- This topic is empty.
- Posts
ps
Though your Rev Blume is deceived. He says that Jn 1.1 says the Word is “God Himself”,”the God”.
Not so.
To confuse the Son with his Father is surely folly and no basis for further building of doctrines or useful teachings.Quote ps
Though your Rev Blume is deceived. He says that Jn 1.1 says the Word is “God Himself”,”the God”.
Not so.
To confuse the Son with his Father is surely folly and no basis for further building of doctrines or useful teachings.I am fully aware that Mike Blume is mislead about who God is. However, I still think that the historical information that he presents is important enough to overlook those flaws long enough to finish his article about the history of the trinity doctrine. He shows quite clearly that even the “church fathers”, (to whom Trinitarians are indebted to for their theology), do not agree with the modern-day “orthodox” version of the trinity. Just like any other man-made philosophy, the doctrine of the trinity shows clear evidence of continual evolution, rather than being a consistent teaching from the beginning.
Yes WIT.
You are quite right and that is interesting. So how can those who espouse the theory justify their evolving situation? Earlier versions are now regarded even by some of them as heresies.Hi liljon,
Yes all things were made through him. That tells us he pre existed all things. It does not say that he is co eternal with the Father.ps My father pre existed me and I have my being through him but that does not prove he was a twin of Adam.
Quote (liljon @ May 08 2005,21:15) JOHN and Colosians Say that ALL things were made throguh HIM. HE IS COETERNAL.
Hi liljon,Perhaps you could give us some scriptures that support or define “coeternal?”
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
——–
Gen 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Gen 49:3 Reuben, thou [art] my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
——-
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD; abideth a priest continually. (Melchezedek).
etc, etc…
Doesn't Colossian 1 speak for itself? Colossians 1:19: It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell… this was the Father's idea (vs 12 & 13). If you are willing to take vs 16 then why not verse 15?
It is also evident that what we see of creation is also just the tip of the iceberg of who God Almighty is. If he let his firstborn of creation do all these, then how much more so incredible is the Father himself?
I wish you dear friends of the trinity doctrine would abandon this false doctrine and the futile effort to convince us of what is not written of God and Christ and partake with us of the Fellowship that the Father has prepared for us (vs 12) through Christ. Don't let the seemingly booming numbers of your majority fool you: Remember Elisha and his servant and the unseen throngs surrounding them.
Christ started with only 12 in all Israel and one of them was of the devil. Before that God started with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob before the 12 and 10 of the tribes were soon off worshipping idols and are reportedly lost till this day.
We are not calling you to worship another God whom the fathers and apostles have not known. We call you to worship the One True God of the Holy Scriptures.
We do not call you to follow another Lord, but the Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God.
We don't call you to fellowship with another spirit, but to have fellowship in the Holy spirit sent from the One True God.
You on the other hand are calling us to worship a 3 in 1 God of whom we never heard.
You basically tell us that there is no son of God because there is no Father who had a son since they are the same in stature, authority, substance, existence… that is very dangerous ground for a new foundation. We build on the foundation that is already laid. The precious Cornerstone you reject, whose builder is God himself.
Bless you cubes,
The only begotten Son is also the only begotten God[Jn 1.18]
If he was begotten of God then He is not that original God but the Son of God.Is that not simple?
Thank you, Nick.
Making the simple complicated reminds me of this scripture:
Deut 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways…God has provided us with lines and contours to form a true composite of him and of his son. Using his instructions we'll get a good likeness of them, however vague. Venture out on our own and we will likely end up with a sharp but wrong image.
Hi ,
Gen 2.21
” So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept ;then he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
And the man said
'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man'
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”So woman is stated to be taken from the flesh of man-the dust part. That does not say she shares soul or spirit so I guess God would have given her life as he did with Man. She is not exactly the same as her body and genes had to be altered so they can become one flesh and reproduce. But whatever flesh she has comes from man and man has lost her as part of himself.
But they are designed for unity.There cannot be unity unless there has been division.
So the Son's unity with the Father is as the unity of separate beings too.
John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Philippians 2:6 – who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Isaiah 44:6 – Thus saith the LORD (YHWH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (YHWH) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:24 – Thus saith the LORD (YHWH), thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD (YHWH) that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 47:4 – As for our redeemer, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 48:17 – Thus saith the LORD (YHWH), thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD (YHWH) thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
Isaiah 49:7 – Thus saith the LORD (YHWH), the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD (YHWH) that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
Isaiah 49:26 – And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD (YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isaiah 54:5 – For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
2 Corinthians 11:2 – For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Isaiah 54:8 – In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD (YHWH) thy Redeemer.
Isaiah 59:20 – And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD (YHWH).
Isaiah 60:16 – Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD (YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isaiah 63:16 – Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD (YHWH), art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Jeremiah 50:34 – Their Redeemer is strong; the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name: he shall throughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.
Isaiah 43:3 – For I am the LORD (YHWH) thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Isaiah 43:11 – I, even I, am the LORD (YHWH); and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 45:15 – Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
Isaiah 45:21 – Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isaiah 49:26 – And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isaiah 60:16 – Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Hosea 13:4 – Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
The issue of “blasphemy.” Jesus was frequently accused of blasphemy (cf. Mark 2.7; Jn 5.19; 10.33; Mt 9.3;) and is said to have been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy in Mark 14.63-64 and Mat 26:65-66 (softened by Luke in 22.71). There is some question as to how 'loose' a definition of 'blasphemy' was operative at the time. If it literally meant 'claiming to be God', then the charge of blasphemy at the trial stands as evidence for Jesus' self-understanding as being God. If it means, on the other hand, something like 'disgracing God', then it is much weaker evidence (at best). What do we have for data here?
There are numerous discussions in the early Jewish literature (e.g. Philo, Rabbinix, Josephus, Qumran, NT) that indicate the range of meanings. The Jewish scholar Vermes points out that the 'tightest' version occurs in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7.5) in which the divine Name (e.g. “YHWH”) must be used for blasphemy to occur (JJ:25-36), and other scholars note that Jesus seems to have ACTUALLY used the “I am” in this sense in a number of situations (Jn 5:24,28,58-59; Mr 14.62?) [NIDNTT:3:343–sv. “revile”]. Merely claiming to be the Messiah would NOT have constituted blasphemy (GAJ:262, JJ:35-36; HFJ:272).
Raymond Brown (DM:516-560) surveys the usage of the “blasphemo- words” and concludes:
From the attested meaning of the blasphemo- words, the only likely historical charge would have been that Jesus arrogantly claimed for himself status or privileges that belonged properly to the God of Israel alone and in that sense implicitly demeaned God. [p. 531]
Although Brown does not believe that Jesus made any explicit claims at the Trial that would have provoked such a response from the High Priest, he does note that there were MANY actions/words of Jesus that would have been so construed. He gives the following list (p. 545f):
1) Jesus spoke with great authority and by his 'Amen' almost demanded acceptance.
2) Jesus claimed to have the power to forgive sin. It seemed almost as if the association of sinners with Jesus exempted them from standards of holiness imposed by other religious authorities.
3) Jesus performed extraordinary deeds and healings and related them to his making God's rule/kingdom present to people.
4) Jesus implied or even stated that people would be judged by God according to how they reacted to his proclamation of the kingdom. Other Jews proclaimed the gracious outreach of God; but in Jesus' proclamation there was a stated element of unique opportunity, which he proclaimed to be unlike any that had ever come before or would come again (parables of the pearl of great price and treasure in the field). Jesus' language of entrance into the kingdom had a tone of eschatological newness that went beyond prophetic calls to repentance.
5) Jesus took stances on the Law, especially concerning the Sabbath, that would have seemed highly disputable to Sadducees, Pharisees, or Essenes. Although these disputes must be evaluated cautiously, opponents who were neither legalists nor lacking in religious imagination could still have deeply resented Jesus' freedom toward what Moses had commanded and the piety that flowed from it. To a disciple who asked to be allowed to go first and bury his father, Jesus answered “Follow me, and the let the dead bury the dead.” That response might appear to nullify the commandment (word) of God, “Honor your father and your mother,” and the pious imperative to bury the dead (notice how Tobit 4:3 joins these two duties). God had spoken mouth to mouth to Moses, and one should not feel free to override Moses' authority (Num 12.7-8). Even Sanders admits that Jesus “did not consider the Mosaic dispensation to be final or absolutely binding.” Thus not differences of interpretation but authority over the Law may have been the important issue in relation to Jesus.
6) Jesus, a layman, acted in criticism of Temple customs and indicated that rejection of him imperiled Temple survival.
7) Jesus never explained his authority in terms that would make him identifiable against an OT background, e.g., as if he were a prophet who had received his power when the word of God came to him. His authority seemed to be part of what he was.
8) Jesus addressed God with familiarity as “Abba”, an otherwise unattested prayer practice.
9) At certain times Jesus spoke of himself in relation to God as the son, e.g., in the parables in Mark 11.27; Luke 10.22; and in Mark 13.32, where there is a limitation on the son's knowledge.
Brown concludes: “If in his lifetime Jesus plausibly did or said most of these things, I see little reason to doubt that his opponents would have considered him blasphemous (i.e. arrogantly claiming prerogatives or status more properly associated with God), even as the Gospels report at the trial.”[Note: I have cited Brown at length, since he represents a less conservative view of the text than some of the other sources cited. He sifts through the gospel materials and makes a considerable number of judgments that 'Christian piety introduced much of the detail.' As such, his opinion on the accuracy of the divine claims implied in the historically-authentic charges of blasphemy are particularly illuminating.]
The use the phrase “the Name.” This is a curious phenomena, but one that illustrates the early church's high views of Christ. The OT has a rich and complex network of images surrounding the “Name of God”, and after the close of the OT, the Jewish people grew almost fearful of using God's name (i.e. YHWH). [But Urbach argues that it was to avoid it being MIS-used by unworthy folk–SWWRT:126-131.] So, beginning in the intertestamental period we see a development in which the word “Name” (i.e. shem (Hb) and onoma (Gk)) were SUBSTITUTED FOR the name “God” or “Lord”. Josephus, for example, will NOT use the word “YHWH” or “kurios” (Gk for “lord”), even though he was a priest.
Indeed, Bruce (NIDNTT, sv “name”) recounts the Rabbinical story of how the names were switched:
According to one old story, after the death of Simon the Just (c. 200 B.C.) the priests discontinued uttering YAHWEH's name in blessings (T.Sot. 13,8). In the temple cult Yahweh's name was still used in the High Priest's blessing on the Day of Atonement; but in scriptural quotations the word Yahweh came to be replaced by “shem” (“name”), in the teaching schools.
This gave rise to odd constructions like “le-shem hasshem” (“in the name of the Name”).
This extreme reverence for God–to the point of substituting the word “Name” for His exalted ACTUAL name–is passed on to the name of Jesus! Incredibly, there are two passages in which Jesus is referred to simply as “the Name”:
The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.(Acts 5.41)
It was for the sake of the Name that they went out
This means that by the mid-60's the name of Jesus had achieved the sacredness of the name of YHWH on the part of some 1st century Jewish Christians (i.e. Luke, John). [NIDNTT, sv. “name” also points out that ALL of the characteristics of OT “Name” theology and usage had been transferred to Jesus by the middle of the NT period, vol 3:654.]The Nomina Sacra of the Early Church. This refers to the scribal practice of abbreviating divine names/titles (generally considered to be after the model of the tetragrammaton “YHWH”) cf. MTNT3:261; COMFORT:47-48; TRKW:13-14. Metzger defined them as “divine names written in contracted form with a supralinear line”. Although the practice is common in the earliest of NT fragments, it only occasionally occurs in pre-NT times. In the LXX for example, its usage is sporadic–sometimes “kurios” (Gr. for “YHWH”) is NOT abbreviated, sometimes it is replaces by a old-style Hebrew “YHWH”, sometimes the “YHWH” is vocalized with Greek vowels! (as i
n 4QLxxLev-b).
The only words in the early documents that are abbreviated are DIVINE names and titles:
Jesus
Lord
Christ
God
Spirit
Father
[In later documents, the other titles of Christ were added–e.g., David, Savior.]
The premier study of this phenomena was by Colin Roberts (Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, London: 1979), who held that this system probably originated in Jerusalem before 70 ad. (due the high “Name” theological orientation of that church).
The significance of this to our study should be obvious–the use of nomina sacra tips us off to which names were taken to refer to DEITY! And “Jesus” was one of those names (as was the Spirit). This indicates an early and systematic 'high view' of Jesus Christ–specifically, that He was worthy of divine status.The “Humiliation” motif. We have run across a number of passages in our study that focus on the humiliation/condescension of Christ–that “though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor” (2 Cor 8.9). The pre-eminent passage for this is, of course, the Kenosis passage in Philipns 2:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This voluntary commitment of Christ–to becoming a human(!)–is held up as being a model for us to follow. We are to take upon ourselves the 'nature of a servant' and focus on the welfare and needs of others. Indeed, it is in the context of the exalted and divine nature of Christ that this humiliation of the incarnation takes on deeper hues. So Bickersteth (BTT:93) in that wonderful 19th-century style, writes:
Now our whole souls are filled with one thought–the condescension of God. Now we shall not be stumbled at passages which speak of the exceeding humiliation to which he stooped. As we assign no limit to the height of his glory, we shall assign none to the depths of his grace. Yea, so far from taking offense at the inferiority of the position which he assumed, the very lowliness of his incarnation and very degradation of the death he died, will kindle in us a brighter and more burning gratitude, when we remember that though rich it was for your sakes he became poor; and that for us, his wayward and wandering sheep, the chief Shepherd offered up himself as the Lamb of God, laying down his life of his own accord, and taking it up again to die no more.
The core of the humiliation was, of course, becoming human and experiencing life as a creature might (BTT:93):
Now, we must maintain the reality of the humanity of Christ (as we do His deity) and not posit the one AGAINST the other. Again, Bickersteth (BTT:108):
And now every generous feeling within you brands it as the basest ingratitude to allege these proofs of his humanity in disproof of his Deity, to trample on his lowliness that you may pluck the diadem from his brow, and to find cause in the true sympathy of him who was in all points tempted as we, and touched with the feelings of our infirmities, for denying the excellence of that glory which he had with the Father before the world was…but can we forgive ourselves, if we deliberately select the instances of our Lord's lowest humiliation and cast them forth in his teeth, as proving that he never dwelt from eternity in the light that no man can approach unto, nor inhabited from everlasting that shrine of unfathomable delights, the bosom of the Father?
The obvious point here is that those passages that speak of the condescension and humiliation of Christ in becoming human MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL if He was only human to begin with! To be meaningful–both cognitively and practically–they MUST have an extremely exalted view of Christ as backdrop for the 'humiliation' statements to 'work'. He must have been “true God of true God”.
Hi,
Jesus Christ is the Word, the only begotten Son of God, who was of divine nature, made flesh. But God is God and he was not that God he was with in the beginning. Neither is he a deity to be worshipped. He was filled with the Spirit of his Father.
He is who he said he was and who his followers said he was, the Son of God. He came not to be worshipped or serve but to serve and worship his Father and to draw all men to do the same.
The answers are not to be found in the vain speculations of men but in the Word of God.
Coll 3.1
” Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ , keep seeking the things above, where CHRIST IS, SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. Set your mind on the things above ,not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life , is revealed , then you will also be revealed with him in Glory”We who have been reborn are in Christ who is at the Right hand of God and is not that God. Christ has unity with God but is not that God and so will we share that unity.
Nick,
So who is Christ to you?
We all know and agree He is the “Son of God” at His incarnation.
But, before His incarnation, was He to you a demigod, an exalted angel, created, formless, a “son of God” as spoken in Gen and Job, begotten, brought forth…?
Did He not pre-exist His incarnation?
Just who do you say became flesh? Who was the “Word of God” that took on flesh and became the Son of the Most High?
And what did He “empty” Himself of according to your doctrine?
Hi FYI,
We do not know that much about the Word who was with God in the beginning. He is the only begotten Son through whom all creation, including Satan, was formed. He is the firstborn of the sons of God who are shown in Job. He was the image of God who shed his own divine glory and attributes to come as man.
He had no body in heaven as the only begotten Son of God and became the physical son of God at his conception. He was above all the angels and the other sons of God in heaven.
He was sent from heaven became fully man with body, soul and spirit of his own. His soul was a vessel of gold as shown in 2Tim 2 and those who had spiritual eyes could see this and knew who he was and where he had come from.
But to natural men, even his own family, he appeared to be an insignificant, even a deluded, man.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
