Mikeboll64 vs francis

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

Did you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't even considered a member of the trinity in the original Nicene Creed of 325?  “He” wasn't mentioned as the third member of the “Godhead” until 55 years later – in the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

If the trinity is supposed to be scriptural and has always been; and these church fathers who later claimed that the trinity is scriptural and always has been are the ones who signed off on the Nicene Creed, then don't you find it weird that they forgot one of God's members for 55 years?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Quote

Hi Francis, Did you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't even considered a member of the trinity in the original Nicene Creed of 325?  “He” wasn't mentioned as  the third member of the “Godhead” until 55 years later – in the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. If the trinity is supposed to be scriptural and has always been; and these church fathers who later claimed that the trinity is scriptural and always  has been are the ones who signed off on the Nicene Creed, then don't you find it weird that they forgot one of God's members for 55 years? peace and love, mike

Hello Mike…

Thanks for this opportunity to discuss this important topic with you.  I genuinely look forward to hearing your viewpoint, and in the process, I'm  confident that during the course of this discussion,  you will stretch me intellectually and spiritually… which I always look forward to.

FIRST OF ALL… i don't think it is weird that “they forgot one of God's members for 55 years” (as you put it) for a couple of  reasons.

1)… The Nicene Creed of 325 does in fact mention the Holy Spirit/Ghost. At the very end.  Here are two citations I was able to find that bear this  out.

—> http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0071.html  It says that  [The Creed of the Council of Nicaea (325) ended, “And in the  Holy Spirit.”]

—> Wikipedia does a direct comparision between the Creed of 325 and 381 and once again we see the Holy Spirit/Ghost being mentioned at  the end of the Creed of 325.

2)… Another reason why i don't think it is weird that “they forgot one of God's members for 55 years”, is when you consider the reason why  the council of 325 was convened in the first place.  The council of 325 was not set up or asked to resolve any conflict about the Holy Spirit.

This council had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east. To most  bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.  So one of the main issues was resolving the  Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father.   And that is why it was convened.  

Why would they be debating/discussing/investigating the teachings and beliefs about the Holy Spirit when that was not the purpose or reason  for the council in the first place?  

Indeed, it was the rise of Pneumatomachianism (a sect of Macedonians who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit)… AFTER the Council of Nicea,  which gave cause to the convening of the Council at Constantinople 55 years later.  When that issue came up and became a very serious one, it was then that it was taken up and debated and resolved.

CONCLUSION…

For the above 2 reasons, I don't think it is weird that “they forgot one of God's members for 55 years”.  First of all, they didn't forget… it is  found at the end of the Creed.  And secondly, it wasn' an issue which needed to be resolved at the time.

—————————–

I want to briefly touch on a couple of questions/issues which you raised in our other thread.  And allthough you they are not found in your question  on this thread, they are nonetheless important in here.

1)…  You wrote: “I've noticed your posts are often very wordy.”

I apologize if you feel they are wordy, but I personally feel that each word was important and necessary in my attempt to be thorough and very  clear as I try and give what I think is the truth.  I understand that you may very well disagree, but I have to be true to what I believe is the best way  to get across my point.   Although I will try and accomodate your concern, I can't guarantee anything because to me, it is like asking a Grand  Master Chess player to keep his moves under 20 seconds while his opponent, also a Grand Master, is allowed to take over an hour to move.

If the first Grand Master is lousy at speed chess, but very accomplished at regular chess, then you've basically hamstrung his ability to express  himself through his strength.

Anyway… that might be a lousy example, but because I'm not a genius, that is what I came up with at this time.

2)… I understand that as a Mod, you must be very busy, and so that would explain why you do not know if i'm male or female… because I have talked about my wife in other posts.

Anyway… Francis is the spelling for males… Frances is the spelling for females.   And although my legal name is Francis, in my daily life, I go by  Fran… which also happens to be a male spelling.

——————————

God Bless You

Respectfully Yours..
Francis or Fran

[Ed J]

Hi Francis and Mike,

Please excuse my interruption here, but I believe the issue of concern is not
the depth in which you wish to go to fully articulate the point in question, but rather
the introduction of “NEW” subordinate points: these are seen as unnecessary ‘Post bloating’.

These subordinate points need to be introduced one at a time for in-depth individual analysis.
Multiple points put forth in a single Post: is seen as nothing but a distraction tactic,
trying to add more validity to a weak position of the main-point in question.

I hope you feel my intrusion here was a benefit to your discussion,
also helping you to establish Christian debate protocol.
One question per-Post does work well!

Your brother in
Christ, Jesus;
Ed J

[francis]

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 12 2010,14:36)

Hi Francis and Mike, Please excuse my interruption here, but I believe the issue of concern is not the depth in which you wish to go to fully articulate the point in question, but rather the introduction of “NEW” subordinate points: these are seen as unnecessary ‘Post bloating’. These subordinate points need to be introduced one at a time for in-depth individual analysis. Multiple points put forth in a single Post: is seen as nothing but a distraction tactic, trying to add more validity to a weak position of the main-point in question. I hope you feel my intrusion here was a benefit to your discussion, also helping you to establish Christian debate protocol. One question per-Post does work well! Your brother in Christ, Jesus; Ed J

With all due respect Ed J… what Multiple points are you referring to?  Mike asked a question… I then answered it.

The other two pieces of information I offered had nothing to do with the Trinity, but was an answer to Mike's questions and concerns from a post in another part of the Forum.

I explained all this.  Mike and I were not going to “argue” or debate those extra pieces of information, because that wasn't the purpose of them in the first place.

So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

BTW…  It's a non-sequitur to say that putting forth Multiple points in a single Post,  it must mean that it is nothing but a distraction tactic,trying to add more validity to a weak position of the main-point in question.

It may very well be true that multiple points are not a distraction and that it is not an indication of a weak position.  You can't know either until you look at the points in question and the argument themselves.

The fact is, the presence of multiple points does not indicate anything by and of themselves.

So what you said, in my viewpoint anyway, is a non-sequitur. I could be wrong, but that is what it appears to me.

However, it is Mikes' desire and mine to do what you are speaking of.

Evidence of that is from Mike himself… here are his exact words in another post:

Quote

Thanks for the response.  I agree with much that you posted.  Listen, I'm a moderator on this site and am active in many threads.  I would enjoy discussing the trinity with you if we can do it one point at a time and keep it to brief, to the point posts.   I've noticed your posts are often very wordy.  I would prefer a Q and A, one point or scripture at a time discussion.  And we should not move on to another point or scripture until we are both agreed that the previous point or scripture is resolved as best it can be.  Even if that resolution is an “Agree to Disagree” position. I'll set it up as a debate thread so we won't have interuptions.  Look for “mikeboll64 vs francis” (Does the Trinity Doctrine Make Sense?) Let's start with a VERY BRIEF history of the trinity doctrine, okay? No time limits………post when you can or want and I'll do the same.

I hope that clears things up.

Respectfully
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Hello Fran,

I hope your wife is doing well, SIR!    (Now I know – plus Asana also just told me.  I wasn't aware of the different spellings for male and female “Frans”)

Quote (francis @ Dec. 12 2010,11:09)

1)… The Nicene Creed of 325 does in fact mention the Holy Spirit/Ghost. At the very end.

You are correct that it does.  And I also have used the Wikipedia side by side comparison between the Nicence Creed of 325 and the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.  Here's what is said about the Holy Spirit in the 325 Creed:

We believe……………..And in the Holy Spirit.

And here's what is said about it in the 381 Creed:

We believe…………..And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

That's a big jump in prestige from the first Creed to the second one, hey?      I hear and acknowledge your point that the reason for the first Creed was to resolve whether or not Jesus had a beginning, and so it did not have so much to do with the Holy Spirit.  I've read the history about Arius and Athenasius going to war over the subject of the deity and origin of the Son.  But still, to just mention one of the three equal members of the Godhead in passing like that baffles me.  

And although these man-made Creeds are not scriptures themselves, I still find that it makes more sense to believe that the writers of the 381 Creed added info about the Holy Spirit to CREATE a trinity God in keeping with the pagan belifs of the time to draw more believers to Christianity, than it does to believe the writers of the 325 Creed KNEW that the Holy Spirit was the third member of the Godhead and just neglected to give it equal billing.

Before we move off the Creeds and into the scriptures, just one more thing.  Eusebius was one of the most respected church fathers in the 4th century.  In fact, he is the one most generally credited with penning the actual Nicene Creed itself.

This is from a letter he wrote to his Diocese shortly after signing the Nicene Creed, explaining his actions and the reasons for them:

On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence.  On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.

You can see that Eusebius and others asked about the phrase, “one in essence with the Father”.  The explanations they garnered told of the Son being FROM the Father, but not a part OF the Father.  So Eusebius agreed that “the Son was FROM the Father, not however a part OF His essence”.  And since peace was the object of the council, he went along with that wording, knowing in his mind that the Son was FROM the Father, but NOT a part of the being of God.  He also goes on to say that the wording, “of the essence of the Father” distinguishes Jesus from the creatures that came into being through him.  That's also why they made a big deal of saying “begotten, NOT MADE”.

And knowing that explanation about the “essence” thing, I can get on board with everything in the Nicene Creed.  It is 100% scriptural – with the exception of the anathema added to the end.  But here's what Eusebius said about the anathema:

And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.

First, he distances himself from the anathema by saying “them”.  Then, Eusebius says that since they were ordered to teach this Creed using ONLY words found in scripture, the anathema didn't bother him.  He says that since there are no phrases in the scriptures that say Christ was “out of nothing”, or “once he was not” or the rest of the phrases in the anathema, then there was no ground or reason for using those phrases in teaching about Christ, nor had they ever used them.

All this info and more can be found here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

Fran, my posts won't be near as long once we get into scriptures.  But I thought it would be good to clear the air about how these Creeds and the words used in them came to be.  And here you can see that one of the most esteemed members of the Council of Nicea did NOT believe Jesus to be God Almighty, but DID believe him to have come FROM his God.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…  

Quote

Francis 1)… The Nicene Creed of 325 does in fact mention the Holy Spirit/Ghost. At the very end. Mike You are correct that it does.  And I also have used the Wikipedia side by side comparison between the Nicence Creed of 325 and the  Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.  Here's what is said about the Holy Spirit in the 325 Creed: We believe……………..And in the Holy Spirit. And here's what is said about it in the 381 Creed: We believe…………..And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together  is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. That's a big jump in prestige from the first Creed to the second one, hey?     I hear and acknowledge your point that the reason for the first Creed was to resolve whether or not Jesus had a beginning, and so it did not have  so much to do with the Holy Spirit.

The added words for the Holy Spirit in the Creed of 381, versus what the Creed of 325 said,  does not in anyway have to represent or indicate a  “big jump in prestige from the first Creed to the second one” at all… for the very reason you yourself stated in your last sentence above.

Like you just said, the first Creed was to resolve whether or not Jesus had a beginning, and so it did not have so much to do with the Holy Spirit.   So the question I had asked earlier still remains, if the Creed had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, then why should we expect more than what  we see in the Creed of 325?

Indeed, the added words in the 381 Creed was not to add more prestige to the Holy Spirit, but it was to clarify and define the Holy Spirit in  response to the Creeds stated mission of resolving a conflict surrounding the Holy Spirit at that time… which did not exist at the time of the  earlier Creed.

In that light, it appears to me that your contention is really a non-sequitur… or at the very least… you have not given us enough information to  warrant your contention.   In other words… the mere ACT of adding words… in of itself… does not logically force us to conclude that  therefore prestige is being added.   Adding words does not have to mean adding prestige.  Especially when there are very reasonable  atlternatives that explain why words were added in the later Creed (i.e. resolving issues about the Holy Spirit).  

SO IN CONCLUSION… i see no “big jump in prestige”… as you put it.
——————————————-

Quote

I've read the history about Arius and Athenasius going to war over the subject of the deity and origin of the Son.  But still, to just mention  one of the three equal members of the Godhead in passing like that baffles me.

Well… in light of why the Creed of 325 was written in the first place, it doesn't baffle me at all.  Indeed, the fact that you've added the phrase “in  passing” in your above commentary,  only reveals to us that you are in fact passing judgment on the intent of the signers.

The phrase “In Passing” is a judgmental attitude about the state of mind of the signers.  It is almost like saying the signers were flippant or  that they added the Holy Spirit to the Creed as nothing more than an after-thought.

But just like above where we see that adding words does not have to mean adding prestige… so likewise, to not add words about the Holy  Spirit does not have to indicate that the writers felt that the Holy Spirit was not worthy of reverance… or not worth mentioning in more detail.  To  me, both are examples of non-sequiturs.

It could very well be that the Holy Spirit, in Creed 325, was not a topic of discussion and debate, and so there was no reason to add more than  what was the stated mission of the Creed.

To me… and I could by wrong…  you are reading TOO MUCH into this.  This is not to say that you are necessarily incorrect (although I  believe you are incorrect)… it's just that you have not supplied any evidence from the signers themselves to know what their intention was or was  not as to why they didn't add more words at the end of Creed 325 about the Holy Spirit.

In the absence of any such evidence, it appears to me that you are simply trying to read their minds… thousands of years later.

SO IN CONCLUSION… it doesn't baffle me in the least because you haven't given me any good objective, impartial reasons to be  baffled.
——————————–

Quote

And although these man-made Creeds are not scriptures themselves, I still find that it makes more sense to believe that the writers of the  381 Creed added info about the Holy Spirit to CREATE a trinity God in keeping with the pagan belifs of the time to draw more believers to  Christianity, than it does to believe the writers of the 325 Creed KNEW that the Holy Spirit was the third member of the Godhead and just  neglected to give it equal billing.

In the abscence of any evidence (which you have not supplied to support your above belief),  and when we use Ockham's razor, we can see that  it is far more reasonable to suggest that the reason why Creed 325 does not have more words about the Holy Spirit,  is simply because it wasn't  an issue which needed to be debated or addressed at the time.  It's that simple.  

To suggest more, without any evidence whatsoever, is nothing but fantasy, wishful thinking and maybe even bias.  I could very well be wrong, but  that is how it appears to me from where I am sitting.

Also, just as you used the phrase “in passing” above, which seems to pass judgment, you are now using the word  “neglected”.  Both…. the word “neglected” and the prase “in passing”… appear to make direct judgements about the state of  mind  and the intent of the signers of creed 325.  And without any evidence from the writings of the Bishops themselves… the ones who signed  the Creed of 325… your judgments can only be described as being objectively and impartially  unwarranted.

————————————-

Quote

Before we move off the Creeds and into the scriptures, just one more thing.  Eusebius was one of the most respected church fathers in  the 4th century.  In fact, he is the one most generally credited with penning the actual Nicene Creed itself.

First of all… as a thinker and as a theologian, Eusebius was NOT  well thought of.  Instead, he is renowned and respected only because of  his prodigious and volumunious works, for which historians are eternally grateful.   His works are invaluable only because of its copious extracts  from ancient authors whose works have perished.  If Eusebius did not
have the habit of quoting and copying so many ancient authors, we would  never had the wealth of historical information about these authors, or about the events surrounding the early church.  For that reason, Eusebius'  work is famous.

But as a thinker or theologian?  He's not renowed or well- regarded in those areas at all.  And this is not a personal attack, but the general  consensus of his contemporaries and those historians who have had to wade through his massive work.   The following are just a few  observations about Euesbius…

This is from the same website you yourself supplied in here (http://www.ccel.org):

“If we look in Eusebius’ works for evidences of brilliant genius we shall be disappointed.”

“there is not in his writings the brilliancy which we find in some others, there is not the same sparkle and freshness of new and suggestive  thought, there is not the same impress of an overmastering individuality which transforms everything it touches.”

“At the same time it must be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the grand opportunities which his acquaintance with the works  and lives of other men and other peoples opened before him. He does not always reveal the possession of that high quality of genius which is  able to interpret the most various forces and to discover the higher principles of unity which alone make them intelligible; indeed, he often loses  himself completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions which have come to him from other men and other ages, and the result is dire  confusion.”

“That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and did not perceive that he actually denied all real deity to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his  lack of theological insight (Eusebius was never a great theologian), in part to his habitual dread of Sabellianism (of which Arius had  accused Alexander, and toward which Eusebius evidently thought that the latter was tending), which led him to look with great favor upon the  pronounced subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook the dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that subordinationism.”

From Wikipedia, we get this:

“From a dogmatic point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the shoulders of Origen.” (No originality)

“… Eusebius described the relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with  Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen. The lack of originality in his thinking shows itself in the fact that he never presented his thoughts  in a system.”

“… Eusebius was not himself a great historian. His treatment of heresy, for example, is limited, and he knew very little about the Western  church. The panegyrical tone of the Life of Constantine has grated on modern sensibilities. Nor was he always critical about the material that he  reproduces; he includes in the Ecclesiastical History letters supplied to him by a Syriac source purporting to be written back and forth between  King Abgar and Jesus.”

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm, we have this:

“… It is not a literary work which can be read with any pleasure for the sake of its style. Eusebius's “diction”, as Photius said, “is never pleasant  nor clear”. Neither is it the work of a great thinker. But it is a storehouse of information collected by an indefatigable student. Still, great as was  Eusebius's learning, it had its limitations. He is provokingly ill-informed about the West. That he knows very little about Tertullian or St. Cyprian is  due, no doubt, to his scant knowledge of Latin…”

From http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/eusebius.php, we have this:

“His major work was his History of the Church, a massive piece of research that preserves quotations from many older writers that would  otherwise have been lost. Despite the breadth of his reading most scholars agree that “his erudition is not matched by clarity of thought or  attractiveness of presentation.” (Encylopedia Britannica Micropedia., Vol. 4, 608)

“Some writers note that just as Caesarea lay halfway between Antioch and Alexandria, so Eusebius’ hermeneutic lay midway between the  traditions of those two cities.” (Wallace-Hadrill, 96.)

From http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1963/v20-3-bookreview12.htm we have this:

This was a review of the book entitled “Eusebius Of Caesarea” written by D. S. Wallace-Hadrill.  The review was from E. R. Hardy of the  Berkeley Divinity School in New Haven, Connecticut.

“Eusebius remains an ambiguous figure-one of those of whom one can say that they made first-rate use of second-rate abilities-and the result  of his merits and limitations was the scissors-and-paste quality of much of his work, and the confusion inherent in his theology.”

“On historical and literary questions Wallace-Hadrill mainly summarizes the work of other scholars; his own main contribution is the effort to  pinpoint where Eusebius went wrong as a theologian. For Eusebius, God and his creation were so different that the Mediator was necessarily a  “second god” belonging to neither one or the other.”

“Still even the sympathetic student of Eusebius cannot present him as a great religious figure, and Wallace-Hadrill's summary contains such  phrases as “vastly learned, wholly lacking in delicacy . . . absence of spirituality and of mysticism … respected by all, liked and trusted as it  seems by very few”

AND SO IN CONCLUSION… Eusebius has never been thought of as a great thinker or theologian, and so I could care less what his  position was surrounding the entire issue of the Trinity during the Nicean debates.  Indeed, the fact that Eusebius was not a great thinker or  theologian might explain why Eusebius found himself on the minority side along with Arius during the debates… and throughout history.

To point to Eusebius' thoughts in defense of your position is hardly persuasive at all.  It's even counterproductive when we realize that Eusebius  never denied the Diety of Christ or the basic concept of the Trinity as being representative of the Monotheistic God which Christians believe in.

(more about that down below)

—————————————–

Quote

This is from a letter he wrote to his Diocese shortly after signing the Nicene Creed, explaining his actions and the reasons for them: On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in  essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason.  And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of  Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from  the Father, not however a part of His essence.  On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in  essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view. You can see that Eusebius and others asked about the phrase, “one in essence with the Father”.  The explanations they garnered told of the  Son being FROM the Father, b ut not a part OF the Father.  So Eusebius agreed that “the Son was FROM the Father, not however a part OF His  essence”.  And since peace was the object of the council, he went along with that wording, knowing in his mind that the Son was FROM the  Father, but NOT a part of the being of God.  He also goes on to say that the wording, “of the essence of the Father” distinguishes Jesus from  the creatures that came into being through him.  That's also why they made a big deal of saying “begotten, NOT MADE”. And knowing that explanation about the “essence” thing, I can get on board with everything in the Nicene Creed.  It is 100% scriptural – with the  exception of the anathema added to the end.  But here's what Eusebius said about the anathema: And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from  which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of  nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as  a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms. First, he distances himself from the anathema by saying “them”.  Then, Eusebius says that since they were ordered to teach this Creed using  ONLY words found in scripture, the anathema didn't bother him.  He says that since there are no phrases in the scriptures that say Christ was  “out of nothing”, or “once he was not” or the rest of the phrases in the anathema, then there was no ground or reason for using those phrases in  teaching about Christ, nor had they ever used them. All this info and more can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

Using Eusebius as some kind of defense for your position is hardly persuasive when in fact he was never well thought of as a thinker or  theologian to begin with.

Also…. using the exact same website you supplied for Eusebius (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.iii.i.v.html)… we learn that part of  Eusebius' mistake during the Nicean debate was that he was mistaken about the definition of some of the words used by Arius… like “Begat”  and “Begotten”.  The article brought up letters written by Arius… and letters written by Eusebius, and when compared, it was easy to see that  Arius was using some words differently than how Eusebius thought Arius was using them.  So there was some confusion on the part of  Eusebius right from the get go.

We also learn from the article that in his later works Eusebius is thoroughly orthodox.  The article explains that we can divide Eusebius' works  into those written before the rise of Arius…. those written between that time and the Council of Nicea… and those written after the Council.  And  in his latter work we see that he is always orthodox when measured by the Nicene Creed as interpreted by the Nicene Council.

From http://www.christian-history.org/nicea.html we learn that “Eusebius is possibly the best witness of the consistency of the pre-Nicene  doctrine of the Trinity. His Ecclesiastical History is replete with quotes from the writers before him.”

“If the Church in its earlier days had believed anything different from Nicea, or if the doctrine of the Trinity had developed over time, no one  would know better than Eusebius. However, instead of testifying to change, Eusebius defended the Nicene Creed with these words:

That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is  in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine,  explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients  have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son. (The  Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, ch. 8)”

IN CONCLUSION…  The use of Eusebius does nothing to support your side.  Not only was Eusebius a poor thinker and theologian,  but he also was completely orthodox and never denied the Trinity after the council,  as evidenced in his later writings.  Eusebius also happens to  be a great witness to show the consistency of the pre-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity… that it was not developed over time or created to lure  Pagans into Christianity.

——————————————-

Quote

Fran, my posts won't be near as long once we get into scriptures.  But I thought it would be good to clear the air about how these Creeds  and the words used in them came to be.  And here you can see that one of the most esteemed members of the Council of Nicea did NOT  believe Jesus to be God Almighty, but DID believe him to have come FROM his God.

Eusebius was never esteemed as a thinker or as a theologian, so he doesn't carry much weight with me concerning the issues we are talking  about.

Eusebius never denied the Trinity nor the diety of Christ.  This is easy to see from the Creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council.   This creed from Eusebius was used for the church in his own city, and  which said that Jesus is “the Word of God, God of God…the first-born of  all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time.”   According to Eusebius's own creed… which he used in his own church and which he  believed in… said that Jesus was GOD of GOD!!    So no matter how you slice it, Eusebius believed that Jesus is God.

Even if you could make the case that Eusebius did not believe that Jesus was God…. which I don't think you can… it is very clear from Eusebius'  own writings, especially from his later writings after the Nicene Council, that he was completely orthodox as defined by the Nicean Creed which  he himself signed.  So if nothing else, Eusebius apparantly saw his errors and mistakes, and finally became orthodox.  Which ultimately goes  against your case whenever you try and use him.

As for scriptures, I've discovered that the majority of division… disagreements… different teachings… and accusations hurled against  Orthodox Christianity is largely the result of a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of the meanings of certain words.   With that in  mind, I plan to use Etymology and Translations extensively to ensure that we do our best to understand what the writers of the verse INTENDED  to convey… and not what we,  over 2,000 years later ASSUME they said based on a simple reading of the verse.  Words change over time.   Words in one language often do not have a corresponding word in another language.  Words… especially in Hebrew… were stacked with  multiple meanings, making it difficult to know which meaning was intended.  Etc.

If we really, really, really want to undersand what the writers of the Scritpures were trying to say when they wrote what they did, then we have no  choice but  to do the hard and often tedious work of analysis through etymology and translations, etc.

This is no easy task… and that is why my posts are often long.  Sound bites… and answers that will fit on bumper stickers,  do not work in the  endeavor for truth and clarity.  I would rather be lengthy and say too much, than to say little a
nd miss too much (hhmmm… that sounds like a  bumper sticker)  

God Bless You

Francis

[Baker]

Francis! There is no trinity in the bible. However I can prove to you that the trinity is wrong by Scriptures. if you are interested to know them I will be glad to do so. Just tell me….Peace Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 16 2010,06:26)

Also, just as you used the phrase “in passing” above, which seems to pass judgment, you are now using the word  “neglected”.  Both…. the word “neglected” and the prase “in passing”… appear to make direct judgements about the state of  mind  and the intent of the signers of creed 325.  And without any evidence from the writings of the Bishops themselves… the ones who signed  the Creed of 325… your judgments can only be described as being objectively and impartially  unwarranted.

I'm just calling as I see it.  About 60 words dedicated to discussing the Father and the Son.  Another 30 or so discussing the Son.  And only 5 words discussing the third “co-equal” member of the “Godhead”.  And all those words say is that they believe in the Holy Spirit.

You seem to think this Creed was only to teach of the diety of Christ (something it doesn't even do), but that's not accurate.  This Creed was to establish the central unified belief system that all “good” Christians were then to be taught to follow.  This Creed was the Christian's “mission statement” that summed up their theological beliefs in a nutshell.  And although this council was championed by Constantine, who didn't want dissention in the ranks of his subjects, and was called together in large part because of the dissention between Athanasius and Arius, the end result was nonetheless a “mission statement” about Christianity in general.  It was not merely a “Jesus had no beginning” statement.  In fact, the argument that started it all was only addressed in the anathema attached to the end of the Creed.  The Creed itself was a brief summary about the God of the Christians and the Son He sent as a Savior to the world.

So, to change the wording of my statement so as not to “pass judgement”, I will conclude:

It strikes me as strange that one of the co-equal members of the Godhead was mentioned ONLY with the words, “We believe in”.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 16 2010,06:26)

“That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and did not perceive that he actually denied all real deity to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his  lack of theological insight (Eusebius was never a great theologian), in part to his habitual dread of Sabellianism (of which Arius had  accused Alexander, and toward which Eusebius evidently thought that the latter was tending), which led him to look with great favor upon the  pronounced subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook the dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that subordinationism.”

I'm glad you brought that up.  Eusebius was actually on board with Arius……..until he was convinced by others that Arius was claiming the Son wasn't divine at all, but just another of God's creations.  Arius was NOT claiming this at all, but those in the Athanasius camp convinced him he was, and so Eusebius “switched sides” at the last minute.

Also, I can post good quotes about Eusebius' prowess:

“Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time… worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony” (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924).

Quote (francis @ Dec. 16 2010,06:26)

To point to Eusebius' thoughts in defense of your position is hardly persuasive at all.  It's even counterproductive when we realize that Eusebius  never denied the Diety of Christ or the basic concept of the Trinity as being representative of the Monotheistic God which Christians believe in.

Where did you get that info?

Quote (francis @ Dec. 16 2010,06:26)

That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things,

This is what I already posted to you.  Eusebius was assured that the “of one essence with the Father” was simply to distinguish Jesus from the rest of the creation that came FROM God THROUGH Jesus.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 16 2010,06:26)

The use of Eusebius does nothing to support your side.  Not only was Eusebius a poor thinker and theologian,  but he also was completely orthodox and never denied the Trinity after the council,

I have never read anything Eusebius wrote that supported the trinity.  The farthest he ever goes is to call Jesus by the title “theos”, but so do scriptures.  And even then, he knows Jesus is “theos” FROM “theos”.  My God isn't FROM anyone.  Everything and everyone else is FROM Him.

And the letter to his Diocese that I posted from was AFTER the council, and he was DEFINITELY explaining to them to nevermind the “of the same essence” talk, because he was assured that it still meant Jesus was a different being FROM God.

And finally, I've posted a gentleman who thought Eusebius was “the greatest Greek teacher” and “the most learned theologian of his day”.  

At any rate, this was just for warm ups.  Let's get to the scriptures.

Your stand is that Jesus is God Almighty.

Micah 5:4 NWT 
“And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah his God. And they will certainly keep dwelling, for now he will be great as far as the ends of the earth.

This passage is about the Messiah.  And this passage clearly shows that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO Jehovah, his God.  In fact, there are many scriptures that have Jesus referring to his God.  Does God Almighty call anyone “my God”, Francis?

You can answer to the Creed and Eusebius stuff if you want, but we've both had our say on non-scriptural things and I'd prefer to get on to the scriptures if you don't mind.

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

In response to your last post, I've decided to break up my response into 2 different posts.  The Post following  this one  will deal with all the Creed and Eusebius stuff which you've brought up.

The post following that one, will deal with the verse you brought up.

I hope that is agreeable.

God Bless
Respectfully, Francis

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Mike At any rate, this was just for warm ups.  Let's get to the scriptures. Your stand is that Jesus is God Almighty. Micah 5:4 NWT “And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah his  God. And they will certainly keep dwelling, for now he will be great as far as the ends of the earth.” This passage is about the Messiah.  And this passage clearly shows that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO Jehovah,  his God.  In fact, there are many scriptures that have Jesus referring to his God.  Does God Almighty call anyone “my  God”, Francis?

If you start with the premise that the Trinity does not exist… and if you were reading this verse (and the others that  you allude to) for the first time… and if you read this verse in isolation and not within the entire scope and context  of the Bible… and if you don't do any research about why orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity… then, and only   then would it be reasonable to infer from Micah 5:4 that the Messiah may not be God or be an equal person within the  Trinity.

But you see, that is not how scholars work.  This is not how people… who are interested in the truth… do their  research in the quest for truth.

Anyway… if the Trinity does exist, then the answer to your question becomes crystal clear and obvious. Orthodox  Christians believe that Jesus… HIS SPIRIT…  that nature of His which was divine… inhabited a human body made of  flesh… much like God almighty indwelled within the Temple and within the Tabernacle in the OT.

Orthodox Christianity does not teach that Jesus' flesh was divine.  Orthodox Christianity does not teach that Jesus'  ordinary human consciousness was divine.   Instead, it teaches that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% human.  And so it  makes perfect sense that the 100% human part of Jesus… his 100% ordinary human consciousness which is part of his  earthly flesh… can call God… “my God”… without entailing any logical problems or contradictions.

Jesus divine spirit… indwelling inside the human body of flesh… is different than Jesus' ordinary human consciousness  which comes with the human body of flesh.

Every verse where we see Jesus speaking to God as if a human speaks to God… only shows and indicates that he… being  God… voluntarily submitted and limited himself as a human being for our sake… interacting with us through a human body  of flesh which comes with a human consciousness.

Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. You can find a fuller   explanation of each of these concepts in Wikipedia's discussion of the Trinity.  Type in Trinity and you'll see a subhead   entitled Economic and Ontological Trinity

Basically… The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The   economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and   especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is a type of voluntary submission of one person to   another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the   Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of  God’s  loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. There is never any actual subordination within the nature of  the Godhead  itself.   Ontologically, the 3 persons of the Trinity are equal and completely harmonious in everything.

Therefore, when we understand the Ontological Trinity vs. the Economic Trinity as found in Wikipedia… we can see that   there is absolutely NO LOGICAL FLAWS for Trinitarians in Micah 5:4.

I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from.  Please feel free to ask any questions you like.

God Bless You

Respectfully, Francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 19 2010,04:21)

CONCLUSION…  And so… because you've raised no rebuttals to my specific arguments contained in my last  post to you on this particular issue… nor have you supplied any new information to support your contention…  it is  reasonable to say that my response to you in my previous post still stands because it has not been dealt with or answered.

There's not really anything to be “dealt with”.  My personal opinion is that it is strange TO ME that an equal third of the “Godhead” would be mentioned in WHAT I PERSONALLY CONSIDER an “in passing” way, in a Creed of such importance about how and what Christians believe and were to teach about God and His Son.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 19 2010,04:21)

There is no objective reason… as far as I can see anyway…. to put the word GOOD into quotations mark within the  above sentence of yours,  except for the purpose of mocking or to show disapproval or disbelief.

I do accept your apology Francis.  For like I've already said, I believe the Creed to be perfectly scriptural.  And “good” Christians, like I hope and try to be, should have this Creed in the back of their minds and in their hearts at all times…..because it tells the story of our God, His Christ, and our hope for a better world when Jesus comes again……..in a nutshell.

As for the rest, you can have your “last word”.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 19 2010,04:22)

In this economic Trinity there is a type of voluntary submission of one person to   another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the   Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of  God’s  loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. There is never any actual subordination within the nature of  the Godhead  itself.

Well Francis,

I guess that pretty much sums it all up.  It doesn't matter what scriptures I ever bring up, because your “economic trinity” would just say, “Jesus was VOLUNTARILY placing his equal 'God-status' on a lower level than his Father in an effort to 'express his loving condescension for the sake of our salvation' at this time”.

What could I possibly say to contradict this illogic?  I could say that Jesus is STILL a SERVANT to his God, but you would claim “Economic Trinity”.  I could say that Jesus said our God was also his God, but you would claim “Economic Trinity”.  I could say that Paul said we have but one God, and that God was the Father, but you would say “Economic Trinity”.  I could point out that all things come FROM the Father THROUGH Jesus, but you will claim “Economic Trinity”.  I could say that Jesus called his Father the ONLY TRUE GOD, but you would say “Economic Trinity”.

I'll just leave it at this Francis.  My God has NO ONE that He will EVER call, “my God”.  My God is not “God FROM God”, for He comes FROM no one.  My God is not begotten.  My God can never die, nor can He take sin upon Himself.  

Oh, wait.  I thought of one your “Economic Trinity” can't touch.

1 John 1 NIV
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

1 John 4 NIV
12 No one has ever seen God;

14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.  

What can you do with this, Francis?  No man has EVER seen God, yet many have seen Jesus.

Men were struck dead for even touching the holy things of God's earthly temple, but many touched Jesus with their hands.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

Quote (francis @ Dec. 21 2010,02:34)

First of all…  It has ALWAYS been taught by Orthodox Christianity that Jesus… the Divine part of Jesus… had temporarily and voluntarily submitted to God the Father while Jesus was Incarnate here on earth.

I don't know or care that much about what MAN taught.  What did the SCRIPTURES teach?  They taught that Jesus willingly OBEYED THE COMMAND of his God and came to serve his God's will.

John 4:34 NIV
“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

John 6:38 NIV
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 12:50 NIV
I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

John 10:18 NIV
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 8:28-29 NIV
28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

Also, your “temporarily” seems a little off.  Jesus did not finish the work his God sent him to do and then return to “being God”, did he?  Nope.  He returned to the right hand of his God (a place of honor, but not equality), where he is a SERVANT of his God to this day.

Listen Francis, I'm enjoying this discussion.  But like I said coming into it, I don't like the mile long posts.  I understand that you prefer to be “thorough”.  And that's fine with me.  But I will answer your posts quote by quote then, okay?

So let's finish up on your very first of many quotes before moving on.  All I'm asking of you now is whether or not scripture seems to teach that Jesus came:
A.  At the command of his God
B.  To do the will of his God

I understand he did what he did WILLINGLY.  But who's will was he doing willingly?  And who's commands did he willingly obey?

And lastly, from your first quote:  Do you understand that even now that Jesus has been raised to glory that he is still a SERVANT of his God?

Oops, I just read this part of your post:

Quote

So whereas I at least gave a couple of scriptures which gives us a clue about how the economic Trinity is understood… what scriptures would you bring to support or suggest that Jesus is still a servant to “his God”?  Because I don't know of any scriptures which says that Jesus… in heaven… is a servant to God the Father.

Firstly, I'm not aware of any “Economic Trinity” support scriptures you posted, but I'll look again.  And secondly,

Acts 3:13 NIV
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

Acts 3:26 NIV
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Acts 4:27 NIV
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.

Acts 4:30 NIV
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 21 2010,02:34)

Hebrews 2:9 (Amplified Bible) But we are able to see Jesus, Who was ranked lower than the angels for a little while, crowned with glory and honor because of His having suffered death, in order that by the grace (unmerited favor) of God [to us sinners] He might experience death for every individual person.

This is saying that Jesus became a MAN.  Paul (assumably) is quoting a scripture that says God made MAN a little lower than the angels.  He is reaffirming that Jesus did in fact come as a MAN in the flesh.  But even as a MAN, Jesus didn't “rank” lower than the angels.  Myriads of angels were at his beck and call.  And Satan's angels who were possessing people pleaded with him for mercy and obeyed any command he gave them.  So, I ask you:  Was he really “ranked” lower than the angels even when he was on earth?

Plus, this scripture explicitely says that Jesus DIED. God can never DIE.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 21 2010,02:34)

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible) Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

Let's read it without all the added words:

Philippians 2:6 NIV
6 Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

1.  Jesus was “in the form” of someone else.  Who was that “someone else” that Jesus was in the form of?  It makes no sense to say that God was “in the form of God”, right?  So right here, we are learning that Jesus was SOMEONE OTHER THAN God who happened to be “in the form” of God.

2.  He didn't think EQUALITY WITH GOD was something to be grasped.  So not only wasn't he God, but he also wasn't EQUAL with God.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 21 2010,02:34)

or you're saying that you have heard this teaching before, but you've never heard someone from your side come up with a response to this Trinitarian and Orthodox Christianity teaching.

No, I have never heard of “Economic Trinity”, nor have I heard someone from “my side” respond to it.  But I prayed after posting the other night, and my God has given me many responses to it so far.  We'll get to them as the time comes.  In fact, after reading through your whole post again, I wasn't able to find any scriptures you quoted that support this “Economic Trinity”.

Quote (francis @ Dec. 21 2010,02:34)

Secondly… The title of our debate thread is “Does the trinity doctrine make sense?”. So… if you are saying that the economic Trinity is illogical, then it is very easy to know what to say in that case.   If you're going to make use of logic to claim that the economic Trinity is illogical… then what need to do is use logic to show how the economic Trinity is illogical.  It's that simple. If you're going to employ logic to judge the economic Trinity as being illogical, then you have to be consistent and use logic to show why.

First, I guess I would like to see those scriptures that CLEARLY teach of this “Economic Trinity”, because I can't seem to find any in your post.  Second, I suppose I could use the same principle to say that Moses is part of the Godhead.  He just “lowered himself” to the role of “prophet” to keep the harmony.  In fact, I could probably come up with a case for Michael the archangel, Solomon, or any other person of God taught about in scripture.

So, I'll wait for your scriptures that CLEARLY explain this concept before saying more.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Here I am doing what I hate to do.  We have now got this discussion spread all over the place.  And I haven't even responded to half of your last post.  I just won't do it like this Francis………….I'm sorry.  

First and foremost, I'd like to get through this “Economic Trinity” concept.  Please show me the scriptures.

As far as the other things I've commented on, Hebrews 2:9 isn't really important for this discussion, because it says nothing about Jesus being “God” before he was “made a little lower than the angels for awhile”.  Nor does it say he was “willingly” made that way.  So it was an off topic scripture to start with IMO.

So that leaves us with the question of whether or not you acknowledge Jesus is still a SERVANT of his God.

And Phil 2:6.

That's three things to discuss already, in a debate where I wanted to discuss one thing at a time.  I will respond to info regarding only those three things for now.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

May God bless you with peace and understanding.

I dropped the ball, brother.  I fell for a diversion tactic and I'm now angry at myself for doing it.  This “Economic Trinity” thing was an unknown concept to me when you mentioned it, and my mind went right into forgetting Micah 5:4 that we were discussing, and many other scriptures that teach Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God – and right into scouring it's scant resources to come up with “Jesus is not God” scriptures that would avoid the “Economic Trinity” rebuttal.  That was stupid and novice of me.

I ignored your answer to Micah 5:4 and instead fell for the diversions of what “Orthodox Christians” have “always” taught and economic trinities and what lengthy steps are required to understand a scripture, etc.

This was your original response to Micah 5:4,

Quote

1.  If you start with the premise that the Trinity does not exist… 2.  and if you were reading this verse (and the others that  you allude to) for the first time… 3.  and if you read this verse in isolation and not within the entire scope and context  of the Bible… 4.  and if you don't do any research about why orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity… 5.  then, and only   then would it be reasonable to infer from Micah 5:4 that the Messiah may not be God or be an equal person within the  Trinity.

1.  I did, for there was no reason when I read the Bible from cover to cover the first time to think anything about any trinity by the time I got to the prophecy of Micah.

2.  I was.

3.  At the time, I read it within the entire scope and context of Genesis through Micah 5:3.  

4.  Whoa there!  Why in the world would I care to “understand” the reasons MEN would claim that God's Son is also the God he is the Son of?  Anyway, I understand enough about their reasonings to know I disagree with them.

5.  Okay.  And that's the understanding I gained.  Except it wasn't a “maybe” in my mind, but “clear as a bell on a winter's morning”.

Quote

But you see, that is not how scholars work.  This is not how people… who are interested in the truth… do their  research in the quest for truth.

Oh, I'm interested in the truth alright.  But I'm interested in SCRIPTURAL truth, not MAN'S “truth”.  So let's forget about the scholar's OPINIONS and deal directly with their SCRIPTURAL information.  I have no problem looking at the many ways a word could have been defined or the grammatical construction of a scripture.  That's CREDIBLE INFORMATION, and I can't get enough of that.  

However, I am NOT interested in reading loads and loads of trinitarian scholars telling me their CONJECTURES of what those words are supposed to represent.  I can read the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic words just fine by myself.  And I can come up with the most reasonable construction of the scripture based on a combination of that infomation and a cross-section of the many scholar's thoughts on the matter.

So here's where we're at:  While I desparately want to discuss Phil 2 and the “no man has seen God” scriptures further, I think we should finish the first scripture first.  I brought up Micah 5:4 as proof that Jesus is someone other than God.  Then I let myself get sidetracked.  So, can you show me SCRIPTURAL information that disproves my understanding of it?

One rebuttal scripture at a time, please.  And if “Economic Trinity” is going to be your defense to Micah 5:4, then I guess we better look at the scriptures that teach of this “Economic Trinity” in the Bible.  Again, one at a time, please.  (Btw, I hope that Phil 2 and Heb 2 were not the economic trinity support scriptures you had mentioned before – because they do nothing to support this man-made concept.)

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike… I hope you and your loved ones had a wonderful and blessed Christmas.

Sorry for the delay, but as you can well imagine, it's been busy around here because of the holiday.

Quote

Francis First of all…  It has ALWAYS been taught by Orthodox Christianity that Jesus… the Divine part of Jesus… had temporarily and voluntarily submitted to God the Father while Jesus was Incarnate here on earth.   Mike I don't know or care that much about what MAN taught.  What did the SCRIPTURES teach?  They taught that Jesus willingly OBEYED THE COMMAND of his God and came to serve his God's will.

Orthodox Christianity is NOT what man teaches, but what Scripture teaches.  And the scriptures indeed teach that Jesus willingly obeyed God and submitted Himself to the will of God while He was God Incarnate here on earth.  That is what scriptures teach and that is WHY Orthodox Christianity teaches that and why  I believe it… because Orthodox Christianity teaches ONLY what is in the Scriptures.

I have already told you that I don't care what man says… instead I do what the scriptures themselves command… which is to EXAMINE EVERYTHING… and that is what I do and why I believe that Jesus is God and why the Trinity is true.  Not because a Creed says so.  Not because Orthodox Christianity says so.  Not because my Pastor says so.  Not because Billy Graham says so.  Not because a human being says so.  I believe the Trinity is true and that Jesus is God because the scriptures tells us so…if we are willing to intellectually examine them very carefully with no bias or prejudice.

CONCLUSION… why you would imply that Orthodox Christianity is man's teachings… and not scripture's teaching… and why you would imply that I believe man over scriptures when I plainly have demonstrated and stated that I do not… is just simply beyond me.

Nothing about Orthodox Christianity.. and nothing I have done or said has given you any reason to imply the things you've said above.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke John 4:34 NIV “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

Orthodox Christianity and I both agree with the above verse.  Why?  Because that is what Orthodox Christianity and I do… we follow and believe what the scripture says.   And nothing about Orthodox Christianity… and nothing I have done or said has given you any impartial reason to imply otherwise. Indeed… this verse does nothing to rebut Christ's divinity nor the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke John 6:38 NIV For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Orthodox Christianity and I both agree with the above verse.  Why?  Because that is what Orthodox Christianity and I do… we follow and believe what the scripture says.   And nothing about Orthodox Christianity… and nothing I have done or said has given you any impartial reason to imply otherwise. Indeed… this verse does nothing to rebut Christ's divinity nor the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke John 12:50 NIV I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

Orthodox Christianity and I both agree with the above verse.  Why?  Because that is what Orthodox Christianity and I do… we follow and believe what the scripture says.   And nothing about Orthodox Christianity… and nothing I have done or said has given you any impartial reason to imply otherwise. Indeed… this verse does nothing to rebut Christ's divinity nor the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke John 10:18 NIV No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Orthodox Christianity and I both agree with the above verse.  Why?  Because that is what Orthodox Christianity and I do… we follow and believe what the scripture says.   And nothing about Orthodox Christianity… and nothing I have done or said has given you any impartial reason to imply otherwise. Indeed… this verse does nothing to rebut Christ's divinity nor the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke John 8:28-29 NIV 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

Orthodox Christianity and I both agree with the above verse.  Why?  Because that is what Orthodox Christianity and I do… we follow and believe what the scripture says.   And nothing about Orthodox Christianity… and nothing I have done or said has given you any impartial reason to imply otherwise. Indeed… this verse does nothing to rebut Christ's divinity nor the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke Also, your “temporarily” seems a little off.  Jesus did not finish the work his God sent him to do and then return to “being God”, did he?  Nope.  He returned to the right hand of his God (a place of honor, but not equality), where he is a SERVANT of his God to this day.

1)… Jesus never stopped being God when He came down here to earth… so it makes no logical sense to say that Jesus returned to being God.  

2)… Jesus… the Divine part of him… does not have a God because he is God… so it makes no logical sense to say that Jesus… the Deity part of Him… sits at the right hand of “his God” or say that he is a servant of “his God” to this day.

3)… “the right hand of God” is a metaphor… an anthropomorphic phrasing… a nomenclature… an idiom… a figure of speech… a title, etc… because God does not have a literal hand and He does not have a literal “right side” or a “left side” to Him.  Indeed, if Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, then that must mean that God is sitting to the left side of Je
sus and thus God Almighty does not have a place of honor… and thus is inferior to Jesus… which is ridiculous.

4)… Who says that because Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God,  this then has to mean that the only logical conclusion that is open and available to us,  is that Jesus is not equal to God?   How do you logically defend this position… the above statement of yours?  It may indeed be the case that at times, being at the right hand of someone denotes inferiority to that person… but where does it say that this is ALWAYS the case… and with Jesus in particular?  Without giving us any evidence to support your statement,  I think you ASSUME to much… and you do so uncritically.

5)… Wikipedia says that “The Right Hand of God” (Dextera Domini in Latin) or God's Right Hand may refer to the Hand of God often referred to in the Bible and common speech as a metaphor for the omnipotence of the Jewish and Christian DEITY…

This plainly shows that you have no good logical reason to pigeon hole Jesus into your above idea that Jesus is not equal to God because he is sitting at the right hand of God.  Look again at what Wikipedia says.  If “The Right Hand of God” is a metaphor to the omnipotence of the Christian Deity, then when Jesus returned to the right hand of God…  Jesus was simply returning… from earth… to God… the Godhead… from where he had originally and voluntarily left in the first place when He came to earth.  Which by the way, is what the scriptures do teach.

6)… “to sit at the right hand…”  does not have to be a figure of speech which ONLY denotes a place of honor… but it could also mean a position of sharing in authority and rule as a judge and/or king.  The dictionary defines “sit” as occupying a place or have a seat in an official assembly or in an official capacity, as a legislator, judge, or bishop.  

And the dictionary defines “sitting” as occupying an official position…. or a session, as of a legislature or court.

So the phrase, sitting at the right hand of God could easily mean that Jesus is occupying a position of authority… ruling and reigning with God the Father.   Sitting at the right hand could be a metaphor or figure of speech which simply means that Jesus is occupying a different role than God the Father…. but not an inferior role.   Indeed,  there are many scriptures which indicates that Jesus is Divine and where He is compared with God as having the same attributes as God, etc… which is why I believe in the Trinity.

Here are some examples of this:

Jesus is the Power of God and is the Wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).    Jesus had glory before the world began (John 17:5).   In John 8:56-59 Jesus calls Himself “I am,” equating himself with Jehovah God of the Old Testament (Ex. 3:14).   Christ's participation in the creation of the cosmos necessitates that He is God (John 1:3 and Collosians 1:16) because we learn in Isaiah 44:34 that God alone (LORD) made all things.    

Jesus' reply to the High Priest before the Sanhedrin is pointed: “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64 and Matt. 24:27, 30). The response of the high priest is a clear indication that he understood Jesus' claim to deity.

7)… It is also possible that someone “sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One,” as represented in the temple, somehow violated God's very presence. In fact,  the idea of anyone sitting in God's presence was offensive to many rabbis because the temple and the Person whose presence it represents were viewed with a special sense of holiness. Everything about the rituals performed at the temple declared its sanctity and thus the sanctity of heaven and the God who dwells there. It is this background that could very well explain why Jesus' remark would be seen as blasphemous.  The thought of Jesus being in that position was the ultimate blasphemy as far as Jewish leaders were concerned.

I could go on and on to show that just because Jesus is sitting or because He is at the Right Hand of God,  that doesn't necessarily HAVE TO MEAN that Jesus is in an inferior position to God, His Father.

So my point is that your belief that Jesus is not God… that Jesus is inferior to God…  does not NECESSARILY AND ABSOLUTELY follow logically from phrases such as “The Right Hand of God”…. or “Sitting at the Right Hand of God”… or “to Sit at the Right Hand of God”.

And that is why I say you assume too much with your unsupported statement above.  You just assumed uncritically that the right hand of God  HAS TO MEAN  a position of inequality… and nothing else.

CONCLUSION… My “temporarily” is not a little off.  It would be a little off IF… (1) Jesus was completely human with no Divine Spirit within the human flesh that was His here on earth… (2) and if the Trinity was not true… (3) and if scriptures  uses the same words you did in your above statement.  But that is not the case.  What I see is that you've basically committed a strawman argument by suggesting that I and Orthodox Christianity and scriptures teach something that we don't.  You then rebutted the strawman you created (because it was made of straw and easy to push over) instead of rebutting what Orthodox Christianity and what I and what scriptures teach.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke Listen Francis, I'm enjoying this discussion.  But like I said coming into it, I don't like the mile long posts.  I understand that you prefer to be “thorough”.  And that's fine with me.  But I will answer your posts quote by quote then, okay?

I apologize for the long posts… but I won't short change or hamper or restrict my quest for truth with artificial and arbitrary constraints in order to replace the discipline and doggedness necessary to do the hard work and research in finding the truth.  

Quote

MIke So let's finish up on your very first of many quotes before moving on.  All I'm asking of you now is whether or not scripture seems to teach that Jesus came: A.  At the command of his God B.  To do the will of his God

There is no “his God” in connection with Jesus because Jesus is God.  You're question would be the same as if someone were to ask if it is true that Mike does the will of his Mike.  See how odd that sounds to someone who believes that the Trinity is true?  How can Mike do the will of His Mike?  So if Jesus is God… then how can Jesus do the will of His Jesus (God)?  Or how can God do the will of his God?  See?

But I will acknowledge that Jesus did do the will of God HIS FATHER,  while He was here on earth as God Incarnate.  That is what I believe is the proper wording in terms of the Trinity.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke I understand he did what he did WILLINGLY.  But who's will was he doing willingly?  And who's commands did he willingly obey?

Jesus… the fully, 100%  man part of the God Incarnate th
at was Jesus while he was here on earth… was obeying and doing the will of God His Father in Heaven.

Quote

MIke And lastly, from your first quote:  Do you understand that even now that Jesus has been raised to glory that he is still a SERVANT of his God?

Same answer above: There is no “his God” in connection with Jesus because Jesus is God.  You're question would be the same as if I were to ask if it is true that Mike does the will of his Mike.  See how odd that sounds?  How can Mike do the will of His Mike?  So if Jesus is God… then how can Jesus do the will of His Jesus (God)?  Or how can God do the will of his God?  See?

——————————–  

Quote

MIke Oops, I just read this part of your post: Francis So whereas I at least gave a couple of scriptures which gives us a clue about how the economic Trinity is understood… what scriptures would you bring to support or suggest that Jesus is still a servant to “his God”?  Because I don't know of any scriptures which says that Jesus… in heaven… is a servant to God the Father. MIke Firstly, I'm not aware of any “Economic Trinity” support scriptures you posted, but I'll look again.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————————–  

Quote

MIke And secondly, Acts 3:13 NIV The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. Acts 3:26 NIV When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.” Acts 4:27 NIV Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. Acts 4:30 NIV Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

I could be wrong, but it appears that you misread or didn't understand my question.  So I'll ask it again:

What scriptures would you bring to support or suggest that Jesus is STILL a servant to “his God”?  Because I don't know of any scriptures which says that Jesus… the Son… his divine nature… while IN HEAVEN… is a servant to God the Father.

In fact, none of the scriptures you just brought up shows that Jesus… the Son… his divine nature… while in heaven and sitting at the right hand of God his father… is a servant to God the Father.   So the question still remains.

I mean… look at the verses you brought up….

— >> Acts 3:13 is incomplete.  If you had finished the entire verse you would have seen that the phrase “his servant Jesus” is talking about the human part of Jesus because it was the human part of Jesus that was handed over to Pilate to be killed.  

Acts 3:13 (New International Version, ©2010)
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

The divine part of Jesus was not handed over to Pilate… but it was Jesus… the 100% fully human part of Jesus who was God Incarnate while here on earth that was handed over.  It was Jesus' fully human flesh and consciousness that was disowned by the Jewish leadership before Pilate, though Pilate had decided to let Jesus go.  

So this verse says nothing about Jesus in heaven… the Divine part of him… as being a servant of God the Father.

— >> Acts 3:26 is not read in context.  When God raised up his servant… Jesus… he was raising up the human part of Jesus in the same way that Moses said he was raised up, back in verse 3:22:  

For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

So obviously, the human part of Jesus is being raised up for the Jewish people in the same way that Moses was raised up for the Jewish people.  So this shows that it is the human part of Jesus that is being referred to as “servant” since Moses was made of flesh just like the human part of Jesus was made of flesh.

So this verse says nothing about Jesus in heaven… the Divine part of him… as being a servant of God the Father.

— >> Acts 4:27 is saying the same thing as verse 13 above.  

The divine part of Jesus was not handed over to Pilate and Herod… but it was the 100% fully human part of Jesus (who was God Incarnate while here on earth) that was handed over to them.  It was Jesus' fully human flesh and consciousness that was being conspired against by the Jewish people before Pilate.  It was that Jesus… the fully human part of him that was called a servant because it was that part that was handed over to Pilate and Herod to be crucified.  

So this verse says nothing about Jesus in heaven… the Divine part of him… as being a servant of God the Father.

— >> Acts 4:30 is talking about the same human servant Jesus who was handed over to Pilate.  We see in verse 27 that it is the human part of Jesus that was the servant and which was handed over to Pilate.   Indeed, we can see in verse 29 that verse 30 is talking about the human part of Jesus when the word “servant” is being used.  In verse 29, the believers actually pray to God that he would enable his SERVANTS to speak his word with great boldness.  Well.. these believers are humans made of flesh.  Then in verse 30 it calls Jesus as servant.  So just like with the believers, the word servant is refering to a human body of flesh.  It is the human part of Jesus that is being called Servant… not his divine nature.

So this verse says nothing about Jesus in heaven… the Divine part of him… as being a servant of God the Father.

CONCLUSION… I had asked for scriptures which would support you contention that Jesus is STILL a servant to “his God”…  because I didn't know of any scriptures which says that Jesus… the Son… his divine nature… while IN HEAVEN… is a servant to God the Father.

And none of the scriptures you just brought up shows that Jesus… the Son… his divine nature… while in heaven and sitting at the right hand of God his father… is a servant to God the Father.   So the question still remains.

—–>>>>  NOTE:  According to my studies and commentaries, depending on the context, the Greek word “pais” can be used for “servant” and also “CHILD” and/or  “SON”.   So this is
something else to keep in mind when we read verses where Jesus is called “servant”.

——————————–  

Quote

Francis Hebrews 2:9 (Amplified Bible) But we are able to see Jesus, Who was ranked lower than the angels for a little while, crowned with glory and honor because of His having suffered death, in order that by the grace (unmerited favor) of God [to us sinners] He might experience death for every individual person.

Mike
This is saying that Jesus became a MAN. [/quote]

Yes, this is what Trinitarians believe.  That Jesus… being God… became A MAN for our benefit… lowering himself below that of angels for a little while.

Quote

Mike Paul (presumably) is quoting a scripture that says God made MAN a little lower than the angels.  He is reaffirming that Jesus did in fact come as a MAN in the flesh.  But even as a MAN, Jesus didn't “rank” lower than the angels.  Myriads of angels were at his beck and call.  And Satan's angels who were possessing people pleaded with him for mercy and obeyed any command he gave them.  So, I ask you:  Was he really “ranked” lower than the angels even when he was on earth?

The 100% fully human part of Jesus… the 100% fully human consciousness of Jesus is what was made a little lower than the angels.  You said it yourself that man is made a little lower than the angels.  So the force of logic shows that it had to be the fully 100% part of Jesus… along with MAN… that was made a little lower than the angels.

But Jesus was also 100% fully God.  That is why Jesus is referred to as God Incarnate.  Jesus was both fully man and fully God.  The man part of God was lower than the angels… but the God part was God and that is why myriads of angels were at his beck and call and why Satan's angels pleaded with him for mercy and obeyed any command he gave them.

Quote

Mike Plus, this scripture explicitly says that Jesus DIED.  God can never DIE.

Yes… the 100% fully human part of Jesus died… just as our own human bodies will die also.  But his Divine nature did not die.

——————————–  

Quote

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible) Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

Mike
Let's read it without all the added words:

Philippians 2:6 NIV
6 Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,[/quote]

First of all, the NIV reads it this way:

Philippians 2:6 (New International Version, ©2010)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

So you are incorrect.  The NIV does not say that Jesus was in the form of God, but instead, supports what the Amplified says and what I said, that Jesus is God… that Jesus has the very nature of God.

What you probably meant was the KJV. Or heck… maybe you meant the AMP.  You're NIV notation has confused me.  But anyway… below I will deal with the phrase “in the form of”.

Quote

Mike 1.  Jesus was “in the form” of someone else.  Who was that “someone else” that Jesus was in the form of?  It makes no sense to say that God was “in the form of God”, right?  So right here, we are learning that Jesus was SOMEONE OTHER THAN God who happened to be “in the form” of God.

—->>>OBSERVATION #1:

Your answer clearly shows why it is of vital importance that when people use  various bible translations… that they first understand the philosophy behind each translation and why they will sometimes read differently.  This is part of the hard work of scholarship I have spoken to you about.

The Amplified and the KJV do not contradict each other.  The reason why the Amplified has “added words” is to AMPLIFY or CLARIFY certain words and phrases in the verse.  Notice that BOTH the KJV and the Amplified use the phrase “in the form of God”.  Well… what does that phrase mean?  Do you know Mike?  Are you an expert in Greek?  How many hours have you put into trying to understand what the verse actually MEANT to the author who wrote those words?

Remember the little exercise I gave earlier:  if I say “bat”.. do you know what i'm talking about?  If I say “fag”… do you know what I'm talking about?  If I say “sit”, do you know what i'm talking about?

NO you don't.  That is, not until you see the context for those words.. .and not until you understand what country I'm from and what my background is, will you truly know what I mean by those words.  It's the same logic as with Philippians 2:6.

The KJV doesn't AMPLIFY or try to tell us what that phrase means, but it let's you do the research on your own.  But the Amplified does AMPLIFY the meaning by doing the research for you so that you don't have to spend hours doing it, and it tells you what that phrase means.

So… (1a) Jesus is not in the form of someone else.  Instead, Jesus.. being “in the form of God” actually possesses the fullness of the attributes which make God God.   So Jesus is God.

(1b)…  Jesus… the Son… is God.  Jesus' Father is God.  Both the Father and the Son are God and so both are “in the form of God” because both possess the fullness of the attributes which make God God.

(1c)… So right here, we see  that Jesus was NOT someone other than God who happened to be “in the form” of God.

Quote

Mike 2.  He didn't think EQUALITY WITH GOD was something to be grasped.  So not only wasn't he God, but he also wasn't EQUAL with God.

—->>>OBSERVATION #2:

(2a)… Do you know what the author meant by the Greek word Harpagmos which the AMP translates as “grasped”?  Have you ever done a study on that phrase or that verse or that Greek word in the search for truth?

You seem to think that because the AMP uses the word “grasped” for the Greek word Harpagmos, then that must somehow mean that “… not only wasn't
he God, but he also wasn't EQUAL with God”.  But why do you think that?

According to http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible we see that the Greek wordHarpagmos can mean both “grasped” and “robbery”.  The Strong's number is 725 and both are defined as:

(1.) the act of seizing, robbery and… (2.) a thing seized or to be seized… booty to deem anything a prize.

—->>>OBSERVATION #3:

The following are different Bible translations which give different and subtle meanings and understandings of the Greek word Harpagmos which the NIV had translated as “grasped”.  Here are some of them:

Philippians 2:6 BBE (Bible in Basic English)
To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;

Philippians 2:6 HNV (Hebrew Names Version)
who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Philippians 2:6 NIRV (New International Reader's Version)
In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.

Philippians 2:6 (Holman Christian Standard)
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.

Philippians 2 (New International Version, ©2010)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Philippians 2:6 (NKJ New King James Version)
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Philippians 2:6 (CJB Complete Jewish Bible)
Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force.

Philippians 2:6 (RHE Douay-Rheims)
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:6 (GW GOD'S WORD Translation)
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.

Philippians 2:6 (GNT Good News Translation)
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 (KJV King James Version)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

We can see from the above translations that the Greek word Harpagmos can in fact be translated with a more subtle difference than what you thought the word “grasped” meant to the author of Philippians… and as used in the AMP translation.

Indeed, all the above translations indicate that Jesus is in fact EQUAL with God.  

—->>>OBSERVATION #4:

The above translations show that I don't have to use your understanding of the Greek word Harpagmos(“grasped”) because you seem to think that Harpagmos does not mean “robbery” in Greek.   But even if I did, the dictionary agrees with the Greek translations and does define “grasp” as “To make a motion of seizing, snatching, or clutching.”   This definition can easily be understood to mean that the word “grasp” is indicating a sneaky, robbing, greedy, selfish kind of attitude… as the word “robbery” does.  The Greek word Harpagmos can be defined as “grasp” or “robbery” and both are understood to mean the same thing.  

So anyway… if Jesus is already God… and because Jesus was not covetous… it would make sense then that Jesus didn't see equality with God as something to be grasped.  Why should he?  He was already God… and not only that, it would be an inconsistent behavior and attitude to what we do know about him from scriptures.

—->>>OBSERVATION #5:

Commentary notes in Spiros Zodhiates' Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible for Philippians 2:6-8 says this: “Jesus did not regard it as an act of injustice to the Father for Him to exert His miraculous powers demonstrating His deity on proper occasions as deemed by Himself.”

I don't know if I like this understanding, but the point is that even if we were to use this understanding of Philippians 2:6-8, it rebuts your understanding of what those verses are saying about Jesus.  It says that Jesus is equal to God.

THEREFORE… For all the above reasons, I reject your understanding of what the intended meaning was for the Greek word Harpagmos used by NIV, and translated by them as “grasped”.  It doesn't logically follow that just because the NIV says the Greek word is translated as “grasped”… that doesn't mean that the word “grasped” has to be understood that “not only wasn't he God, but he also wasn't EQUAL with God”.

——————————–  

Quote

Francis …or you're saying that you have heard this teaching before, but you've never heard someone from your side come up with a response to this Trinitarian and Orthodox Christianity teaching. Mike No, I have never heard of “Economic Trinity”, nor have I heard someone from “my side” respond to it.  But I prayed after posting the other night, and my God has given me many responses to it so far.  We'll get to them as the time comes.  In fact, after reading through your whole post again, I wasn't able to find any scriptures you quoted that support this “Economic Trinity”.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————————–  

Quote

Francis Secondly… The title of our debate thread is “Does the trinity doctrine make sense?”. So… if you are saying that the economic Trinity is illogical, then it is very easy to know what to say in that case.   If you're going to make use of logic to claim that the economic Trinity is illogical… then what need to do is use logic to show how the economic Trinity is illogical.  It's that simple. If you're going to employ logic to judge the economic Trinity as being illogical, then you have to be consistent and use logic to show why. Mike First, I guess I would like to see those scriptures that CLEARLY teach of this “Economic Trinity”, because I can't seem to find any in your post.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form,
He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————————–  

Quote

Mike Second, I suppose I could use the same principle to say that Moses is part of the Godhead.  He just “lowered himself” to the role of “prophet” to keep the harmony.  In fact, I could probably come up with a case for Michael the archangel, Solomon, or any other person of God taught about in scripture.

??  I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  

(1)… Neither you nor I claim  that Moses was God or part of the Trinity of part of the Godhead.  But we do differ as to whether Jesus is.  So in logic, this is an obvious false comparison or faulty analogy on your part.

(2)… you can't bring up any verses to support a case or a contention that Moses is part of the Godhead.. or is part of the Trinity or that he is God.  But with Jesus, I can.  So this is another false comparison/faulty analogy.

(3)… As I said, if you're going to say that the Economic Trinity is illogical, you need to use logic.  In your response, you've already committed a logical fallacy… false comparison or faulty analogy.

(4)… If you you're going to attempt to use logic to judge the Economic Trinity as being illogical, you have to show how it is internally logically inconsistent.  As I see it, your response indicated that you did not understand my statement.

——————————–  

Quote

Mike So, I'll wait for your scriptures that CLEARLY explain this concept before saying more.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————————–  

Quote

Mike Here I am doing what I hate to do.  We have now got this discussion spread all over the place.  And I haven't even responded to half of your last post.  I just won't do it like this Francis………….I'm sorry.

If you carefully look at what you wrote initially, and then go over carefully my response to your posts… you will see that I am only responding to what YOU WROTE!!

As I see it, you're mistake is in assuming that your questions and contentions and arguments… as you wrote them in your posts… will ONLY YIELD a short bumper sticker answer and/or response.  But that is not the case at all.  What has happened I think, is that you are being presented with answers and information in rebuttal to your arguments which are apparently new to you.  You had no idea that your questions and arguments and contentions were so open-ended.

Now… i realize that you are not a lawyer… and neither am I… but if you watch them in action, you will immediately notice that they try very hard to craft extremely precise and short questions of witnesses (not too open ended)… so that the Witness won't be able to introduce material unanticipated by the lawyer.    

Anyway… if the discussion spreads all over the place… it is only because it did so naturally and logically from your questions and contentions and claims as I was only answering and responding to what you wrote.

——————————–  

Quote

Mike First and foremost, I'd like to get through this “Economic Trinity” concept.  Please show me the scriptures.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————————–  

Quote

Mike As far as the other things I've commented on, Hebrews 2:9 isn't really important for this discussion, because it says nothing about Jesus being “God” before he was “made a little lower than the angels for awhile”.  Nor does it say he was “willingly” made that way.  So it was an off topic scripture to start with IMO.

Hebrews 2:9 (Amplified Bible)
“But we are able to see Jesus, Who was ranked lower than the angels for a little while, crowned with glory and honor because of His having suffered death, in order that by the grace (unmerited favor) of God [to us sinners] He might experience death for every individual person.”

Context… context… context.

Hebrews 2:9 can should be read in context with Hebrews 2: 14-18:

Hebrews 2 (New International Version, ©2010)
“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Hebrews 2:14-18 (Amplified Bible)

“Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death–that is, the devil–

   15And also that He might deliver and completely set free all those who through the [haunting] fear of death were held in bondage throughout the whole course of their lives.

   16For, as we all know, He [Christ] did not take hold of angels [the fallen angel
s, to give them a helping and delivering hand], but He did take hold of [the fallen] descendants of Abraham [to reach out to them a helping and delivering hand].

   17So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people's sins.

   18For because He Himself [in His humanity] has suffered in being tempted (tested and tried), He is able [immediately] [c]to run to the cry of (assist, relieve) those who are being tempted and tested and tried [and who therefore are being exposed to suffering].

… and Hebrews 2 should be read in context with the entire chapter one of Hebrews.  Hebrews 1 sets up Hebrews 2 and thus should be read in context together.

Chapter 1 shows that Jesus is Divine… that Jesus is God.  Chapter 2 shows that Jesus became lower than the angels for a little while so that he can be offered up as a sacrifice for our sins… to be offered up for our salvation.

CONCLUSION
In context, I believe Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 supports and testifies along with Philippians 2:6-8 the idea of the Economic Trinity.

——————  

Quote

Mike So that leaves us with the question of whether or not you acknowledge Jesus is still a SERVANT of his God.

I think I've answered that above.  Jesus… because He is God…  doesn't have a “his God”… so Jesus can't be a servant of “his God”.   That makes as much sense as saying:  Mike is a servant of his Mike.  Or God is a servant of his God.

——————  

Quote

Mike And Phil 2:6

Okay.  Fine. Aren't we doing that now?

——————  

Quote

Mike That's three things to discuss already, in a debate where I wanted to discuss one thing at a time.  I will respond to info regarding only those three things for now.

All along, I've only been supplying information that is relevant to whatever you yourself have brought up.  Tell me where I have not done so.

But I have to be honest… you can indeed choose to ignore anything I have written which you think is not relevant to the issues you yourself bring up… but if I feel they are relevant, I will continue to bring them up anyway because I will not allow you to artificially hamper me with arbitrary constraints in my passion and pursuit of truth.

——————  

Quote

Mike May God bless you with peace and understanding. I dropped the ball, brother.  I fell for a diversion tactic and I'm now angry at myself for doing it.

There was no diversion tactic.  As I have repeatedly said, my answers are in response to whatever you brought up.  My answers logically follow and flow from your arguments/contentions/claims/questions.

——————  

Quote

Mike   This “Economic Trinity” thing was an unknown concept to me when you mentioned it, and my mind went right into forgetting Micah 5:4 that we were discussing, and many other scriptures that teach Jesus as someone other than and lessor to his God – and right into scouring it's scant resources to come up with “Jesus is not God” scriptures that would avoid the “Economic Trinity” rebuttal.  That was stupid and novice of me.

You're not stupid.  But the reason that I brought up the Economic Trinity was because it directly went to your comment about Micah:

This passage is about the Messiah.  And this passage clearly shows that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO Jehovah,  his God.  In fact, there are many scriptures that have Jesus referring to his God.  Does God Almighty call anyone “my  God”, Francis?

And here was my answer to YOUR COMMENT:

Every verse where we see Jesus speaking to God as if a human speaks to God… only shows and indicates that he… being  God… voluntarily submitted and limited himself as a human being for our sake… interacting with us through a human body  of flesh which comes with a human consciousness.

Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. You can find a fuller   explanation of each of these concepts in Wikipedia's discussion of the Trinity.  Type in Trinity and you'll see a subhead entitled Economic and Ontological Trinity

Can you see how the Economic Trinity is directly related to your comment about Micah?  So contrary to what you believe, there was no diversion tactic involved.  Indeed, all my answers follow logically from what you've written in your posts.

——————  

Quote

Mike I ignored your answer to Micah 5:4 and instead fell for the diversions of what “Orthodox Christians” have “always” taught and economic trinities and what lengthy steps are required to understand a scripture, etc. This was your original response to Micah 5:4, Quote 1.  If you start with the premise that the Trinity does not exist… 2.  and if you were reading this verse (and the others that  you allude to) for the first time… 3.  and if you read this verse in isolation and not within the entire scope and context  of the Bible… 4.  and if you don't do any research about why orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity… 5.  then, and only   then would it be reasonable to infer from Micah 5:4 that the Messiah may not be God or be an equal person within the  Trinity. 1.  I did, for there was no reason when I read the Bible from cover to cover the first time to think anything about any trinity by the time I got to the prophecy of Micah. 2.  I was. 3.  At the time, I read it within the entire scope and context of Genesis through Micah 5:3.   4.  Whoa there!  Why in the world would I care to “understand” the reasons MEN would claim that God's Son is also the God he is the Son of?  Anyway, I understand enough about their reasoning to know I disagree with them. 5.  Okay.  And that's the understanding I gained.  Except it wasn't a “maybe” in my mind, but “clear as a bell on a winter's morning”.

First of all, the comment about what “orthodox Christians” believe was not a diversion… it was a factual statement that directly related to the Trinity and to the understanding of what Mi
cah meant.  You made it is a diversion in your follow up posts when you issued the provocative challenge that Orthodox Christianity is only what man teaches and not what scriptures teach.

The following are my responses to your above points…

1.  And yet the Trinity is obviously there when you study the Bible.

2.  You and I both had to read the Bible for the first time at some point in our lives.

3.  And I believe that you did not read it correctly within the context of the entire Bible because I believe the concept of the Trinity is clear in the Bible.

4.  Since Orthodox Christians base their idea of the Trinity ON SCRIPTURES… and because Orthodox Christians REASON from scriptures… and because Orthodox Christians do NOT DEVIATE from Scriptures… i would think you would want to look at scriptures… like Orthodox Christians do… and see if the Trinity and the Deity of Christ can be found within them.

Remember… the Bible itself says to EXAMINE ALL THINGS. That is what Orthodox Christians do. And I'm inviting you to EXAMINE scriptures with me to see if the Trinity and the Deity of Christ cannot be found within the scriptures.

I'm not asking you understand the reasons of MEN… but to search and examine the scriptures WITH MEN about the Trinity a nd the Deity of Christ.

And as I  read your posts, it appears to me that in fact, you do not understand the Trinitarians reasoning for their belief that the Trinity can be found in the scriptures.

Not one verse you've brought up so far rebuts the Trinity or the deity of Christ.  Not one verse.

Micah 5:4 does not rebut the trinity nor the deity of Christ.  The only way you can argue that Micah 5:4 demonstrates that the Trinity does not exist is if you apriorily… and uncritically assume that the Trinity does not exist in the first place.  In logic, that is an example of circular reasoning or begging the question.

You're assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

5.  But you're understanding was not based on scriptures or logically sound reasoning.  None of the scriptures you've brought up so far have rebutted the Trinity or the Deity of Christ when we read the verse for comprehension and understanding instead of trying to pigeon hole the verses into a preconceived and biased belief as you did with Micah where you were obviously begging the question.

——————  

Quote

Francis But you see, that is not how scholars work.  This is not how people… who are interested in the truth… do their  research in the quest for truth. Mike Oh, I'm interested in the truth alright.  But I'm interested in SCRIPTURAL truth, not MAN'S “truth”.

Then you and I and Orthodox Christians have something in common.

——————  

Quote

Mike So let's forget about the scholar's OPINIONS and deal directly with their SCRIPTURAL information.  I have no problem looking at the many ways a word could have been defined or the grammatical construction of a scripture.  That's CREDIBLE INFORMATION, and I can't get enough of that.

Your response shows that there is a wide gulf between us in how we understand words and meanings.  Look again at what you just wrote.  On the one hand you say you want to forget scholar's opinions and work… but then you turn around and say that you have no problem looking at the many ways a word could have been defined, etc.

Can't you see the disconnect there?  The Irony?   When you're doing the latter, you're DOING THE FORMER!!

And guess what Mike… since you are NOT Greek or an expert or a scholar on Greek or Hebrew or etymology or idioms or metaphors or definitions and languages, etc…  you have NO CHOICE but to use and rely on the work done by scholars who have GONE BEFORE YOU and done most of the hard work.

Mike… even SCIENTISTS will use scholarly work to help them understand something they are trying to understand.  Using our brains… and our sweat… ALONG WITH the work of scholars helps us to learn the truth.  

Earlier, you used the NWT.  Why?  Did you do all the research they supposedly did for yourself?  NO!!  You had to make a choice to rely on THEIR HONESTY… THEIR WORK… to use their translation.

Anyway… you're above response only shows that there is a huge gulf between us in how we use and understand the English language.

——————  

Quote

Mike However, I am NOT interested in reading loads and loads of trinitarian scholars telling me their CONJECTURES of what those words are supposed to represent.  I can read the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic words just fine by myself.  And I can come up with the most reasonable construction of the scripture based on a combination of that information and a cross-section of the many scholar's thoughts on the matter.

??  You're only doing what the scholars themselves do.  How can you put down and wave away the opinions of scholars… and yet apply the same methodology they use in their work, and apply it in your own life?

Well Mike… I'm sure you're a bright fellow… but please forgive me if I would rather not look to you for insights. If I have to use the work of scholars, I'm going to use the best and the brightest out there… i'm going to use the most respected scholars out there.

It could very well be true that you are much brighter than I… maybe you're even a genius (I know that I'm not)… but i'm going to do what all intelligent people do… and that is use my brain to the best of my ability in conjunction with respectfully looking at what highly respected scholars can contribute to my understanding of the scriptures.

But here is the thing Mike… the moment you use the word “reasonable construction”… you are implying that your beliefs and arguments rests on a logical basis.  And that is what I will hold you to because either your beliefs are rational, or they are not rational.

The Trinity can either be rationally inferred from the Scriptures… or they cannot.  You have yet to show how the trinity cannot be inferred logically and rationally and reasonably from the scriptures.

And Micah doesn't do it.

——————  

Quote

Mike So here's where we're at:  While I desperately want to discuss Phil 2 and the “no man has seen God” scriptures further, I think we should finish the first scripture first.

Everything I've written has been a direct response to what you've written.

——————  

Quote

Mike   I brought up Micah 5:4 as proof that Jesus is someo ne other than God.

And I showed how it was not proof… but an example of begging the question.

——————  

Quote

Mike   Then I

[francis]

I can see that I made a few errors even though I tried hard to proof read what I wrote. I wish I could correct the mistakes once i've submitted by post, but I don't know how. I also noticed that my post must have exceed the capacity because it was cut off… so I will have to finish my post in 2 parts.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[francis]

part 2 of my post from above

Quote

Mike   Then I let myself get sidetracked.  So, can you show me SCRIPTURAL information that disproves my understanding of it?

??  You never gave me your rational arguments in support of your contention that Micah 5:4 is proof that Jesus is someone other than God.  You just stated  your belief.  So I can't answer your question about disproving your understanding of it since you have not given me your understanding of it.

I read the same verse, and I don't see it as proof for your side.  As I said before… to just say that Micah 5:4 is proof against the Trinity… with no attempt to give me the reasons why you believe it to be so… is an example of begging the question on your part.

Tell me why you believe it is proof… tell me your understanding of it… and THEN I can do what you asked. [/quote]

——————  

Quote

Mike One rebuttal scripture at a time, please.

Either you want to know what I believe, or you don't.  Either you want to have a dialogue with me, or you don't.  

If you ask me a question… if you make a claim… if you commit a logical fallacy… if you quote something out of context or without context… if you misunderstand the meaning of word or misuse a word… if you write anything that I feel I need to respond to for the sake of being intellectually honest… then  I will write what I feel is what God would want me to do.  God commands us to use our brains and to EXAMINE EVERYTHING.  And that is what I will do.

My allegiance is to God and being faithful to what little intelligence God has given me… not to your arbitrary and artificial rules.

Truth sets us free.  Not rules that constrain truth.

The less open-ended your question or claims are, the less I will need to write in response.

——————  

Quote

Mike And if “Economic Trinity” is going to be your defense to Micah 5:4, then I guess we better look at the scriptures that teach of this “Economic Trinity” in the Bible.

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.  And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

And Chapters 1 and 2 of Hebrews.

——————  

Quote

Mike Again, one at a time, please.

My answers will logically follow and flow from whatever you write.  If you say something that needs to be answered in a particular way for the sake of truth and honesty and clarity and understanding… then I will respond in such a manner.

——————  

Quote

Mike (Btw, I hope that Phil 2 and Heb 2 were not the economic trinity support scriptures you had mentioned before – because they do nothing to support this man-made concept.)

I disagree. Now what.

You did indeed attempt to show that the above scriptures (although I have added Hebrews chapter 1 to go along with chapter 2) did not support the Economic Trinity.   But I took argument apart and showed in detail how you committed a non-sequitur in your reasoning and understanding of the phrase “right hand of God”.  And I also showed in detail your misunderstanding of the Greek word Harpagmos.

 

Well Mike… I hope you and your loved ones had a Merry Christmas… and I wish you and yours a Happy New Year.

God Bless
Respectfully, Francis

[francis]

The following were two sections I wish I could have been able to fix without reposting them.

Quote

Francis Hebrews 2:9 (Amplified Bible) But we are able to see Jesus, Who was ranked lower than the angels for a little while, crowned with glory and honor because of His having suffered death, in order that by the grace (unmerited favor) of God [to us sinners] He might experience death for every individual person. Mike This is saying that Jesus became a MAN.

Yes, this is what Trinitarians believe. That Jesus… being God… became A MAN for our benefit… lowering himself below that of angels for a little while.

———————–

Quote

Philippians 2:6-8 (Amplified Bible) Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross! Mike Let's read it without all the added words: Philippians 2:6 NIV 6 Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

First of all, the NIV reads it this way:

Philippians 2:6 (New International Version, ©2010)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

So you are incorrect. The NIV does not say that Jesus was in the form of God, but instead, supports what the Amplified says and what I said, that Jesus is God… that Jesus has the very nature of God.

What you probably meant was the KJV. Or heck… maybe you meant the AMP. You're NIV notation has confused me. But anyway… below I will deal with the phrase “in the form of”.

God Bless
Sorry for any inconvenience

[Author]

Posts