- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote So when Jesus said we are gods, what was he saying?
Glad you asked! I will begin writing a post that answers that very question. Give me an hour or 2.
Tell you what. Go and select some text you wrote where you taught the Trinity, paste it into your next post, and then I will reference that.
If you cannot be bothered, then I will do you a deal. You show me where I teach polytheism and I will show you where you have taught trinitarianism.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 06 2006,06:58) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2006,06:49) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 07 2006,01:42) Show me where I have taught “a creed”? Show me where I have taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.
When you teach the Trinity.You teach the Trinity do you not. Or was that someone else with the same name and avatar?
I asked you to show me a post I wrote (or a portion thereof) where I have:1. taught “a creed”
2. taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.
Not too much to ask is it? You made the accusation, you need to back it up t8.“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”
The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”
By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”
Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this.
Plato believed in a trinity. Why, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity?
At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers?
Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith, as the Catholics claim?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” as a pope once said?Here is John 10:34 in context:
JOHN 10
30” I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35″If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son of God'?Here is a brief summary:
v30 Jesus makes a statement implying unity with their heavenly Father.
v31 The Jews picked up stones to kill him.
v32 Jesus question the Jews for the grounds on which He is being stoned.
V33 The Jews explain that they are about to stone him for BLASPHEMY (a stonable offense in first century Judea).
V34-36 Jesus reasons with them pointing out that in their scriptures men are in fact called “gods” (Elohim). Thus their charges are rendered null and void on this technicality. They cannot legally stone him for inferring he is something synonymous with what scripture ascribes to men.Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6. Here it is in context:
PSALM 82
1God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers [elohim]. 2How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. 3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. 5They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I said, “You are gods [Elohim], and all of you are sons of the Most High. 7″Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.” 8Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.The rulers (Elohim) in v1 are also the “wicked” described in vs 2-4 and the “gods” (Elohim) in v6. These are MEN, magistrates (judges) in the land of Israel. These judges had perverted and abused the authority God had given them (Dan 4:25, 30, 34-37, 5:18-22, Rom 13:1-4), and as a result of this God declared “Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. It’s a little unclear and curious why these men are ascribed the title Elohim, some say its on account of their bestowed office and authority, others say it’s a form of Hebraic sarcasm. Either way it’s irrelevant to the topic a hand because quite clearly these “gods” (Elohim) are unmistakably human. They are not deity. They are men. Jesus point in John 10:34 was not that “men are divine”, Ps 82:6 most certainly does NOT bear this out, it was that in scripture the word Elohim is occasionally applied to men, and the pharisees objections were effectively groundless and He could not be legally stoned.
Also t8, think about it this way, if John 10:34 teaches that men are divine (including those deemed “wicked judges” who will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”), in the same sense that Jesus is divine, then we have a VERY watered down divinity in Jesus don’t we! In fact the word loses all significance. He is our creator t8, and we are His “incurably wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9) creation.
I’ll address 1 Cor 8:5 during the course of the week, my wife needs the computer right now.
Quote The rulers (Elohim) in v1 are also the “wicked” described in vs 2-4 and the “gods” (Elohim) in v6. These are MEN, magistrates (judges) in the land of Israel. These judges had perverted and abused the authority God had given them (Dan 4:25, 30, 34-37, 5:18-22, Rom 13:1-4), and as a result of this God declared “Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. It’s a little unclear and curious why these men are ascribed the title Elohim, some say its on account of their bestowed office and authority, others say it’s a form of Hebraic sarcasm. Either way it’s irrelevant to the topic a hand because quite clearly these “gods” (Elohim) are unmistakably human. They are not deity. They are men. Jesus point in John 10:34 was not that “men are divine”, Ps 82:6 most certainly does NOT bear this out, it was that in scripture the word Elohim is occasionally applied to men, and the pharisees objections were effectively groundless and He could not be legally stoned. So, in the Bible even humans were called gods. How much moreso does Jesus then, deserve the title Mighty God, as found in Isaiah. Does this make him God “Almighty?” No.
Only one is ever ascribed that word: Jehovah God.
He is the “only true God.” (John 17:3)
If Jesus, the Son, is also the only true God, why does the Bible not say so? Why does the Bible not describe Jesus as “Almighty,” but only as “mighty”? In John 17:3, there is a distinction made between the only true God, and the one whom he sent forth. The point of John 17:3, is that we should take in knowledge of the only true God AND the one He sent forth. Yet the pope once described the trinity as a “mystery.” Hard to understand a mystery.
These are just some of my rambling thoughts. Here are some more random thoughts:“I and the Father are one.”—JOHN 10:30.
Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) commented: “Since He said ‘one’ thing,[] let the heretics understand that He did not say ‘one’ person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection.”—Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.
“The Father is greater than I am.”—JOHN 14:28.
Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): “We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For ‘the Father,’ says He, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.”—Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.
“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—JOHN 17:3.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.): “To know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. . . . He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him ‘whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him).’ (Matt. 11:27) Next is to be learned the greatness of the Saviour after Him.”—Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? VII, VIII.
“One God and Father of all persons, who is over all and through all and in all.”—EPHESIANS 4:6.
Irenaeus: “And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ.”—Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 18.2.
Is 1:18, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on 1 Cor 8:5.
to date i have yet to seen proof plato actually invented the trinity.
Humans were only called gods in sarcasm.Those who don't answer to the responce posts can't answer, because they can't refute them.
Isn't that true? Then why have none done so?
Quote ( Posted: Feb. 05 2006,14:46) Remember I promised you a smiley face if you behaved yourself Now T8 when have I not behaved myself on here except to post only scriptures? I don't use the CAPITIOL LETTERS in my posts to express emotion.
I use them for emphesis of people to notice and understand, not to express anger or violent emotions, to me that's silly. OK ? I pray now that you understand why i use the “” capitols “” now.
U know who.
You said it yourself Is 1:18,
The word elohim and theos are not exclusive terms for YHWH. So it seems that we are making some ground. So if Jesus is called mighty El, if he is called God, it is in no way proof that it is saying that Jesus is YHWH. There are many gods and many lords. The Father is a god too. He happens to be the Most High God. As you pointed out, men can be called gods. In fact so can angels. I have been teaching this all along.
Next you say that men are not divine. I agree. Divinity is a nature and we are men because that is our nature. That is why we are called manKIND. However, we have the option to partake in divine nature, like Christ. Therefore we will be like him as it written.
We can also be one with Christ, just as Christ is one with God. Jesus is the son of God, and we are sons. Jesus is divine and so we can partake in that nature too.
So to conclude: to have divine nature or partake in it doesn't make one YHWH.
It appears now that you agree with this too.
Quote (Eliyah @ Feb. 08 2006,00:06) Those who don't answer to the responce posts can't answer, because they can't refute them. Isn't that true? Then why have none done so?
Quote ( Posted: Feb. 05 2006,14:46) Remember I promised you a smiley face if you behaved yourself Now T8 when have I not behaved myself on here except to post only scriptures? I don't use the CAPITIOL LETTERS in my posts to express emotion.
I use them for emphesis of people to notice and understand, not to express anger or violent emotions, to me that's silly. OK ? I pray now that you understand why i use the “” capitols “” now.
U know who.
Eliyah,You are still changing the subject of the discussion. It is about Jesus Christ and not about me. If you have something to grumble about, start up a post in the appropriate section. I would suggest 'Feedback & Suggestions'.
I actually don't read your posts fully because they are not in context with the discussion.
thx
I'm not grumbling or intentionally changing the subject here T8, I was merely responding back to you and explaining to you your mis-understandings of my posts.
hmm-fruitless
Is 1:18,
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 06 2006,06:42) Show me where I have taught “a creed”? Show me where I have taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.
If you cannot produce the evidence then yes you have been dishonest in misrepresenting me because the intimation of your comments is that i'm constantly doing these things. Anyone reading these comments, who has not read many of my previous posts, will likely draw this erroneous conclusion. That's simple deception on your part.
Ok, I found the following quote in the Trinity discussion where you teach a triune God, which the bible doesn't teach, but the creeds do. I have bolded some of your words.Quote (Is 1:18 on Sep. 11 2004 @ 10:35)
OK, a very brief explanation and then I have to get onto T8 and Sammo's replies (probably tomorrow T8 – still working on it, Sammo yours later in the week).I read Jn 17:3 to mean exactly what it says, there is only one true God and He happans to be a triune God. Eternal life encompases knowing God through the Son, Jesus Christ the incarnate God who has explained Him (Jn 1:18), is one with Him (Jn 10:30) and Who is in the Father (and the Father is in Him).
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him” (Jn 13:7).
I think Rev 5:13 is provocative, note how the Father and Jesus are also distinct in this passage but both are worshipped as God by “every created thing”
Your last sentence is incorrect too. Jesus is not worshipped as God in that verse, but as the Lamb of God. People tend to make that mistake because they are seeing scripture through the filter of the Trinity doctrine to begin with, instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
You said that I was using simple deception. How about an apology?
In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with YHWH( The Father), and the WORD was YHWH( The Son), the same( WORD) was in the beginning with YHWH( The Father).
All things were made through Him ( The WORD -ie the Son)andand without Him( The WORD-ie the Son) was not anything made that was made.
In Him( The WORD-ie The Son)was life; and the life was the light of men.( John 1:1-4);
And the verse that proves that the” WORD ” was also the Son is in verse 14.
And the WORD( ie- the Son) was made flesh and dwelt among us , and we beheld His Glory, the Glory of the only begotten of the FATHER( YHWH), full of grace and truth.
Verse 14 is the clincher proof that the ” WORD ” was the ” Son ” in the beginning with the Father YHWH of ( John 1:1).
Father, Son and Spirit are ONE in Eternal life substance, the words ” Divine” and ” trinity ” are related to idol pagan deities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyeus
Scroll down on each of these sites and see the Etymology of these words and how they are linked to gether.
Better more correct is ” Eternal Substance ” in stead of ” divine nature “
I asked you to show me a post I wrote (or a portion thereof) where I have:
1. taught “a creed”
2. taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.Hi t8,
A question for you:Does John 10:34 teach that men are divine? Yes or No.
I also have some follow up questions depending on your answer.
Be well
Bretheren,
In regards to Isaiah 9:6, this passage isn't calling Jesus the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father as the Oneness Pentecostals claim. The Hebrew word for NAME is SHEM, pronounced SHAME. It has several meanings; name, character, or authority. Isaiah 9:6 is telling us that the Lord Jesus will have the AUTHORITY of the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Everlasting Father. These three are titles referring to the one true God, Yahweh. How did Jesus get that authority? God gave it to him, Matthew 28:18
Gods Blessings
Interesting Woutlaw. I've never heard that before.
“There has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
While what you say may be true about the word “name,” I'm not sure that the definition of “authority” could be applied to this scripture though. Jehovah is never referred to as a Prince. A prince is someone below a king and Jehovah is below no one. He is the “Most High.” And in the beginning of this verse, it is speaking of Jesus when it says that the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulders. Then it says that his name (or “authority” you say) will be called “Prince of Peace.” The two seem to be connected. As well, all of those “names” or characteristics fit Jesus in one way or another, based on his position and what he did. Being called Mighty God, in no way makes Jesus equal or the same as the “Almighty God,” Jehovah, however.
dave
Don't scholars look to the Athanasian Creed as a standard definition and support of the Trinity?
I propose a test, which granted, will take a while:
Have two children. Make the first read the Bible (one with God's name not removed). Say nothing of the trinity, or the concept thereof, and keep him from all outside influence. When he is 20, ask him who Jehovah is. Ask him who Jesus is. Ask him what the holy spirit is. Ask him how the three are related. Then watch the look of confusion on his face as you try to explain to him, what the church took hundreds of years to develop through controversy, and what the pope considers a “mystery.” Watch his brain explode as you try to explain to your son that a Father and Son can be the same age, equal, with the same wisdom, and knowledge and strength.
The second child, read him the Anthesian creed, as he grows up. When he is 20, ask him the same questions. Which one will believe in a “trinity?”Quote 2. taught “Greek philosophy”, as opposed to something biblical.
The words “opposed to” are wrong. Either:
The trinity is Biblical and a part of Greek philosophy, OR
The trinity isn't Biblical, but springs from the influential greek culture, which borrowed it's ideas from older, Babylonian ideas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
