The soul of man

[Butch5]

You have provided no Greek lexicon understanding of the meaning of theos but have imposed your view on who Jesus is.

Do you affirm that Jesus is fully God (as in Jn 1:1 ESV)?

Oz

You'll have to define God so that I can answer and you can't equivocate.

 

[JohnDB]

From the TOS:
2.6: A member may not impose additional rules upon threads by claiming on/off topic or by other means.

This means that in order to have a discussion...one member may not "force" another one to answer anything.

 

[OzSpen]

Are you seriously posting something from "Got Questions"? There is much erroneous theology on that page.​

That's a red herring. I provided a quote from 'Got Questions' about the nature of Modalism and it was correct in what it stated, based on the heresy of Modalism as demonstrated in church history.

For you to state that 'Got Questions' presents 'much erroneous theology', without giving one example, demonstrates how this response by you is a red herring fallacy.

Jim said, "God has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided."

That sure looks like Modalism to me. Now I realize that the part about the Trinity was added, but that doesn't take away from the statement, that there is one being who has revealed "Himself" as three others.​

I have provided biblical evidence for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be regarded as God. See #195: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/the-soul-of-man.66737/page-10

Throughout this thread I have affirmed the triune God and so has Jim.

I'm sorry that you find it staggering that I would seek to understand what Jim is saying. Sure, I could just "ASSUME" that I know what Jim is thinking and what he means. However, I have found that it makes a conversation much easier when both parties understand what they other is saying. Since the idea of a being called God that consists of three persons in "NOT" stated anywhere in the Scriptures it's clear that it is an inference. Since it is an inference it is subject to the thinking of each individual who infers it. Thus different people may have different ideas. So, rather than spending time replying to something that Jim "DIDN'T" say, (hint), I asked him to explain.

If you read this thread carefully, you would know that Jim supports the Trinity (the triune nature of God).

If Jim were supporting other than the triune God, my understanding is that he would have to ply his wares under the 'Christianity & Other Religions' banner on this forum.

What is the statement of faith of this forum? Does it deny the trinitarian God?

The Statement of Faith of this forum includes this statement: 'We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'.

Do you agree or disagree with this SoF?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You'll have to define God so that I can answer and you can't equivocate.

You are the one promoting a view of God that seems to be contrary to biblical evidence. I haven't seen you defend your view and in opposition to the evidence I provided at #195.

I do not need to define God any further. I did that in detail at #195.

I support the orthodox, Trinitarian view of God. See: Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You'll have to define God so that I can answer and you can't equivocate.

See my reply at #195 where I support the triune God, in agreement with the Statement of Faith of this forum. I never equivocate on the nature of God, who is revealed in Scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

And that revelation can also be corrupted. And that's what happened. It's not a matter of it being clarified. This idea is contrary to what was taught in the beginning. The first Christians were taught by Jesus and the apostles and they did not believe in a being called God who consisted of three persons.

Butch,
I believe the church back at the beginning, for which many were martyred, was very careful not to be corrupted.
I have to assume that you know a lot of church history and are well-versed in the bible.

If a belief that was present at the beginning, and is also present today, we can safely assume that the revelation was not corrupted.

When Thomas saw Jesus' wounds he said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God." I'm sure you realize that it must not have been of little importance for a Jewish person of that time and born in Israel (Galilee) t proclaim a man to be God. They understood the difference between Lord, LORD, god and God. The Apostles did not believe in gods, but only in God. Thomas clearly meant to call Jesus God.

And as to ongoing revelation, I'm posting below a writing from St. Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John. He wrote letters while on his way to be martyred in Rome. These letters are accepted as authentic.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

To The Smyrneans

1. I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has given you wisdom. For I have perceived that you are firmly settled in unwavering faith, being nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, fully convinced as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled in Him, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch truly nailed up for us in the flesh (of whose fruit are we, even of His most blessed Passion); that He might raise up an ensign to the ages through His resurrection, for his saints and believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, in one body of His church.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

You can read all the letters here:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/IGNATIUS.HTM

I find it important to note again, as I'm sure you know, that those who knew Jesus or those of the generation who knew the Apostles and even after that, understood that Jesus was not a "god", and also understood the importance of calling one "God."

Wondering

 

[Butch5]

That's a red herring. I provided a quote from 'Got Questions' about the nature of Modalism and it was correct in what it stated, based on the heresy of Modalism as demonstrated in church history.

For you to state that 'Got Questions' presents 'much erroneous theology', without giving one example, demonstrates how this response by you is a red herring fallacy.

Are we gonna start this again? I was challenging your evidence, not making an argument. Got questions has quite a bit of theology that is demonstrably wrong. However, to post that in this thread is to talk it off topic.

I have provided biblical evidence for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be regarded as God. See #195: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/the-soul-of-man.66737/page-10

Which isn't in question. What is in question is what is God? You guys have claimed God is a being that consists of three persons. That you have provided Biblical evidence for. I on the other hand have said that God, which is translated from the Greek word "theos" means Deity. Thus the Father and Son can both be Deity (God) and yet not be one being. I have also provided historical evidence of this from Tertullian who is credited with coining the term as it applies to God.

Throughout this thread I have affirmed the triune God and so has Jim.



If you read this thread carefully, you would know that Jim supports the Trinity (the triune nature of God).

If Jim were supporting other than the triune God, my understanding is that he would have to ply his wares under the 'Christianity & Other Religions' banner on this forum.

What is the statement of faith of this forum? Does it deny the trinitarian God?

The Statement of Faith of this forum includes this statement: 'We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'.
Oz

I am well aware of what you and Jim have affirmed. It is my contention that what you have affirmed is a logical contradiction and not supported by Scripture

Do you agree or disagree with this SoF?

I have to wonder why you are asking me this question. I've seen this asked before by others when they couldn't support a doctrine and used as an attempt to end the conversation. However, I will answer your question I affirm that there is a Trinity, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, I don't affirm that they are one single being. Neither does the Nicene Creed.

 

[Butch5]

From the TOS:
2.6: A member may not impose additional rules upon threads by claiming on/off topic or by other means.

This means that in order to have a discussion...one member may not "force" another one to answer anything.

Just asking for clarification. People equivocate on the word God. So, I wanted to have an exact definition so as to have a basis for comparison after my answer.

 

[Free]

The passage says idols, not gods. Paul said the gods of the heathen were demons. He said the heathen worship demons.
If being called God isn't the only criteria what else is?

The passage clearly says gods. The only criteria one needs is "someone" having the attributes of God. That should be obvious. There are attributes that God alone has, which is precisely why he is God.

I know the wording is precise, but it still can't avoid the contradiction. Three beings cannot be one being.

You say the wording is precise, yet you continue to change the wording, making a strawman. It most certainly is not "three beings that are one being," just as it is not "three persons that are one person," or "three Gods that are one God". Those are contradictions. It is "three persons within the one being that is God." It is difficult to comprehend; a paradox, not a contradiction.

In your post you listed things we know from the Bible. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. That statement shows that the Trinity isn't in the Bible. It shows that the doctrine is by way of inference. Since it's an inference it is the product of the human mind. That means it can be wrong.

It could be wrong but it has the best explanatory power of all that Scripture reveals about the nature of God, and is therefore mostly likely correct. If all the criteria are there, if all the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are in the Bible, then most certainly the inference could be correct.

Since the idea of one being consisting of three persons is contradictory why not seek another inference, one that is logical?

Again, it is not contradictory, nor is it illogical. Just because something is difficult to comprehend doesn't mean that it is a contradiction or illogical. We have the information the Bible reveals to us, so that is what we work with.

 

[Butch5]

You are the one promoting a view of God that seems to be contrary to biblical evidence. I haven't seen you defend your view and in opposition to the evidence I provided at #195.

I do not need to define God any further. I did that in detail at #195.

I support the orthodox, Trinitarian view of God. See: Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

Oz

On the contrary, I'm the one who is presenting the Biblical God. I've affirmed Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 6:8.

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.1 (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

I've affirmed Jesus' statement.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Jn. 17:1-3 KJV)

I've affirmed the Nicene Creed which opens with,

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

I think it's pretty clear that what I'm saying is Biblical. One the other hand, while you've shown clearly that Jesus is Deity, you've not shown anything that proves that, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one being. You've inferred that.

 

[Free]

The problem is in the definition of God. Theos means deity. I agree that Jesus is Deity. However, what you've posted here doesn't prove the one being consists of three persons idea.

You're dodging. You didn't even try to address my points. You continue to claim that theos means deity but have yet to provide proof of that claim. Notice how many times theos is used in the NT (1314 times) and how many times it is translated as "deity" (hint: 0):

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/theos.html

Let's try this again, this time with you addressing the points I made:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

How can "the Father, from whom are all things" not refer to his omnipotence? If he created everything that has come into being, it means that he is exceedingly powerful. Similarly then, "Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," speaks of the same.

This is why we call Jesus God. If all things came through Jesus, as Paul explicitly states here, then it necessarily follows that Jesus could not be one of those things. Simple, sound logic. And that is precisely what I gave John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:16-17, as they give the exact same argument:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

First, since I don't know Greek, I must lean on other sources. Those sources tell me that the Greek behind "In the beginning was," means that the Word was already in existence when the beginning began. Second, we see the very clear logical argument that Paul also made:

1. All things were made through [the Son].
2. Without [the Son] was not any thing made that was made.

The second statement is just a clearer statement of the first, emphasizing his point, namely, that if everything that has come into existence was made through the Son, then it is logically impossible for the Son to have been one of those created things. That cannot be denied without ignoring logic. Those two verses alone give us several reasons as to why we can correctly claim that Jesus is God in the truest sense, including the very statement "the Word was God."

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Again, the very same argument. If Jesus is uncreated, and he is as these three passages clearly show, then he is, by definition, God.

 

[Butch5]

Butch,
I believe the church back at the beginning, for which many were martyred, was very careful not to be corrupted.
I have to assume that you know a lot of church history and are well-versed in the bible.

If a belief that was present at the beginning, and is also present today, we can safely assume that the revelation was not corrupted.

When Thomas saw Jesus' wounds he said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God." I'm sure you realize that it must not have been of little importance for a Jewish person of that time and born in Israel (Galilee) t proclaim a man to be God. They understood the difference between Lord, LORD, god and God. The Apostles did not believe in gods, but only in God. Thomas clearly meant to call Jesus God.

And as to ongoing revelation, I'm posting below a writing from St. Ignatius of Antioch. He knew John. He wrote letters while on his way to be martyred in Rome. These letters are accepted as authentic.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

To The Smyrneans

1. I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has given you wisdom. For I have perceived that you are firmly settled in unwavering faith, being nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, fully convinced as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled in Him, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch truly nailed up for us in the flesh (of whose fruit are we, even of His most blessed Passion); that He might raise up an ensign to the ages through His resurrection, for his saints and believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, in one body of His church.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

You can read all the letters here:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/IGNATIUS.HTM

I find it important to note again, as I'm sure you know, that those who knew Jesus or those of the generation who knew the Apostles and even after that, understood that Jesus was not a "god", and also understood the importance of calling one "God."

Wondering

Hi Wondering, I am familiar with Ignatius. However, this quote calls Jesus God or Deity. No one is denying that Jesus is Deity. So any passage that says Jesus is God is not proving that, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being, it's proving that Jesus is Deity.

Regarding Thomas it is the same thing. Jesus is Deity, that's not in question. But saying all three are Deity is different than saying all three are one being.

I am familiar with Ignatius.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Wondering, I am familiar with Ignatius. However, this quote calls Jesus God or Deity. No one is denying that Jesus is Deity. So any passage that says Jesus is God is not proving that, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being, it's proving that Jesus is Deity.

Regarding Thomas it is the same thing. Jesus is Deity, that's not in question. But saying all three are Deity is different than saying all three are one being.

I am familiar with Ignatius.

I see.
So you do not believe that three persons are in one God, instead you believe that God is in three persons.
Is my understanding correct?

 

[OzSpen]

Are we gonna start this again? I was challenging your evidence, not making an argument. Got questions has quite a bit of theology that is demonstrably wrong. However, to post that in this thread is to talk it off topic.

Which isn't in question. What is in question is what is God? You guys have claimed God is a being that consists of three persons. That you have provided Biblical evidence for. I on the other hand have said that God, which is translated from the Greek word "theos" means Deity. Thus the Father and Son can both be Deity (God) and yet not be one being. I have also provided historical evidence of this from Tertullian who is credited with coining the term as it applies to God.

I am well aware of what you and Jim have affirmed. It is my contention that what you have affirmed is a logical contradiction and not supported by Scripture

I have to wonder why you are asking me this question. I've seen this asked before by others when they couldn't support a doctrine and used as an attempt to end the conversation. However, I will answer your question I affirm that there is a Trinity, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, I don't affirm that they are one single being. Neither does the Nicene Creed.

Butch,

You stated:

1. 'Got questions has quite a bit of theology that is demonstrably wrong'. You provided no evidence, so this statement is your opinion by personal assertion.
2. 'You guys have claimed God is a being that consists of three persons. That you have provided Biblical evidence for. I on the other hand have said that God, which is translated from the Greek word "theos" means Deity'. You have provided ZERO biblical evidence to support this.
   
3. 'what you [Jim & Oz] have affirmed is a logical contradiction and not supported by Scripture. You have not demonstrated that, so it's your personal information. I've demonstrated evidence for the triune God (with accompanying Scripture) at #195 in this thread.
4. ' I affirm that there is a Trinity, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, I don't affirm that they are one single being. Neither does the Nicene Creed'. Do you affirm that there is one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all three of whom are God?

This is:

Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This affirms:

1. God the Father who is creator of all;
2. Jesus Christ, only-begotten, God of God, very God of very God, of one substance with the Father;
3. The Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and Son, and is worshipped with the Father and Son. Who is worshipped by Christians? God!

I support, affirm, believe in and promote the triune God who is affirmed in Scripture and the Nicene Creed.

Seems as though you are wanting to push me into an unorthodox doctrine when I'm an orthodox Trinitarian. Do you get it?

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Below I have posted a description of "Begging the Question." I have done so to show that the line of argumentation you guys are using is a fallacy. Your premise is that God is a being that consists of three persons. The evidence is Scripture refers to Jesus as God. Conclusion God is a being that consists of three persons. Your conclusion just a restatement of your premise. There is nothing in your evidence that shows that God is a being that consists of three persons.


Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. 
   
   
2. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
3. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

1. 
   
   
2. Bill: "God must exist."
   Jill: "How do you know."
   Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
   Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
   Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

 

[Butch5]

I see.
So you do not believe that three persons are in one God, instead you believe that God is in three persons.
Is my understanding correct?

I believe that theos means deity. The Father is Deity, and the Son is Deity. They are both of the same essence or nature, but are not the same being. The only reason I see for understanding that they are one being is misunderstanding the word God defined as a being rather than defined as Deity. The same word theos is used through Scriptures of false gods, men, etc. If the word meant the God of Israel it wouldn't be used in these other ways.

 

[Free]

I believe that theos means deity. The Father is Deity, and the Son is Deity. They are both of the same essence or nature, but are not the same being. The only reason I see for understanding that they are one being is misunderstanding the word God defined as a being rather than defined as Deity. The same word theos is used through Scriptures of false gods, men, etc. If the word meant the God of Israel it wouldn't be used in these other ways.

So at a minimum, you believe in two Gods. That's "bitheism," not Christianity.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe that theos means deity. The Father is Deity, and the Son is Deity. They are both of the same essence or nature, but are not the same being. The only reason I see for understanding that they are one being is misunderstanding the word God defined as a being rather than defined as Deity. The same word theos is used through Scriptures of false gods, men, etc. If the word meant the God of Israel it wouldn't be used in these other ways.

Mary is referred to as Theokos.
Of course this means " mother of God".
So we have to accept that "theos, in Christian circles, means God.
Why?
Because WE do not decide the Christian faith. It was decided for us by the Apostles and those who came after them.

Christianity affirms that there are 3 persons in 1 God.
You must believe this to consider yourself a Christian.
Those who do not believe this cannot consider themselves Christian.

 

[OzSpen]

On the contrary, I'm the one who is presenting the Biblical God. I've affirmed Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 6:8.

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.1 (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

You don't seem to get the contradiction between your view of God and the verse you quote here. You can't even get the verse correct, calling it 1 Cor 6:8 in the first paragraph and then quoting 1 Cor 8:6 in the citation. The latter verse is the one you quote.

What does 1 Cor 8:6 (KJV) teach?

1. 'One God, the Father, of whom are all things';
2. 'One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things'.

So both the Father and the Son created all things. How about that? This is confirmed in other Scriptures, along with the Holy Spirit's involvement in creation:

1. God the Father as creator (Isa 45:18 ESV; 1 Cor 8:6 ESV):
2. Jesus the Son as creator: John 1:3, 10 (ESV); 1 Cor 8:6 (ESV);
3. The Holy Spirit was involved in creation (Gen 1:1-2 ESV; Ps 33:6 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So at a minimum, you believe in two Gods. That's "bitheism," not Christianity.

Excellent observation, Free.