it too big a word for me this time of night in UK?
on·tol·o·gy [ on tólləjee ] (plural on·tol·o·gies)noun
Definition:
1. study of existence: the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being2. theory of existence: a particular theory of being
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,15:29) Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,01:43) Keith, Perhaps you are right.
Tell you what, you stop posting inconsistent and erronous arguments and we will stop the 'ad hominems'.
If you believe in the Trinity doctrine, then post with that as your base.
If some question arises that successfully disputes your claim, then acknowledge it. Don't make up silly pointless distractions nor change the context, to get out of the corner. You don't fool JA in that way…and you know that that is what you have done in the past.So, Agreed?
That is great advice. How about it?Surely it is more honorable to be honest and admit when you are wrong or when you are stuck.
Most of the time, I see pride defending itself to the point of ignoring any true challenges. And not just once or twice, but repeatedly.
Such is not good for anyone's development and God doesn't give you points for not being honest even if you think you are doing him a favor.
t8The theory is circular isn't it? Because everyone here including yourself believes he knows the truth.
And unless you can prove that they are being dishonest then it is disengenuous to speak with 'ad-hominems' since it is the 'ad-hominems' that prove who is being dishonest and diversionary!
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,06:29) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,06:08) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 26 2010,05:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,03:21) David: Quote You know, the angels are also called “sons” of God.
Angels are not called sons of God anywhere in the Bible. You are probably referring to Genesis 6 where it says that the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men. The “sons of God” were of the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men were of the line of Cain.
Hey KJ,I disagree with what you said here,
let me provide scripture to show you why,Bene-elohim, is often used to describe Angels,
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. You claimed that the Angels are not called Sons of God, but they are at some points. Doesnt it always refer to angels, of course not, but there are times that they are.
Point being, Bene-elohim i use for Angels as well.
With much love,
I hope you dont take personaly,
just an observation,Much Love,
Greetings SF,Where are angels mentioned in the passages you give. It simply says “sons of God”.
After the sons of God had taken the daughters of men and married them God said, “My spirit shall not always strive with MAN”. Therefore, the sons of God were OF MAN.
Jack
Actually KJ,The verse you gave, i compelelty ignored,
I posted verse to prove the point that the
Sons of God, are the same Angels.I thought it was self explanatory i guess not let me fully extend.
Quote 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Its very obvious that When God mentions the Foundations of the earth, which was the third day, that the Sons of God were present. To whom does it refer to the sons of God, if Adam wasnt created until the 6th day?
Quote Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Notice that Satan was an angel, cheribum, and other sons of God also came to the presense of God? it had to be angels, or a degree of angels, such as Cherbiums or what not.Quote Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Same here.This is self explanatory, If it was literal sons of God, as in MAn, than it would be different. Most of the time, when reffering to the greek sons of God, it means just that, Humans as the sons of God. but in hebrew, the 3 times that was mentioned as bene-elohim, is used for angels.
I mean, its not that big of a deal to argue about it, but I guess.
so thats my explanation.
Much love,
SF,Bene elohim is often translated as “mighty ones” (Psalm 29:1). Angels are not sons of God in the sense you say. Only men are sons of God.
Hebrews 1 is clear. It says, “To which of the angels did He ever say, “You are my son”. In other words, God NEVER called an angel His son.
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,07:39) Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,15:29) Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,01:43) Keith, Perhaps you are right.
Tell you what, you stop posting inconsistent and erronous arguments and we will stop the 'ad hominems'.
If you believe in the Trinity doctrine, then post with that as your base.
If some question arises that successfully disputes your claim, then acknowledge it. Don't make up silly pointless distractions nor change the context, to get out of the corner. You don't fool JA in that way…and you know that that is what you have done in the past.So, Agreed?
That is great advice. How about it?Surely it is more honorable to be honest and admit when you are wrong or when you are stuck.
Most of the time, I see pride defending itself to the point of ignoring any true challenges. And not just once or twice, but repeatedly.
Such is not good for anyone's development and God doesn't give you points for not being honest even if you think you are doing him a favor.
t8The theory is circular isn't it? Because everyone here including yourself believes he knows the truth.
And unless you can prove that they are being dishonest then it is disengenuous to speak with 'ad-hominems' since it is the 'ad-hominems' that prove who is being dishonest and diversionary!
WJ
Keith,Exactly! I was totally surprised that t8 justified JA's statement about ad hominens. Such arguments are inherently fallacious and deceptive.
Jack
Quote (JustAskin @ May 26 2010,07:22) WJ, what is Ontology – it too big a word for me this time of night in UK?
It's a word that Trinitarians sometimes resort to when they can't argue their position from scripture. In this case, they can resort to references outside scripture to back up their position and it also has the added bonus of making them sound intelligent, (at least they think so).JustAskin said:
Quote I don't understand – to what advantage is it that you are enying that God calls ALL his sentient creation “Sons”
JA,So God calls ALL His sentient creation His sons?
How about Hebrews which says this,
To which of the angels did He ever say, “You are my son”.
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,07:39) Because everyone here including yourself believes he knows the truth.
It is written that there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.You believe that there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
I at least believe what Paul wrote and he said for US there is one God the Father.
So yes I believe that I believe the truth, and you can see that I am in agreement with Paul and you are not.
Of course I could give you examples from other writers too and even Jesus himself. But that would make this post too lengthy and I have already done this exercise for you before.
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,15:43) Quote (JustAskin @ May 26 2010,07:22) WJ, what is Ontology – it too big a word for me this time of night in UK?
It's a word that Trinitarians sometimes resort to when they can't argue their position from scripture. In this case, they can resort to references outside scripture to back up their position and it also makes them sound intelligent.
Another circular comment, which is only meant as a jab.Because everyone at times uses words not found in the scriptures to explain their views!
God doesn't give points for judging someones motives in using particular words in a debate either does he?
WJ
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2010,07:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,07:39) Because everyone here including yourself believes he knows the truth.
It is written that there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.You believe that there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
I at least believe what Paul wrote and he said for US there is one God the Father.
So yes I believe that I believe the truth, and you can see that I am in agreement with Paul and you are not.
Of course I could give you examples from other writers too and even Jesus himself. But that would make this post too lengthy and I have already done this exercise for you before.
t8,For your information the word “ontos” from which we get our word “ontology” is in the scripture. It is the genetive form of “eimi” which means “to be”. So when WJ speaks of the ontological identity of the Father and the Son He speaking about their essence or being.
Come on! First you justify ad hominen arguments and now this.
Jack
Fair enough. But when valid points are made and then ontology becomes the last line of defense, then I immediately wonder why scripture is not good enough to stand on its own.
It appears from scripture that we can partake in divine nature and it is not a stretch to believe that Jesus has divine nature, (he existed in the form of God after all). But that is completely different to saying that he is God or THE Divine.
Divine nature comes from the Divine. Having or partaking in divine nature doesn't make someone God just as having a spirit and partaking in the Spirit doesn't make you God.
In fact God is the Father of spirits. Just as he is the originator of divine nature.
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,15:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,07:39) Because everyone here including yourself believes he knows the truth.
It is written that there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.You believe that there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
I at least believe what Paul wrote and he said for US there is one God the Father.
So yes I believe that I believe the truth, and you can see that I am in agreement with Paul and you are not.
Of course I could give you examples from other writers too and even Jesus himself. But that would make this post too lengthy and I have already done this exercise for you before.
t8Of course you deny then that the Father is not your Lord is that right? Because you must be consistent with your understanding of that scripture.
If Paul is implying that the “One God” is exclusive to the Father then he is also saying that the “One Lord” is exclusive to Jesus.
But how do you deal with scriptures like…
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, “that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. Jude 1:4, 5
Now compare that with Pauls words here…
…and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; “and the rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:4
Then Paul says…
“Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents“.. 1 Cor 10:9
Paul and Jude are clearly saying Jesus is YWHW who followed the the children of Israel into the wilderness.
How do you reconcile these scriptures into your theology t8?
We were just talking about diversions and “ad-hominems” and hopefully you will not resort to either!
WJ
Some thing to consider.
Matthew 28:19 (English-NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,In the name of something refers to the authority of something. E.g If I say in the name of the Law, then I am invoking the authority of the Law. If I am saying something in the name of Jesus, then it is his authority rather than the pronounciation that I am invoking and we know his authority comes from God and God sent his Spirit to the Church. Hence a possible interpretation of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So at best we cannot say that Matthew 28:19 teaches a Trinity and in the light of what we have read so far, we simply cannot throw away all the scriptures that say that God is the Father and he has a son, who is called the son of God.
In addition to the meaning of this verse, there is great speculation and some would say strong evidence that this verse like 1 John 5:7 was actually added in later and is not part of the original book of Matthew. But whether this speculation is true or not, one certainly cannot derive a Trinity understanding from this verse on its own, as it doesn't teach that all 3 are 1 God. The evidence for a possible alteration or addition is below:
Encyclopedia Britannia, the 11th edition vol 3, page 365-366
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the second century.Encyclopedia Britannia, vol 3, page 82
“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2
Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus”. page 377.
The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church's history. page 378
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, in my name” … the latter form being the more frequent.page 380.
Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used. page 389.Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, page 377,
Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus' name was changed by the Catholic church.Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88
It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.The Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 states,
The early Church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the developement of the trinity
doctrine in the 2nd Century.Whatever we may believe about the validity of Matthew 28:19 we must remember that the Apostles were taught and discipled by Jesus directly and they administered baptism in the name of Jesus, just as they did all things in the name of Jesus. In scripture we see no record of the Apostles baptizing or repeated the words ” In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.
We know that the earlier believers continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2 : 42) and we read in Acts 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,16:07) Fair enough. But when valid points are made and then ontology becomes the last line of defense, then I immediately wonder why scripture is not good enough to stand on its own. It appears from scripture that we can partake in divine nature and it is not a stretch to believe that Jesus has divine nature, (he existed in the form of God after all). But that is completely different to saying that he is God or THE Divine.
Divine nature comes from the Divine. Having or partaking in divine nature doesn't make someone God just as having a spirit and partaking in the Spirit doesn't make you God.
In fact God is the Father of spirits. Just as he is the originator of divine nature.
t8The problem is Jesus is not like every one else. He is in very nature God, we are not in very nature God.
We share his (Jesus) divine nature because he is in very nature God just as the Father is in very nature God.
Big difference in the two. Besides it is a valid point to make that Jesus shares the same attributes of the Father like Omipresence. No other being in the Universe but God has that attribute. Everything that the Father is, the Son and the Holy Spirit are also. Ontologically they are ONE!
So the burden of proof is with those who cannot show that Matt 28:19 for instance shows a difference in their respective nature and ontology!
WJ
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,08:09) If Paul is implying that the “One God” is exclusive to the Father then he is also saying that the “One Lord” is exclusive to Jesus.
Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”God didn't make Jesus God, he made him Lord and Christ.
Did you not know that Lord and YHWH are not the same word?
And yes we can say things like “ye are gods” and “there is one president” and still have a president of the National Organization for Women.
But there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ for us. You can't bend that meaning to suit your doctrine without being dishonest.
t8 said:
Quote It appears from scripture that we can partake in divine nature and it is not a stretch to believe that Jesus has divine nature, (he existed in the form of God after all). But that is completely different to saying that he is God or THE Divine.
t8,The divine nature is not the same as the divine form. We may partake of the divine nature, i.e., God's communicable attributes such as love and mercy and goodness.
But only Jesus shared in the divine form (Philippians 2). Men may not share in the divine form. Jesus told the Jews that that they had not seen God's form. Yet they saw God's nature in the person of Christ. Consequently, there is a distinction between nature and form. To share in the divine nature does not make one God just as you say. But one who has God's form is God. Jesus had God's form.
Jack
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,16:12) Some thing to consider. Matthew 28:19 (English-NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,In the name of something refers to the authority of something. E.g If I say in the name of the Law, then I am invoking the authority of the Law. If I am saying something in the name of Jesus, then it is his authority rather than the pronounciation that I am invoking and we know his authority comes from God and God sent his Spirit to the Church. Hence a possible interpretation of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So at best we cannot say that Matthew 28:19 teaches a Trinity and in the light of what we have read so far, we simply cannot throw away all the scriptures that say that God is the Father and he has a son, who is called the son of God.
In addition to the meaning of this verse, there is great speculation and some would say strong evidence that this verse like 1 John 5:7 was actually added in later and is not part of the original book of Matthew. But whether this speculation is true or not, one certainly cannot derive a Trinity understanding from this verse on its own, as it doesn't teach that all 3 are 1 God. The evidence for a possible alteration or addition is below:
Encyclopedia Britannia, the 11th edition vol 3, page 365-366
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the second century.Encyclopedia Britannia, vol 3, page 82
“Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume2
Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus”. page 377.
The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church's history. page 378
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, in my name” … the latter form being the more frequent.page 380.
Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used. page 389.Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, page 377,
Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus' name was changed by the Catholic church.Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88
It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.The Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 states,
The early Church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the developement of the trinity
doctrine in the 2nd Century.Whatever we may believe about the validity of Matthew 28:19 we must remember that the Apostles were taught and discipled by Jesus directly and they administered baptism in the name of Jesus, just as they did all things in the name of Jesus. In scripture we see no record of the Apostles baptizing or repeated the words ” In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.
We know that the earlier believers continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine (Acts 2 : 42) and we read in Acts 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
t8You should go back and read my thread, for your points do not address what I am saying at all. This thread was created by David to divert the attention from my original post.
Besides I have already addressed you post which is almost identical to POK and is misleading because the Catholics did not change the text (Click here) but only changed the Baptism formula of the church. So the references are lies.
Not only do Church Fathers like Ignatius (c. 35–107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Tertullian (c. 160–225) quote the verse long back to the first century, but the most damaging evidence to the unbelievers was “every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase“.
Plus the Didache which is believed by most scholars to be dated between 90 and 120CE also has the extant form of the passage.
So your souce has mountains of evidence to overcome and it looks like your source is only making false claims without any evidence at all! The manuscripts all have the formula! All credible translations have it.
The dispute is over ambiguous claims about Eusebius having a lost copy of the original which didn't have the tripartite phrase. But that is merely an unfounded rumor and their is no way to tell.
The NET completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, states…
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare,” “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163-64, 167-75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27-29. (Emphasis mine) NET
What also should be looked at by those who make this weak claim about Eusebius is that he was a Trinitarian and a prominent figure at the Council of Nicea. And his confession has the tripartite phrase.
Smoke screens with no evidence at all. Just conjecture made by the doubters.
Matt 28:19 is an inspired text written by Mattew and spoken by our Lord!
WJ
t8 said:
Quote Did you not know that Lord and YHWH are not the same word? The name YHWH translates into the New testament as “Kurios” (or Lord). ALWAYS!
Jack
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,16:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,08:09) If Paul is implying that the “One God” is exclusive to the Father then he is also saying that the “One Lord” is exclusive to Jesus.
Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”God didn't make Jesus God, he made him Lord and Christ.
Did you not know that Lord and YHWH are not the same word?
And yes we can say things like “ye are gods” and “there is one president” and still have a president of the National Organization for Women.
But there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ for us. You can't bend that meaning to suit your doctrine without being dishonest.
No he didn't have to make him God for he was already God (John 1:1, 18, Heb 1:8 Phil 2:6), but he emptied himself of his divine perogatives and made himself of no reputation and came in the likeness of sinful flesh.But you already know this don't you. So Jesus returned to his previous glory that he shared with the Father as God at the Fathers side! (John 1:1) That is pure scripture t8. We do not have to put a different meaning to John 1:1, 18 like you do!
He is now LORD of LORDS and KING of KINGS!
Quote (t8 @ May 25 2010,16:23) Did you not know that Lord and YHWH are not the same word?
Really? Thats not what the Septuagent translators believed is it? Tell us why the writers of the NT almost invariably used the word “Kurious” in the NT for Jesus when it was the same word found in the Septuagent for YHWH?WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 26 2010,08:16) The problem is Jesus is not like every one else. He is in very nature God, we are not in very nature God.
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.Did you not know that Jesus is our brother?
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.Hebrews 2:10-11 (New International Version)
10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.We are the same kind as him. He calls us 'brother'. So if he is God, then are we? Rather, he is the son of God and we are the sons of God.
We are in the same family as him, he is our brother.
This understanding needs to be espoused when you venture into 'ontology'.Again WJ, you are confused by nature verses identity. Jesus is identified as Lord and is greater than us. In kind, we are or will be the same.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 26 2010,08:29) t8 said: Quote Did you not know that Lord and YHWH are not the same word? The name YHWH translates into the New testament as “Kurios” (or Lord). ALWAYS!
Jack
But the point is that you do not call your landlord landYHWH.YHWH may mean Lord, just as “David' means beloved. God is YHWH and Jesus as Lord is not the same as saying Jesus is YHWH.
Rather he is the son of YHWH.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
