Jesus Christ is God BUT NOT THE FATHER - WHP CAME UP WITH THIS????

[Scotth1960]

Another false dichotomy... There wasn't a "persons" term to deny for nearly 200 years. I've never represented that anyone did such a thing. Nobody said God wasn't a pink elephant, either. The key is... nobody affirmed Trinity or persons for 200 years. There is no written source that says, "I disaffirm the future term "persons" for doctrinal formulation 'til 200AD."



None spoke of it... PERIOD. Clement of Rome? Polycarp? Ignatius? NADA. You originally said they did, 'til I whittled you down.



^ See my previous post. ^



Agreed. (Though you'll likely perceive that as arrogance.)



I clearly said scholars agreed it was lost. I found nothing in 13 years of research to indicate otherwise. I don't just make casual ignorant general statements that are unfounded. I provided events, names, dates. You should at least admit that.



From what is written, there is nothing to indicate they did, and that's substantial. I seldom use the word stupid, but I'm gettin' close to doing so with your reasoning here. There is no indication of such exception your hopeful presumption. The concensus of Trinity scholars concurs with this simple assertion. Only the GOC claims an unsubstantiatable oral tradition that defies history of Trinity formulation.



You're welcome. Somebody's gotta do it to refute all the supposition masquerading as truth. Shame on you for ignorantly saying something different.



You forgot. "Persons" emerged to refute well-developed Sabellianism. I've never denied it was PART of the early church landscape; that's actually been my point all along... it was merely one of many formulations during that period. You, on the other hand, just ignore the 5 other formulations that were also a PART of the early church.

So, are you arguing from silence that because, as you think, no Church father said Trinity or persons till after 200 AD, no one before then believed in the Trinity? How do you know that? You presume too much. You admit Oneness comes from Sabellianism. Sabellianism was rejected by the Church. There is such a Body of Christ, the Church, which is visible and identifiable in history. And the Church always believed in the Trinity, as Trinity is apostolic doctrine (Matthew 28:19 speaks of the Trinity).
Here is what we can learn about Oneness Pentecostalism.
"UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH INTERNATIONAL Founded: 1945 Membership: est. 600,000 in 3,876 churches (2000)
"The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) was founded in 1945 by the union of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ and the Pentecostal Church, Inc. Each of those bodies was itself the result of mergers of other Pentecostal bodies in the 1930s. All the constituent members were "oneness" ("Jesus only") Pentecostals who withdrew from the Assemblies of God in 1916.
"The doctrinal view of the UPCI reflect most of the beliefs of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement (See HOLINESS CHURCHES: PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES), with the exception of the "second work of grace," the historic doctrine of the Trinity, and the traditional trinitarian formula in water baptism. Holiness of life is understood to be an aspect of God's salvation of an individual, not the result of a subsequent experience. The oneness view held by the UPCI asserts that God "revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah and in the New Testament revealed Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ is thus the one true God manifested in flesh and the Holy Ghost [sic[ is the Spirit of God/ the resurrected Christ. Baptism is carried out in Jesus' name only. The church embraces the Pentecostal view that speaking in tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. For the UPCI, the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and the church rejects all extra-biblical revelations and writings, such as church creeds and writings." (page 289). Handbook of Denominations in the United States 11th Edition. Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hiklll 11th Edition revised by Craig D. Atwood. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001.

If the UPCI rejects all extra-biblical writings and creeds, why does it have a publishing house and sell Oneness books which explicate the Oneness creed? These are all extra-biblical writings. There is no rejection of extra-biblical writings. They write plenty of Oneness commentary upon the Bible, from their Oneness, Jesus only point of view!
Note: this group existed only from approximately 1945 years after the birth of Christ. The belief in the Trinity is apostolic doctrine and existed in the words of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ from the day St. Matthew heard Him speak His words which Matthew recorded in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19. Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Trinity.
Take care.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You have no grasp of history. I have no further desire to go around this mountain with you. Your accusations and assertions are wearying.

 

[Scotth1960]

You have no grasp of history. I have no further desire to go around this mountain with you. Your accusations and assertions are wearying.

So your only argument is an ad hominem attack of me personally? I accuse no one. What think you of the doctrines of Sabellius? How did he exegete Scripture? Do you exegete it the same way that he did? With your knowledge of history, you will provide the answer, yes?

 

[Cleante]

Alright

I know it's probably annoying of me to keep doing this, but I have to ingrain it in your mind:

One being --- Three Persons

One what----three Who's



God Bless

One Ousia, Three Hypostasis.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So your only argument is an ad hominem attack of me personally? I accuse no one.

It wasn't an attack. It wasn't personal. It was factual.

What think you of the doctrines of Sabellius? How did he exegete Scripture?

There are no original writings of Sabellianist extant. All we know of them is from the writings of their detractors.

Do you exegete it the same way that he did? With your knowledge of history, you will provide the answer, yes?

Yes. We only know of Sabellian teaching from opposing writings. Sabellius himself is not the orginator of the doctrine. He was the most visible proponent of that teaching, so it was so named. Even opponents to Sabellius' doctrine had great respect for him personally.

I'm not Sabellian.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One Ousia, Three Hypostasis.

Scripture, please. God is not three hupostases.

 

[Scotth1960]

It wasn't an attack. It wasn't personal. It was factual.



There are no original writings of Sabellianist extant. All we know of them is from the writings of their detractors.



Yes. We only know of Sabellian teaching from opposing writings. Sabellius himself is not the orginator of the doctrine. He was the most visible proponent of that teaching, so it was so named. Even opponents to Sabellius' doctrine had great respect for him personally.

I'm not Sabellian.

Is Jesus Christ the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or is He the name of God the Son only?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Is Jesus Christ the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or is He the name of God the Son only?

There is no "God the Son". That's an erroneous Trinity construct.

God hath made Jesus both Lord (YHVH) and Christ (annointed).

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

You forgot a couple of the most prominent texts such as John 1:1, John 10:30, for both of these which are used by Sabellian's ironically teach just the opposite.

I put together a short response in regards to John 1:1 which was directed towards an active Jehovah's Witnesses (Arian) on another internet forum that asked the question, "Why do some criticize the NWT's Jn 1:1 for being indefinite, when the translators saw it as qualitative?" For the sake of time, I'll repost the piece for discussion purposes, but please keep in mind this was written to an Arian. In it, dsicusses the Sabellian view of John 1:1 and the purpose of the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c:

John 1:1 - "Re: Why do some criticize the NWT's Jn 1:1 for being indefinite, when the translators saw it as qualitative?"

I am one of many Trinitarians, along with Philip Harner, Julius Mantey, Daniel Wallace, James White, Robert Bowman, et al, that understand John 1:1c to refer to the nature of the Word, a qualitative understanding of John 1:1c. What must be asked and seriously thought-out is, “What is it that Trinitarians believe John 1:1 to be portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”

That simply does not mean that Jesus is "god-like," or "a god." Qualitative nouns signify neither definiteness ("the God"), nor indefiniteness ("a god"), but rather attribute all the qualities or attributes of the noun to the subject of the sentence. If "God" is qualitative in John 1:1c, it means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in the previous clause, belong to the Son. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. The Word is not likened as "a god-like one," "a divine one," or anything of the sort, as the polytheist/henotheist denomination, or in this case, abomination of the Jehovah’s Witnesses would insist. John did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one. Nor did John use the indefinite pronoun, ‘tis,’ to indicate that the Word was ‘a certain god,’ but not the one he was referring to in John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). Instead of using theios, John used theon (a form of the root word ‘theos’), the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (John 17:3).

I agree fully with Philip Harner when He said in the Journal of Biblical Literature, “The Word had the same nature as God”—He possesses all the same qualities, all the incommunicable attributes of God the Father. He is nothing less, nothing more—He is everything the Father is, and therefore, equal to the one He is with by nature and essence, not physically the same Person.

Granted, I’m not too fond of paraphrased translations, I believe the following translations capture John 1:1c best:

o NET, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.”

o Barclay New Testament, “When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.”

o TEV, “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; He was with God, and He was the same as God.”

o Cassirer New Testament, “It was the Word that was in the very beginning; and the Word was by the side of God, and the Word was the very same nature as God.”

o Revised English Bible, “In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.”
​

Granted, the most literal translation is, “and the Word was God.” However, it is better portrayed as in one of two ways, 1.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was absolute Deity [that which makes God, God; the state of being God; not merely to the attributes of Deity, but to the exact nature of God itself],” or 2.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was as to His essential nature, God.”

Consider this illustration, “In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man. She was in the beginning with Man.” Just as Man can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, so also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as Man can include both male and female as a class of being, (Genesis 5:2, "He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man…"), so too God can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.

The argument set forth by Jehovah’s Witnesses in support of the New World Translation typically goes much like this, “The reason why the NWT renders John 1:1c as ‘the Word was a god’ is that the first occurrence of ‘God’ (1:1b) has the article ‘the,' but the second occurrence of ‘God’ (1:1c) does not. ‘The God’ refers to the ‘definite’ God and the anarthrous theos (‘God’ without the article) refers to Jesus."

What should be noted is that when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the subject. A verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Logos was some sort of divine being, “a god,” “god-like." However, the verb does not precede an anarthrous predicate, rather, the anarthrous noun (theos) precedes the verb (ēn, “was”) in John 1:1c – “theos en ho logos,” not, “ho logos en theos,” or “ho logos en theios.”

Had John used the definite article in reference to the Logos, if he had said, “ho logos en ho theos,” he would have literally been saying that the Word was/is the same Person whom He is with, teaching Sabellianism – the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, et al. That is precisely why John 1:1c does not use the definite article in John 1:1c, “ho logos en ho theos.” The way John 1:1c reads without the article is the only way to make a distinction between the Theos and the Logos, while maintaining that the Logos, by His intrinsic nature is God.


*In regards to John 10:30, that little term for "one" ("hen") only means "unity," or "unified ones" (see Galatians 3:28, Matthew 19:5, Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Ephesians 4:6, John 11:52; Acts 4:32; Philippians 1:27, 2:2; Romans 12:5, 15:6; 1 Cor 12:5, 12). Should Christ had said, "ego kai ho pater mono esmen" he would had identified He and the Father as the exact same Person, that Jesus is the Father, and the Father is the Son. However, what it says is, "ego kai ho pater hen esmen," that is, "I and the Father, we are One."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You forgot a couple of the most prominent texts such as John 1:1, John 10:30, for both of these which are used by Sabellian's ironically teach just the opposite.

I put together a short response in regards to John 1:1 which was directed towards an active Jehovah's Witnesses (Arian) on another internet forum that asked the question, "Why do some criticize the NWT's Jn 1:1 for being indefinite, when the translators saw it as qualitative?" For the sake of time, I'll repost the piece for discussion purposes, but please keep in mind this was written to an Arian. In it, dsicusses the Sabellian view of John 1:1 and the purpose of the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c:

John 1:1 - "Re: Why do some criticize the NWT's Jn 1:1 for being indefinite, when the translators saw it as qualitative?"

I am one of many Trinitarians, along with Philip Harner, Julius Mantey, Daniel Wallace, James White, Robert Bowman, et al, that understand John 1:1c to refer to the nature of the Word, a qualitative understanding of John 1:1c. What must be asked and seriously thought-out is, “What is it that Trinitarians believe John 1:1 to be portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”

That simply does not mean that Jesus is "god-like," or "a god." Qualitative nouns signify neither definiteness ("the God"), nor indefiniteness ("a god"), but rather attribute all the qualities or attributes of the noun to the subject of the sentence. If "God" is qualitative in John 1:1c, it means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in the previous clause, belong to the Son. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. The Word is not likened as "a god-like one," "a divine one," or anything of the sort, as the polytheist/henotheist denomination, or in this case, abomination of the Jehovah’s Witnesses would insist. John did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one. Nor did John use the indefinite pronoun, ‘tis,’ to indicate that the Word was ‘a certain god,’ but not the one he was referring to in John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). Instead of using theios, John used theon (a form of the root word ‘theos’), the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (John 17:3).

I agree fully with Philip Harner when He said in the Journal of Biblical Literature, “The Word had the same nature as God”—He possesses all the same qualities, all the incommunicable attributes of God the Father. He is nothing less, nothing more—He is everything the Father is, and therefore, equal to the one He is with by nature and essence, not physically the same Person.

Granted, I’m not too fond of paraphrased translations, I believe the following translations capture John 1:1c best:

o NET, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.”

o Barclay New Testament, “When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.”

o TEV, “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; He was with God, and He was the same as God.”

o Cassirer New Testament, “It was the Word that was in the very beginning; and the Word was by the side of God, and the Word was the very same nature as God.”

o Revised English Bible, “In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.”
​

Granted, the most literal translation is, “and the Word was God.” However, it is better portrayed as in one of two ways, 1.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was absolute Deity [that which makes God, God; the state of being God; not merely to the attributes of Deity, but to the exact nature of God itself],” or 2.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was as to His essential nature, God.”

Consider this illustration, “In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man. She was in the beginning with Man.” Just as Man can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, so also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as Man can include both male and female as a class of being, (Genesis 5:2, "He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man…"), so too God can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.

The argument set forth by Jehovah’s Witnesses in support of the New World Translation typically goes much like this, “The reason why the NWT renders John 1:1c as ‘the Word was a god’ is that the first occurrence of ‘God’ (1:1b) has the article ‘the,' but the second occurrence of ‘God’ (1:1c) does not. ‘The God’ refers to the ‘definite’ God and the anarthrous theos (‘God’ without the article) refers to Jesus."

What should be noted is that when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the subject. A verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Logos was some sort of divine being, “a god,” “god-like." However, the verb does not precede an anarthrous predicate, rather, the anarthrous noun (theos) precedes the verb (ēn, “was”) in John 1:1c – “theos en ho logos,” not, “ho logos en theos,” or “ho logos en theios.”

Had John used the definite article in reference to the Logos, if he had said, “ho logos en ho theos,” he would have literally been saying that the Word was/is the same Person whom He is with, teaching Sabellianism – the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, et al. That is precisely why John 1:1c does not use the definite article in John 1:1c, “ho logos en ho theos.” The way John 1:1c reads without the article is the only way to make a distinction between the Theos and the Logos, while maintaining that the Logos, by His intrinsic nature is God.


*In regards to John 10:30, that little term for "one" ("hen") only means "unity," or "unified ones" (see Galatians 3:28, Matthew 19:5, Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Ephesians 4:6, John 11:52; Acts 4:32; Philippians 1:27, 2:2; Romans 12:5, 15:6; 1 Cor 12:5, 12). Should Christ had said, "ego kai ho pater mono esmen" he would had identified He and the Father as the exact same Person, that Jesus is the Father, and the Father is the Son. However, what it says is, "ego kai ho pater hen esmen," that is, "I and the Father, we are One."

First... Kudos! This is the first thorough exegesis and apologetic I've seen in quite some time. Thank you for your diligence and stewardship in the Word.

What's gonna bake your noodle is that I agree with everything except the one bolded word. The anarthrous rendering has long been a central issue for those who oppose the Deity of Christ; and I've often had to present this very type of apology to debunk the insistence that the anarthrous is subordinate to the articular.

The heis/hen (G1520) clarification is also one I've consistently had to make.

I'm not Sabellian, so I whole-heartedly agree with 99.9999% of your post besides the general descriptor "person".

Unlike others, you should/could understand these questions:

• What relation is R(h)ema (G4487) to Logos (G3056)?

• Can the Logos be thought/spoken without Rhema?

• What IS the Rhema of the Logos of God?


And... What does it mean that the Word proceeded*forth (exerchomai G1831aina) AND came (heko G2240pin) from (ek G1537) God (Theos G2316); NEITHER came (erchomai G2064pfi) BUT sent (apostellos G649aina)?

And more so... What does it mean that the Word will*send*unto (pempo G3992ft) us from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962) the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607pinm) from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962), whom the Father will*send (pempo G3992ft) in Jesus' name (onoma G3686art-nn)?

 

[Scotth1960]

There is no "God the Son". That's an erroneous Trinity construct.

God hath made Jesus both Lord (YHVH) and Christ (annointed).

Questions: If Jesus Christ is Lord, is He not God?
Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?
If Jesus Christ is Lord, is He not God?
If Jesus Christ is the Son, is He not God the Son?
You are being illogical. And un-Scriptural. God the Son is the teaching of the Scriptures.
You protest because you think it's not Scriptural. But then you say you are not "sola Scriptura".
Which is it: are you, or are you not, for "sola Scriptura"?
On the basis of your logic, you should be able to produce a Scripture that proves "an erroneous Trinity construct" (sic). But then you might try to have it both ways and say you are not sola Scriptura.
The truth is in the Church: only in the Church of the living God is there the true interpretation of the Scriptures, because the Church wrote the Scriptures. And the Church recorded Christ's words in Matthew 28:19 and says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of this verse are persons.
No one has been able to come up with a better word than persons, and so they fall into errors of non sequitur, of illogic, in looking up mulberry trees in the Bible, and using the non-Scriptural word "Siamese" to attack the Trinity.
Go figure.

 

[Scotth1960]

First... Kudos! This is the first thorough exegesis and apologetic I've seen in quite some time. Thank you for your diligence and stewardship in the Word.

What's gonna bake your noodle is that I agree with everything except the one bolded word. The anarthrous rendering has long been a central issue for those who oppose the Deity of Christ; and I've often had to present this very type of apology to debunk the insistence that the anarthrous is subordinate to the articular.

The heis/hen (G1520) clarification is also one I've consistently had to make.

I'm not Sabellian, so I whole-heartedly agree with 99.9999% of your post besides the general descriptor "person".

Unlike others, you should/could understand these questions:

• What relation is R(h)ema (G4487) to Logos (G3056)?

• Can the Logos be thought/spoken without Rhema?

• What IS the Rhema of the Logos of God?


And... What does it mean that the Word proceeded*forth (exerchomai G1831aina) AND came (heko G2240pin) from (ek G1537) God (Theos G2316); NEITHER came (erchomai G2064pfi) BUT sent (apostellos G649aina)?

And more so... What does it mean that the Word will*send*unto (pempo G3992ft) us from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962) the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607pinm) from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962), whom the Father will*send (pempo G3992ft) in Jesus' name (onoma G3686art-nn)?

I am not an expert on every Greek word in the NT, so I am not able to say whether you are thoroughly qualified or not to base your doctrine on a knowledge of Greek words.
As for John 15:26 to send from the Father, and to proceed from the Father, are two different things. The papal West confuses send with proceed, and so it comes up with the Filioque doctrine. They wrongly think that because the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, then the Spirit must proceed from the Son. John 15:26 where Christ Himself is the One speaking merely says "who proceeds from the Father", so we are forbidden by Christ Himself to say "and the Son", as Christ does not say that. He would have said "and the Son" right in that verse, if He intended for the Church to believe that the Spirit comes from Him. Christ would conceal nothing here; so, the Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
That is all I am certain of, and so it convinced me to trust the Orthodox Church. Since the Church is correct on this, it is also correct to say persons and Trinity. Since Matthew 16:18 is correct, and says the Church will prevail until the end of time against heresies and errors, it's just a question of where the Church was when Christ said this. He was in the Middle East, and His Church was mainly Jewish, with a few Gentile converts; as time went by, there were fewer Jews, and more Gentiles. And the Church used Greek. And the fathers of the Church used Greek. And their teachings were correct, and thus orthodox, and universal, and thus catholic. Thus the true faith was called the orthodox faith and the catholic faith. And thus the Church is the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, and in the Creed merely "one holy catholic and apostolic church". The Church lost some large number of her members to heresy and schism in 1054 over papal jurisdiction and power and Rome's alleged right to change the Creed of the Church by saying "Filioque" in the Mass. Go figure. Filioque is heresy. Papal Rome from then on was heretical. Is heretical now.
I was heretical too, for my Lutheranism came from Rome's Filioque.
It was just a schism from a schism. Another heresy from the original heresy of semi-Sabellianism. Luther was right about some things, but wrong about others. That's the case of Rome today; some truths, mixed with some errors.
It is an error to reject the Trinity.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Questions: If Jesus Christ is Lord, is He not God?
Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?
If Jesus Christ is Lord, is He not God?
If Jesus Christ is the Son, is He not God the Son?
You are being illogical. And un-Scriptural. God the Son is the teaching of the Scriptures.
You protest because you think it's not Scriptural. But then you say you are not "sola Scriptura".
Which is it: are you, or are you not, for "sola Scriptura"?
On the basis of your logic, you should be able to produce a Scripture that proves "an erroneous Trinity construct" (sic). But then you might try to have it both ways and say you are not sola Scriptura.
The truth is in the Church: only in the Church of the living God is there the true interpretation of the Scriptures, because the Church wrote the Scriptures. And the Church recorded Christ's words in Matthew 28:19 and says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of this verse are persons.
No one has been able to come up with a better word than persons, and so they fall into errors of non sequitur, of illogic, in looking up mulberry trees in the Bible, and using the non-Scriptural word "Siamese" to attack the Trinity.
Go figure.

You have no credibility. Go figure. I'm not going to engage irrationals in further discourse.

And the Church didn't write the Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the author.

 

[Scotth1960]

Scripture, please. God is not three hupostases.

Where does Matthew 28:19 say God is not three? Where does it say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not hupostases? Where do you get your doctrine of "no hupoastases"?

 

[Scotth1960]

You have no credibility. Go figure. I'm not going to engage irrationals in further discourse.

And the Church didn't write the Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the author.

So, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, St. Luke in Acts, St. Paul in Romans through Hebrews, St. James, St. Peter, St. John in his epistles, St. Jude, St. John in Revelation, all of these were not men? They were the Holy Spirit? No. Scripture is a divine-human CO-OPERATION. MEN of GOD, INSPIRED by the HOLY SPIRIT, wrote the NT. To deny the human personality in Scripture is to fall into a sort of Gnosticism or some other heresy or error I can't identify at the moment. I'm sure there is a name for the heresy of denying the human character of Scripture. Even in the OT, we have Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel. All these books are named after their authors, the Prophets of God. Not the Holy Spirit directly. Of course all Scripture is THEOPNEUSTOS (God-breathed). The Spirit breathes THROUGH HUMAN MINDS. God's mind works in UNION with human personality in historical circumstances. Just think of the INCARNATION of CHRIST. God became a MAN in Jesus Christ! Think of the IMPLICATIONS! God doesn't DICTATE WORD-FOR-WORD FROM MT. SINAI. The letter killeth; the Spirit giveth life. God always works with people, and speaks His word to them using words He means for them to UNDERSTAND and OBEY.
Take care.
Actually, the Holy Spirit is the author through with and in the Church. It is not either/or. It is BOTH/AND.
Both the HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH produced the NT!

 

[Scotth1960]

[quote=PneumaPsucheSoma;399347]First... Kudos! This is the first thorough exegesis and apologetic I've seen in quite some time. Thank you for your diligence and stewardship in the Word.

What's gonna bake your noodle is that I agree with everything except the one bolded word. The anarthrous rendering has long been a central issue for those who oppose the Deity of Christ; and I've often had to present this very type of apology to debunk the insistence that the anarthrous is subordinate to the articular.

The heis/hen (G1520) clarification is also one I've consistently had to make.

I'm not Sabellian, so I whole-heartedly agree with 99.9999% of your post besides the general descriptor "person".

Unlike others, you should/could understand these questions:

• What relation is R(h)ema (G4487) to Logos (G3056)?

• Can the Logos be thought/spoken without Rhema?

• What IS the Rhema of the Logos of God?


And... What does it mean that the Word proceeded*forth (exerchomai G1831aina) AND came (heko G2240pin) from (ek G1537) God (Theos G2316); NEITHER came (erchomai G2064pfi) BUT sent (apostellos G649aina)?

And more so... What does it mean that the Word will*send*unto (pempo G3992ft) us from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962) the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607pinm) from (para G3844) the Father (pater G3962), whom the Father will*send (pempo G3992ft) in Jesus' name (onoma G3686art-nn)?[/quote]
Dear Pneumapsuchesoma, If you want to discuss Greek words, you should talk to Cleante, because he is Greek Orthodox. Thus, you can get the Church's tradition from him, and he is a native Greek-speaker, so he should know better than either you or me what Greek words mean. And thus he has natural, native access to the Greek language in Greece, and the preserved text of Constantinople, which is the divinely preserved inerrant copy of the original Greek NT. Nothing has been lost from the original Greek NT. Preserved infallibly is the Greek NT in the Greek OC. And because the Church is the Body of Christ, and the place where the Holy Spirit lives and breathes, Cleante can be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak the Gospel truth, and he can do better than I can, as he's a baptized member of the GOC. I'm just an ex-Protestant layman looking for a new home in the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church). Haven't entered into full communion with Orthodoxy yet. I'm just growing in grace, and I need more of God's grace to know and obey Christ better. I still need to be baptized by the Orthodox priest. That has yet to happen. I get my understanding of GOC doctrine from GO books and writings. Take care.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Where does Matthew 28:19 say God is not three? Where does it say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not hupostases? Where do you get your doctrine of "no hupoastases"?

You continue to selectively use Sola Scriptura from your Protestant roots. I do not, but you accuse me of doing so.

Hupostasis cannot be superimposed where it doesn't exist. I'm not being Sola Scriptura when saying that.

YOU insist on a Sola Scriptura NEGATIVE to prove Trinity. You are both inconsistent and irrational.

Just stop.

 

[Scotth1960]

You continue to selectively use Sola Scriptura from your Protestant roots. I do not, but you accuse me of doing so.

Hupostasis cannot be superimposed where it doesn't exist. I'm not being Sola Scriptura when saying that.

YOU insist on a Sola Scriptura NEGATIVE to prove Trinity. You are both inconsistent and irrational.

Just stop.

I believe in the Trinity because the Church teaches Trinity. That is not a sola Scriptura argument. Matthew 28:19 doesn't deny persons, neither does it say persons. But if you claim the NT doesn't mean "persons" or Trinity, you have failed to identify which teacher between 30 AD and 180 AD taught the same thing as you teach. With your extensive knowledge of early Church history, you should be able to trace a line from them to yourself, and then back from them to the 12 apostles. You should be able to show that is the teaching of the NT. As it is, the knowledge of the truth takes time to learn. Take care.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

[Dear Pneumapsuchesoma, If you want to discuss Greek words, you should talk to Cleante, because he is Greek Orthodox. Thus, you can get the Church's tradition from him, and he is a native Greek-speaker, so he should know better than either you or me what Greek words mean. And thus he has natural, native access to the Greek language in Greece, and the preserved text of Constantinople, which is the divinely preserved inerrant copy of the original Greek NT. Nothing has been lost from the original Greek NT. Preserved infallibly is the Greek NT in the Greek OC. And because the Church is the Body of Christ, and the place where the Holy Spirit lives and breathes, Cleante can be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak the Gospel truth, and he can do better than I can, as he's a baptized member of the GOC. I'm just an ex-Protestant layman looking for a new home in the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church). Haven't entered into full communion with Orthodoxy yet. I'm just growing in grace, and I need more of God's grace to know and obey Christ better. I still need to be baptized by the Orthodox priest. That has yet to happen. I get my understanding of GOC doctrine from GO books and writings. Take care.

Cleante is welcome to respond. I'm not asking for information; I'm looking to see who else can exegete those verses in-depth, especially ekporeuomai. Then we can move on from there.

GGBUY seems competent, and I was addressing him.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I believe in the Trinity because the Church teaches Trinity. That is not a sola Scriptura argument. Matthew 28:19 doesn't deny persons, neither does it say persons. But if you claim the NT doesn't mean "persons" or Trinity, you have failed to identify which teacher between 30 AD and 180 AD taught the same thing as you teach. With your extensive knowledge of early Church history, you should be able to trace a line from them to yourself, and then back from them to the 12 apostles. You should be able to show that is the teaching of the NT. As it is, the knowledge of the truth takes time to learn. Take care.

Okay. Believe as you will and why you will. I've given a copious overview several times, and I've been consistent and credible. No need to keep repeating myself. No need to present an opposing exegesis to those who are fully indoctrinated.