- This topic is empty.
- Posts
There is only one God Mercy…..
– Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9; John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25 –
His name is YHWH.
Right and his Father El gave him Israel has his inheritence.
Then Later gave him the rest of the nations of the earth as well.
The Church View: There is one being, creator, unseen, all wise, all-powerful.
The Bible View: The God of the Bible is a family of supreme spiritual beings named the Elohiym, which is headed by the omnipotent and Supreme Being in the universe named El and called the Father in the Bible. All power, love, and substance in the universe is created and controlled by this family and all the power possessed by that family originates with El. The God, who created life on this planet, and known as the God of Israel, is named Yhovah. He is the most powerful and senior family member of the Elohiym under El, and became the man called Jesus.
El gave his son, YHWH, Israel:
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When the Most High [El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's [Yahweh's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint prove that in the original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Yahweh was portrayed as a member of the divine council under El. Therefore, those who subsequently tampered with the Hebrew text were probably Yahweh-only editors who wanted to erase the original distinction between El and Yahweh and to depict Yahweh as the one and only God.
Professor Mark Smith of Yale University states, “The original god of Israel was El. . . . El was the original chief god of the group named Israel. . . . Similarly, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El.” [Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 7, emphasis added.] Margaret Barker, of Oakbrook School in England, and member of the Society for Old Testament Study, explains:
1. Yahweh was one of the Sons of El Elyon, God Most High. In other words, he [Jesus] was described as a heavenly being. Thus the annunciation narrative has the term “Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32) and the demoniac recognized his exorcist as “Son of the Most High God” (Mark 5:7). Jesus is not called son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord, but he is called Lord. We also know that whoever wrote the New Testament translated the name Yahweh by Kyrios, Lord. (See, for example, the quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5: “You shall love Yahweh your God . . .” which is rendered in Luke 10:27 “You shall love the Lord [Kyrios] your God.”) This suggests that the Gospel writers, in using the terms “Lord” and “Son of God Most High,” saw Jesus as [divine] and gave him their version of the sacred name Yahweh. [Barker, The Great Angel, 4-5]
Barker goes on to say that the identification of Jesus as Yahweh happened “in the very earliest period; it was in fact, what the Christians were proclaiming when they said that Jesus was Lord. Jesus was Yahweh, the second God . . . . [T]he first Christians recognized that Jesus was Yahweh, not that he was in some way equivalent but not identical.” [Ibid., 221, emphasis in original.]When christ was on the cross, he blurted out “Eloi, Eloi, …”. The literal translation is NOT “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” Rather, it is “My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?”
If this view is correct, It would immediately solve the issue, however, one would have to acknowledge that priests wished to hide the truth and tampered with scripture. However, Jesus seemed to imply that this was exactly the case.
Matthew 16:5-12
5When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:35) Who are these principalities and powers? Who is the god of this world?
The principalities and powers are IMO ranks of angels. The god of this world is Satan, but he is “god of this world” it's a qualified statement. Clearly Satan is a “false” god. Or do you disagree?Quote They are the soon to be dethroned sons of god, that fell, lost their place among the elohim.
The Hebrew phrase “sons of God” (in Hebrew bene elohim, I think – from memory) as it is used in Genesis 6, is commonly used to denote angels. Is Jesus an angel?Quote Jesus has inherited the whole earth will rule it as king and God for his Father the one and only immortal God who beget him.
When did he beget Him?Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:11) This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I will show you this verse. You probably have read it before and have a theological stance already in place on it’s interpretation.
However, the early church fathers disagree with your interpretation if that be the case.
Collosians 1:15
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.The literal interpretation is that Jesus was the first being ever born. Would make sense since he is the son of God and was begotten.
The early fathers all agree that Jesus was the first creative act by God. Then God created everything else through Jesus the divine architect at his side.
You may disagree with this and that goes to show my point. You can say that the verse symbolically represents Christ’s right to rule as King.
The church fathers are in a far better position of understanding that verse.
Jesus still created everything except himself. This doesn’t change that.
Is this your irrefutable proof?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,08:48) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:11) This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I will show you this verse. You probably have read it before and have a theological stance already in place on it’s interpretation.
However, the early church fathers disagree with your interpretation if that be the case.
Collosians 1:15
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.The literal interpretation is that Jesus was the first being ever born. Would make sense since he is the son of God and was begotten.
The early fathers all agree that Jesus was the first creative act by God. Then God created everything else through Jesus the divine architect at his side.
You may disagree with this and that goes to show my point. You can say that the verse symbolically represents Christ’s right to rule as King.
The church fathers are in a far better position of understanding that verse.
Jesus still created everything except himself. This doesn’t change that.
Is this your irrefutable proof?
You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them.We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
Is Jesus an angel? For your hypothesis to have validity you have to link these two variables. Where is the proof that the Yahshua pre-existed his earthly birth as an angel?
Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:52) You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them. We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
He he – while the opinions of the early church Fathers is mildly interesting to me, I think allowing my “faith” to be, in any way, predicated on their musings is, in it's essence, a flimsy foundation indeed…..Here is something for you to consider Mercy, do you think these men understood Yahshua to be “God” in exactly the same sense as you do?
angel just means messenger, you know that.
Jesus is a son of god. when he gives messages he is called an angel.
Jesus was the YHWH the angel of the Lord.
semantics.
Jesus as an angel
Galatians 4
14and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.Hebrews 1
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companionsYHWH as an angel
Zechariah 3
6And the angel of the LORD solemnly assured Joshua, 7″Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here.Genesis 16
10The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” 13So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,”The best proof is as follows and I never see anyone use it.
Hebrews 2
16For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.The implications of the above verses are:
1. Jesus does not help the angels, his brothers, companions, felllows.
2. So he could not remain like them anymore.
3. Rather he was made like us who he does help.lQuote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,08:59) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:52) You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them. We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
He he – while the opinions of the early church Fathers is mildly interesting to me, I think allowing my “faith” to be, in any way, predicated on their musings is, in it's essence, a flimsy foundation indeed…..Here is something for you to consider Mercy, do you think these men understood Yahshua to be “God” in exactly the same sense as you do?
yes at this point, i believe so.I should clarify, I haven't found anything, I stronlgy disagree with.
As time goes on I see more and more changes in doctrine until the explosion of heresies at nicea.
Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:11) Collosians 1:15
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.The literal interpretation is that Jesus was the first being ever born. Would make sense since he is the son of God and was begotten.
The early fathers all agree that Jesus was the first creative act by God. Then God created everything else through Jesus the divine architect at his side.
You may disagree with this and that goes to show my point. You can say that the verse symbolically represents Christ’s right to rule as King.
The church fathers are in a far better position of understanding that verse.
Jesus still created everything except himself. This doesn’t change that.
If Paul wanted to convey that Jesus was “first-created” he certainly could have used the word “prōtoktistos” meaning “first-created” to do so (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18: kaine ktisis, “new creation”). But he did not, instead he used “prōtotokos”. This word is used by NT authors to affirm “priority in importance” or “rank”.All Christians are called God’s firstborn:
Hebrews 12:23
to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,This concept is also taught in the OT. For example Ps 89.27 speaking of King David, the YOUNGEST or LAST BORN of Jesse says God will make him his firstborn:
Psalms 89:27
“I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.”God calls Israel his firstborn:
Exodus 4:22
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”Note: Israel was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the first nation created. It was a preeminant nation in YHWH's mind though.
So it's clear that Col 1:15 is not speaking of Yahshua's procreation.
Quote The literal interpretation is that Jesus was the first being ever born. Would make sense since he is the son of God and was begotten.
If that were true you would think that would be at least ONE other verse in the entire Bible that taught this concept. But there is not.Quote The early fathers all agree that Jesus was the first creative act by God. Then God created everything else through Jesus the divine architect at his side.
They ALL agree do they?
Quote You may disagree with this and that goes to show my point. You can say that the verse symbolically represents Christ’s right to rule as King.
The word “prōtotokos” refers to pre-eminence or rank Mercy. Yahshua is pre-eminant over creation because he is the first cause of it. He created ALL THINGS and now upholds it by the word of His power.Quote The church fathers are in a far better position of understanding that verse.
Not true. The Holy Spirit is still available to us in this age I believe.Quote Jesus still created everything except himself. This doesn’t change that.
Funny how you place a qualification on the statement Paul made in Col 1:16, when the Bible itself doesn't. I guess that's the lengths people will go to to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Can Yahshua be the Creator of ALL things and a created thing at the same time? No, of course not.Blessings
Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,09:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,08:59) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:52) You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them. We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
He he – while the opinions of the early church Fathers is mildly interesting to me, I think allowing my “faith” to be, in any way, predicated on their musings is, in it's essence, a flimsy foundation indeed…..Here is something for you to consider Mercy, do you think these men understood Yahshua to be “God” in exactly the same sense as you do?
yes at this point, i believe so.
Okay. Now we are getting to the core of this issue. Let's see from you some quotes showing unequivically that the church Fathers believed that the Logos was a created being. Maybe you could start with “the disciples of John the apostle, Polycarp and Ignatius”God is also the co-creator of ALL things, but he did not create himself either.
Like I said, “Everyone can make an interpretation that makes sense.”
Now, granted not “every” church father necessarily agrees. But the vast majority do, in particular, all those known to have discipled under apostles.
It is my belief that we can gain much insight on verses that are distinctly clear as to interpretation.
Or we can all just cobble together any doctrine we like.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,09:34) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,09:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,08:59) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:52) You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them. We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
He he – while the opinions of the early church Fathers is mildly interesting to me, I think allowing my “faith” to be, in any way, predicated on their musings is, in it's essence, a flimsy foundation indeed…..Here is something for you to consider Mercy, do you think these men understood Yahshua to be “God” in exactly the same sense as you do?
yes at this point, i believe so.
Okay. Now we are getting to the core of this issue. Let's see from you some quotes showing unequivically that the church Fathers believed that the Logos was a created being. Maybe you could start with “the disciples of John the apostle, Polycarp and Ignatius”
first address my previous posts, plz.about deuteronomy 32 and angels.
should be a page back.
. . . But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We also have as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” (pp. 110-111, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians”)
1. . . . For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. (p. 120, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians”)
. . . Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh . . . (p. 122, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians”)
. . . Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever . . . (p. 129, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers,”The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians”)
. . . Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. . . . To those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father . . . (p. 134, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians”)
. . . One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. (p. 142, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians”)
Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.” “When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily.” And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: “Sit Thou at My right hand?” And how, again, could such an one declare: “Before Abraham was, I am?” And, “Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was?” What man could ever say, “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me?” And of what man could it be said, “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not?” How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.” (p. 213, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians”)
“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will . . . The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. (pp. 453-454, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Dialogue with Trypho”)
And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses . . . Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race . . . (p. 351, vol. I, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Dialogue with Trypho”)
Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,09:35) God is also the co-creator of ALL things, but he did not create himself either.
Yes, but no one is arguing that God is “a thing”. The word thing is used in reference to the created order. Not the Creator.Quote Like I said, “Everyone can make an interpretation that makes sense.”
Scripture should harmonise. In relation to your interpretation of Col 1:15, if it were true than we have massive disharmony in scripture.Quote Now, granted not “every” church father necessarily agrees. But the vast majority do, in particular, all those known to have discipled under apostles.
To be honest I didn't read much, if anything, that explicitly contradicted trinitarian thought. Nothing I read appeared to explain that the Son was a lesser being or the Spirit was non-personal.Quote It is my belief that we can gain much insight on verses that are distinctly clear as to interpretation. Or we can all just cobble together any doctrine we like.
I agree. In formulating our doctrines, we should seek to find the “best fit” in scripture. I don't think henotheism fits the bill.Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,09:37) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,09:34) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,09:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2007,08:59) Quote (Mercy @ Jan. 06 2007,08:52) You know all the verses, probably by heart, that i could throw at you. These boards are filled with them. We both know that it is a matter of interpretation. What is literal, what is figurative, what exactly does that mean.
But I on the other hand have the shared opinion of the disciples of the apostles who quote these very same verses in their apologies. The very same men who collected and kept the scriptures that form our canon.
Flimsy is the foundation of the faith that distrusts the integrity of the men that gave us the bible in the first place. Honestly, think about that a moment.
He he – while the opinions of the early church Fathers is mildly interesting to me, I think allowing my “faith” to be, in any way, predicated on their musings is, in it's essence, a flimsy foundation indeed…..Here is something for you to consider Mercy, do you think these men understood Yahshua to be “God” in exactly the same sense as you do?
yes at this point, i believe so.
Okay. Now we are getting to the core of this issue. Let's see from you some quotes showing unequivically that the church Fathers believed that the Logos was a created being. Maybe you could start with “the disciples of John the apostle, Polycarp and Ignatius”
first address my previous posts, plz.about deuteronomy 32 and angels.
should be a page back.
Mercy, it's been fun but getting late for me and i'm on “earlies” tomorrow morning (my wife's turn to sleep in while I look after the early-rising kids). I will try to have a look at the post at some time tomorrow morning.Take care.
In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. “If,” says he, “these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, “As Thou and I are one,” he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. “For,” says He, “My Father is in Me, and I in Him.” And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself. (pp. 1327-1328, vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Against Celsus”)
. . . He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” (p. 1330, vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Against Celsus”)
. . . Our duty is to pray to the Most High God alone, and to the Only-begotten, the First-born of the whole creation, and to ask Him as our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend to Him from us, to His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of those who direct their lives according to His word. (pp. 1340-1341, vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Against Celsus”)
. . . Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things — “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man,and was incarnate . . . (p. 499, vol. IV, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, “De Principiis”)here is a good one:
“. . . Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. . . . And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears strayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels. But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
