- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO ALL:
Deuteronomy 6:4 teaches that God is a PLURAL UNITY and verse 16 is a reference to YHWH Jesus (cf 1 Cor. 10:9).
Q: In Dt 6:4, since God is “One”, what about the Trinity?
A: Here are some of the words for one used in the Old Testament.
chad: simply means “one” and is rarely used.
‘ishshah: one, each, every, female
‘oysh: a man or an individual. (very common in the Old Testament)
‘echad: which means “united, alike, alone, and altogether.”(very common in the Old Testament)
The word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 is ‘echad. Thus, one could translate this word as “united”, though “one” is a broader and more preferred translation. The same word is also used in:
Genesis 2:24 says the man and wife are one flesh.
Deuteronomy 6:4 says there is one God.
Genesis 1:5 says “evening and morning were one day.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.64 says an example of this word meaning a unity made up of several parts in Exodus 26:6,11, where fifty clasps hold the curtains (plural) so the tent would be “one”. Ezekiel 37:17,19,22, also talks of two sticks being joined together as “one”, using the same word.
See also When Cultists Ask p.41-42 for more info.
http://www.biblequery.org/dt.htmthe Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,23:54) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.64 says an example of this word meaning a unity made up of several parts in Exodus 26:6,11, where fifty clasps hold the curtains (plural) so the tent would be “one”. Ezekiel 37:17,19,22, also talks of two sticks being joined together as “one”, using the same word.
See also When Cultists Ask p.41-42 for more info.
Hi Jack,This info, like most trinitarian supporting info, is nothing but a sleight of hand trick.
Are we to believe that the 50 clasps were joined together to make “a unity of one tent”? Are we to believe that joining two sticks together to make one stick has to do with “how God was formed”?
In both of these instances, the “joining together” of more than one thing to form ONE different thing is clear.
Is that ever said about our ONE God? Is it ever said He was “joined together” out of many other things to become ONE God? Is Jesus one thing, the holy spirit another and the Father yet another………but when “joined together” they become “a unity of more than one thing” that was formed to become ONE God?
Who “joined those things together” to become ONE God?
This is more senseless than your assertion that because the sea was said to “give birth”, the word FOR “birth” doesn't mean “birth” anymore.
Do you see that the “unity” is made up of more than one thing “joined together”? The clasps are one thing, the curtains are another, but together they can BE FORMED into ONE tent. The two little sticks are two separate things, but they can BE FORMED into ONE big stick.
So once more, if Jesus, the holy spirit and the Father were separate things, who FORMED them together into “a unity of things” which became our ONE God? And where is the scripture that says they were joined together in this manner?
NIV Deut 17:6
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no-one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.Now there is no doubt from the context of this verse that “echad” means simply “one”. What is the context in Deut 6:4 that would make anyone think that “echad” meant something other than simply “one”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 21 2010,10:33) Deuteronomy 6:4 declares: 4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
Literally it reads, “the Lord our God is Lord alone.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….on=NKJV
Paul said that there is “one Lord” (Christ). Moses said that God is “Lord alone.” That Moses was speaking about Christ is substantiated by the context for we read in verse 16:
16 You shall not tempt the LORD your God as you tempted Him in Massah.
Guess what guys and gals. Paul said that it was Christ who was “tempted.”
8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;
God is Lord ALONE. Paul said that there is one Lord (Christ). God was tempted by the people. Paul said that it was Christ who was tempted.
No degree in rocket science is needed.
Jack
Hello Jack,I try to look for “good” in a person's post and address it, first. However, you seem to have missed the launch pad.
Here is a quote from you later on in page 11 here:
Deuteronomy 6:4 teaches that God is a PLURAL UNITY and verse 16 is a reference to YHWH Jesus (cf 1 Cor. 10:9).
Which “part” of Deut 6:4 teaches a PLURAL UNITY?
Where in the Bible do we have YHWH Jesus? That's a new one for me. Is this a “con” to try to make Jesus out to be God?
The Professor
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2010,12:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,23:54) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.64 says an example of this word meaning a unity made up of several parts in Exodus 26:6,11, where fifty clasps hold the curtains (plural) so the tent would be “one”. Ezekiel 37:17,19,22, also talks of two sticks being joined together as “one”, using the same word.
See also When Cultists Ask p.41-42 for more info.
Hi Jack,This info, like most trinitarian supporting info, is nothing but a sleight of hand trick.
Are we to believe that the 50 clasps were joined together to make “a unity of one tent”? Are we to believe that joining two sticks together to make one stick has to do with “how God was formed”?
In both of these instances, the “joining together” of more than one thing to form ONE different thing is clear.
Is that ever said about our ONE God? Is it ever said He was “joined together” out of many other things to become ONE God? Is Jesus one thing, the holy spirit another and the Father yet another………but when “joined together” they become “a unity of more than one thing” that was formed to become ONE God?
Who “joined those things together” to become ONE God?
This is more senseless than your assertion that because the sea was said to “give birth”, the word FOR “birth” doesn't mean “birth” anymore.
Do you see that the “unity” is made up of more than one thing “joined together”? The clasps are one thing, the curtains are another, but together they can BE FORMED into ONE tent. The two little sticks are two separate things, but they can BE FORMED into ONE big stick.
So once more, if Jesus, the holy spirit and the Father were separate things, who FORMED them together into “a unity of things” which became our ONE God? And where is the scripture that says they were joined together in this manner?
NIV Deut 17:6
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no-one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.Now there is no doubt from the context of this verse that “echad” means simply “one”. What is the context in Deut 6:4 that would make anyone think that “echad” meant something other than simply “one”?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,What you said about 'Echad is true.
I learned erroneously on the internet the concept to what Jack is presenting; 'Echad is “unity” and not the number one. I know it is erroneous because when I began to learn numbers the first number was 'Echad (one), wow was I shocked and surprised. I had to go back in my writings and correct this misinformation as I came across it. It is true that there are many duality of things as Jack mentioned Evening Morning “one” day. But one, still means one.
Next, it does seem like a Trinitarian slight of hand trick as well in this Thread.
Here is what Deut 6:4 says in Hebrew word for word.
“Hear Israel YHWH Elohim YHWH one.”
Which word is God? Elohim or YHWH.YHWH Elohim = Elohim's YHWH; indicating that YHWH is part of Elohim. Which agrees with the translation:
Hear (O) Israel Elohim's LORD is one LORD.
If YHWH is a name the translation goes:
Hear O Israel Elohim's YHWH is one YHWH…which really doesn't make sense.
And “Please”, YHWH Jesus?
?? Even more deception.The Professor
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2010,20:21) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 09 2010,10:47) JA, Jehovah told the people not to provoke His Messenger (Exodus 23:20-25). God called His Messenger “Jehovah your God” (vs. 25). We know this was Jesus!
Unfounded conjecture, Roo. See my new post in Echad.mike
Hello Mike and Roo,Too often the translators add words which can cause confusion.
Most of the time when you see “the LORD your God” it is usually YHWH Elohim together which should be Elohim's LORD showing that YHWH is part of Elohim and is doing the function as a “Lord” or “Master” for Elohim. Without the word Elohim, YHWH is acting as God (El). Otherwise together they emphasize that YHWH is part of Elohim and is doing His duty. I guess KJ could be right that YHWH acts as messenger along with His other functions of Father, King, Priest, Prophet and God (El). But never is YHWH the son.,,ugh!
The Professor
The Professor
TO ALL:
Please note that in 1 Corinthians 10:9 the “oldest” and “good” manuscripts say that the people tempted CHRIST. Deuteronomy 6:16 says that they tempted YHWH. Therefore, Christ is the YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:16.
Quote 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 9. tempt Christ-So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Isa 45:22, 23). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Isa 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock . Christ” (1Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.
http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/1_corinthians/10.htmPlease note that the reading “Jehovah” in the NWT (1 Cor. 10:9) does not appear in any of the manuscripts. The NWT translators rewrote God's holy scripture.
The word “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4, “YHWH your God is one” is from “achad” which means “to unify.” More than one numerically is required for a unity to be true. That Paul said that it was CHRIST whom the people tempted proves it!
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 09 2010,10:48) TO ALL: Please note that in 1 Corinthians 10:9 the “oldest” and “good” manuscripts say that the people tempted CHRIST. Deuteronomy 6:16 says that they tempted YHWH. Therefore, Christ is the YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:16.
Quote 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 9. tempt Christ-So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Isa 45:22, 23). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Isa 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock . Christ” (1Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.
http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/1_corinthians/10.htmPlease note that the reading “Jehovah” in the NWT (1 Cor. 10:9) does not appear in any of the manuscripts. The NWT translators rewrote God's holy scripture.
The word “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4, “YHWH your God is one” is from “achad” which means “to unify.” More than one numerically is required for a unity to be true. That Paul said that it was CHRIST whom the people tempted proves it!
the Roo
Hi Jack,Could you do me the favor of actually answering to my post? Thanks in advance.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (davidbfun @ Aug. 09 2010,07:54) Here is what Deut 6:4 says in Hebrew word for word. “Hear Israel YHWH Elohim YHWH one.”
Which word is God? Elohim or YHWH.YHWH Elohim = Elohim's YHWH; indicating that YHWH is part of Elohim. Which agrees with the translation:
Hi David,You seem to have a good mental grasp on most scripturally related things from what I have seen so far. But you lose it on the Elohim's YHVH.
I'll try to explain better what I started to thru our pm's.
Elohim YHVH = God Jehovah
That's it. YHVH is the personal name of God, and “God” is the title of God.
It is the same exact thing as saying President Obama. One is his title, the other his name.
You are right about the Hebrew words used. But it is translated in English as,
Hear, O Israel: Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one.
peace and love,
mikeAdam Clarke on YHWH/Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:9:
Quote I have already supposed, in Clarke's note on “1Co 10:4”, that Christ is intended by the spiritual rock that followed them: and that it was he, not the rock, that did follow or accompany the Israelites in the wilderness. This was the angel of God's presence who was with the Church in the wilderness, to whom our fathers would not obey, as St. Stephen says, Acts 7:38,39. Instead of χÏιστον, Christ, several MSS. and a few versions have κυÏιον, the Lord, and some few θεον, God. But though some respectable MSS. have the Lord instead of Christ, yet this latter has the greatest proportion of authority on its side. And this affords no mean proof that the person who is called Yehovah in the Old Testament, is called Christ in the New.
By tempting Christ is meant disbelieving the providence and goodness of God; and presuming to prescribe to him how he should send them the necessary supplies, and of what kind they should be,
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=010TO ALL:
In my debate with Mikeboll he included Adam Clarke in his list of “legitimate” scholars. So Mike should consider Clarke's commentary above which says that Christ is YHWH.
Deuteronomy 6:4 says that YHWH is a unity (echad). In verse 16 Moses warned against tempting YHWH as they tempted Him in Massah. Paul said that the people tempted CHRIST. Therefore, Christ is YHWH in Deuteronomy 6:16 which substantiates the plural unity concept in verse 4.
Mike's “legitimate” scholar supports with me.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,18:48) TO ALL: Please note that in 1 Corinthians 10:9 the “oldest” and “good” manuscripts say that the people tempted CHRIST. Deuteronomy 6:16 says that they tempted YHWH. Therefore, Christ is the YHWH of Deuteronomy 6:16.
Quote 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 9. tempt Christ-So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co 10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Isa 45:22, 23). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Isa 63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock . Christ” (1Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh 8:56; Heb 11:26). The Greek for “tempt” means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Ps 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.
http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/1_corinthians/10.htmPlease note that the reading “Jehovah” in the NWT (1 Cor. 10:9) does not appear in any of the manuscripts. The NWT translators rewrote God's holy scripture.
The word “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4, “YHWH your God is one” is from “achad” which means “to unify.” More than one numerically is required for a unity to be true. That Paul said that it was CHRIST whom the people tempted proves it!
the Roo
JackExactly.
Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!” There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God (“yachid” or “bad”).
Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, “echad” which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 “the two shall become one [echad] flesh” it is the same word for “one” that was used in Deut 6:4.
This is most troubling for Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God. Source
WJ
Quote Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. a. Hear, O Israel: In Hebrew, these verses are known as the Shema (“hear” in Hebrew). It is the classic Hebrew confession of faith, describing who God is and what our duty is towards Him.
b. The Lord our God, the Lord is one! This is the essential truth about God. He is a person and not a vague pantheistic force. Being one, He cannot be represented by contradictory images. Since the Lord our God is one, He is not Baal, or Ashtoreth – He is the Lord God, and they are not.
i. In the mind of many Jewish people, this verse alone disqualified the New Testament teaching that Jesus is God, and the New Testament teaching of the Trinity – that there is one God, existing in three Persons. At some times and places, as Jewish synagogues said the Shema together, and when the word one (echad) was said, they loudly and strongly repeated that one word for several minutes, as if it were a rebuke to Christians who believed in the Trinity.
ii. Christians must come to a renewed understanding of the unity of God. They must appreciate the fact that the Lord is one, not three, as 1 Corinthians 8:6 says: yet for us there is one God. We worship one God, existing in three persons, not three separate gods.
Excerpt:iii. Yet, the statement the Lord is one certainly does not contradict the truth of the Trinity. In fact, it establishes that truth. The Hebrew word for one is echad, which speaks most literally of a compound unity, instead of using the Hebrew word yacheed, which speaks of an absolute unity or singularity (Genesis 22:2 and Psalm 25:16).
iv. The very first use of echad in the Bible is in Genesis 1:5: So the evening and the morning were the first day. Even here, we see a unity (one day) with the idea of plurality (made up of evening and morning). Genesis 2:24 uses echad in saying the two shall become one flesh. Again, the idea of a unity (one flesh), making a plurality (the two). In Exodus 26:6 and 11, the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so the tent would be one (echad) – a unity (one) made up of a plurality (the many parts of the tabernacle). In Ezekiel 37:17 the Lord tells Ezekiel to join together two sticks (prophetically representing Ephraim and Judah) into one (echad), speaking again of a unity (one stick) made up of a plurality (the two sticks). There is no way that echad has the exclusive idea of an absolute singularity; the idea of One God in Three Persons fits just fine with the term echad.
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0506.htmQuote iii. Yet, the statement the Lord is one certainly does not contradict the truth of the Trinity. In fact, it establishes that truth. The Hebrew word for one is echad, which speaks most literally of a compound unity, instead of using the Hebrew word yacheed, which speaks of an absolute unity or singularity (Genesis 22:2 and Psalm 25:16)
Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is a plural unity. In verse 16 Moses warned the people against tempting YHWH. Paul said that it was CHRIST the people tempted (1 Cor. 10:4).Therefore, Christ is YHWH!
Supporting scripture:
Quote 1 Then all the congregation of the children of Israel set out on their journey from the Wilderness of Sin, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped in Rephidim; but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 Therefore the people contended with Moses, and said, “Give us water, that we may drink.”
So Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt YHWH?” Exodus 17:1-2the Roo
Here is what Tertullian says about the oneness of God:
Quote He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make another God and another Christ. When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son’s interests, that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, “I am God and there is none other beside me,”79877987 Isa. xlv. 5, 18; xliv. 6. who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom “He stretcheth out the heavens alone.”7988 In other words, Tertullian knew that scripture was speaking against the gods that were of a different nature than the only God. The Son is of the same nature.
from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xviii.html
I have really enjoyed Tertullian's perspective.
Davidbfun said to Mike:
Quote What you said about 'Echad is true. David,
What Mike said about “echad” is NOT true. The word “echad” comes from the word “achad” which means “to unify” (see Strong's# 259-259). At least two persons are needed in order for a unification to take place.
Echad is the word used in reference to the man and the woman becoming “one” (echad) flesh. Moses clearly and unmistakeably said that “the TWO shall become ONE flesh.”
The man and the woman are TWO IN ONE!
This is substantiated by the levitical law which prohibits a man from looking at his mother's nakedness BECAUSE his mother's nakedness IS his father's nakedness.
8 The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it IS your father’s nakedness. Leviticus 18:8
This CLEARLY says that your mother's nakedness IS your father's nakedness! The two are one (echad) flesh.
the Roo
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,05:13) Here is what Tertullian says about the oneness of God: Quote He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make another God and another Christ. When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son’s interests, that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, “I am God and there is none other beside me,”79877987 Isa. xlv. 5, 18; xliv. 6. who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom “He stretcheth out the heavens alone.”7988 In other words, Tertullian knew that scripture was speaking against the gods that were of a different nature than the only God. The Son is of the same nature.
from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xviii.html
I have really enjoyed Tertullian's perspective.
Kathi,When are you going to engage with Keith and I from scripture?
God said that there was no god formed before or AFTER Him? The LXX translates the word “formed” with “ginomai” (to come to be).
No god came into being before or AFTER God maam!
Isaiah 43:10 Young's Litaral Translation:
Quote 10Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none. No god came into being before or AFTER God. Therefore, the Word did not come into being. He always existed with God.
the Roo
Jack,
No one before God the Father was formed and no other God, (a source of all things) came into being. The Son was not the source of Himself but came from the source. God is declaring that there is no other unbegotten God and anything coming into being would not be an unbegotten God like He was. The unbegotten God was the only true God and the begotten God was the only true begotten God…together they are in unity.You will see a lot more of Tertullian now that you have told me about him…thanks!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,13:50) Jack,
No one before God the Father was formed and no other God, (a source of all things) came into being. The Son was not the source of Himself but came from the source. God is declaring that there is no other unbegotten God and anything coming into being would not be an unbegotten God like He was. The unbegotten God was the only true God and the begotten God was the only true begotten God…together they are in unity.You will see a lot more of Tertullian now that you have told me about him…thanks!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,13:50) …together they are in unity.
Together they are in unity as “2 Gods” right Kathi?That is not at all what Tertullian believed, read the Creed that he presided over Kathi!
The Trinitarian Fathers disagree with your Polytheistic view that there are 2 Gods, which is exactly why Tertullian and the Fathers made the Creeds in the first place.
WJ
Keith,
I think you have to look at the context. Tertullian puts it well:Quote I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”79177917 Rom. i. 7. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”79187918 Rom. ix. 5. For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and
609
its ray to be as much two things and two forms79197919 Species. of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xiii.htmlSee how context is important? This quote I agree with. I never speak of two unbegotten Gods.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,15:33) Keith,
I think you have to look at the context. Tertullian puts it well:Quote I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”79177917 Rom. i. 7. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”79187918 Rom. ix. 5. For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and
609
its ray to be as much two things and two forms79197919 Species. of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xiii.htmlSee how context is important? This quote I agree with. I never speak of two unbegotten Gods.
I never spoke of two unbegotten Gods.Tertullian does not speak of them as 2 Gods or divine beings.
In light of the creed which used the language of Tertullian we can clearly see that he is making a difference in the personages of the Father and Jesus and not their ontology or substance.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, BUT ONE GOD. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The sun rays do not exist without the sun, nor the sun without the rays.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,06:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,13:50) Jack,
No one before God the Father was formed and no other God, (a source of all things) came into being. The Son was not the source of Himself but came from the source. God is declaring that there is no other unbegotten God and anything coming into being would not be an unbegotten God like He was. The unbegotten God was the only true God and the begotten God was the only true begotten God…together they are in unity.You will see a lot more of Tertullian now that you have told me about him…thanks!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,13:50) …together they are in unity.
Together they are in unity as “2 Gods” right Kathi?That is not at all what Tertullian believed, read the Creed that he presided over Kathi!
The Trinitarian Fathers disagree with your Polytheistic view that there are 2 Gods, which is exactly why Tertullian and the Fathers made the Creeds in the first place.
WJ
Keith,I cannot comprehend that Kathi can say that Jesus and God are in unity as “two Gods” and that Jesus came after God when God Himself said that no God came into being before or AFTER Him.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,08:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,15:33) Keith,
I think you have to look at the context. Tertullian puts it well:Quote I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”79177917 Rom. i. 7. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”79187918 Rom. ix. 5. For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and
609
its ray to be as much two things and two forms79197919 Species. of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xiii.htmlSee how context is important? This quote I agree with. I never speak of two unbegotten Gods.
I never spoke of two unbegotten Gods.Tertullian does not speak of them as 2 Gods or divine beings.
In light of the creed which used the language of Tertullian we can clearly see that he is making a difference in the personages of the Father and Jesus and not their ontology or substance.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, BUT ONE GOD. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The sun rays do not exist without the sun, nor the sun without the rays.
WJ
Keith,You're right again. Why does Kathi think we all including anti-trinitarians here are stupid? Everyone knows that Tertullian, Calvin and all the others were Trinitarians.
The only supporter Kathi has is that little guy in the little “amen” corner.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
