Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I wonder why the scribes and the Pharisees disagreed (John 8:48-59).
Odd that is. :AMR:
Our Lord Is Called God Explicitly
Matthew 1:23, "Emmanuel-God with us."
John 1:1, "The Word was God."
John 5:17-23, The Son is "equal" to his Father
John 8:53-59, Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:1-15
John 10:28-33, Jesus and the Father are equal
John 20:28 "The Lord of me and THE GOD of me."
Romans 9:5, Christ is God over all
Colossians 2:9, All the fullness of deity
Titus 2:13, "our Great God and Saviour."
Hebrews 1:8, "Thy throne O God."
1 John 5:20, "The true God."
Our Lord Is Described In Terms Reserved Only For God
Creator of ALL Things
John 1:3
Ephesians 3:9
Colossians 1:16,17
Hebrews 2:10
Revelation 3:14
The Almighty - Revelation 1:8 with 21:5-7; and 22:12,13,16,20
The First and Last - Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 (Compare Isaiah 44:6)
The Exact Representation of The Father - Hebrews 1:John 12:45 and 14:6-11, Isaiah 46:9
Our Lord Is Worshipped As God. (See Luke 4:8)
Revelation 5:11-13 (Compare Revelation 4:9-11)
Hebrews 1:6
O.T. and N.T. Cross-References
Isaiah 40:3 with John 1:23 & 3:28
Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10,11 and Romans 14:11
Isaiah 44:24 with John 1:3
Isaiah 6:1-5 with John 12:37-41
Isaiah 8:13,14 with I Peter 2:7,8
Isaiah 42:8 with John 17:5
Isaiah 60:19 with Luke 2:30-32
Psalms 102:24-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12
Psalms 45:6,7 with Hebrews 1:8,9
Psalms 23:1 with Isaiah 40:10,11 and John 10,11
I Kings 8:39 with Revelation 2:23
Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:9-13
Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58,59
Malachi 3:1 with Matthew 11:10
Exodus 19:18-21 with Hebrews 12:18-26
Zechariah 12:10 & 13:6,7 with John 19:34-37
Zechariah 14:4,5 with Matthew 24:29-31; Matthew 25:31; Jude 14,15; II Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 19:11-21
Our Lord Is God Made Flesh
- Philippians 2:5-8: Jesus "being in the form of God" (i.e., deity), did not consider it something to cling to, but emptied himself of his divine glory and perogatives, not his divine nature, and took upon his divine form "the form of a servant" (i.e., humanity), in order to suffer death.
- John 1:1,14: "In the beginning was (eternally) the Word and the Word was with God (i.e., the Father and Holy Spirit), and the Word was God (deity)." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
- Hebrews 1:3 and 2:9-18: Jesus is the "exact representation of His (God's) very being". No creature could possibly do that! But, Jesus set aside his infinite glory to become one of us so that he could be to us an, example in faith, the perfect sacrifice, our High Priest, Mediator, and Savior.
Who Is The "Angel Of Jehovah?"
Genesis 16:7-13
Genesis 18:1,13,17,20-22,26,33; 19:24
Genesis 22:11-18
Genesis 31:11-13
Genesis 32:24-30 (compare Hosea 12:4,5)
Genesis 48: 15,16
Exodus 3:1-15 (compare vs. 5 with Joshua 5: 14,15)
Exodus 23:20,21
Judges 6:11-23
In these passages the "Angel of Jehovah" speaks as Jehovah, is called Jehovah, does the works of Jehovah, and is worshipped by those to whom He appears. He is Our Lord, the Son of God.
And before you chime in with the usual retorts...
- John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." Just as the husband is positionally greater than the wife so the Father is greater the the Son when considering the economy of the Trinity. Both husband and wife are equally human as the Father and Son are equally divine.
- Colossians 1:15 "the Firstborn of all creation." "Firstborn" (Prototokos), not "first created" (Protoktistos). Firstborn is term that means first in importance. These scriptures bear that out: Genesis 41:51,52 with Jeremiah 31:9; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; Exodus 4:22; and Job 18:13.
- Revelation 3:14 "the beginning of the creation of God." We derive many words such as architect, archangel, arch-rival, from the Greek word arche translated beginning in this verse. It means "origin," "source," "chief," and "ruler." Jesus is the origin of all, the creator.
Still not convinced of your error?
Spoiler
Oneness Pentecostals. Sigh.
AMR
Okay, now that the dust has settled on this thread somewhat I have an observation to offer that really hasn't been addressed to this point (I think). If either or both notions of Tritheism/ Trinitarianism are correct then so are the Catholics … Mary was the mother of God.
brewmama
New member
Well, duh. Catholics aren't the only ones to say that. The whole point of the "Theotokos" is that Jesus is God.
You'll have to forgive me in that, being "unchurched", I'm not entirely conversant with the tenets of all denominations. I am something of an "outsider looking in" in this respect and so I no doubt have many questions and observations that might appear obvious or silly to some.
Obviously you feel that God had a mother. That is not something that occurred to me from reading the Bible nor reading the various definitions of "God" in the Hebrew in which they were originally given. So, I'm trying to understand the origins of this notion a little better, hence my observation.
Perhaps you'd like to share how you came to believe that God has a mother.
brewmama
New member
The whole debate over the title Theotokos was actually over the divinity of Christ. If Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of the second person in the Trinity. If she is not the mother of the second person of the Trinity, then He isn't God. It doesn't mean that she is the mother of God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or any of the other ridiculous non sequitur claims that ignorant people accuse the Church of. It evolved from the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? Nestorius rejected this proposition, answering that, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall, Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Nestorius argued that the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of Christ", and not Theotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of God".
Nestorius believed that no union between the human and divine was possible. If such a union of human and divine occurred, Nestorius believed that Christ could not truly be con-substantial with God and con-substantial with us because he would grow, mature, suffer and die (which Nestorius argued God cannot do) and also would possess the power of God that would separate him from being equal to humans.
So if you reject "Theotokos", you agree with Nestorius.
:up:
This is one the most important things about the Trinity that doesn't get enough mention or emphasis. Nowadays, anybody can interpret this title in whatever way they see fit, "God with us." But how did the Church from the earliest interpret it? That our Lord Jesus Christ is our Maker, in the flesh. There was no alternative, again, from the earliest.
Yes, the Orthodox Churches also believe this.
Arsenios
Well-known member
All Catholics, Eastern, Western, and Oriental, are Trinitarians...
EVERY Apostolic Church founded by the Apostles of Christ has always been and now is Trinitarian...
The historic record is without contradiction...
WAS???
She still is, and always will be...
AND
She is therefore also the Mother of all Christians
Because...
Christians are members of the Body of Christ...
AND...
She is the Mother of Christ according to the flesh [body]...
THAT teaching is Apostolic, uncontradicted, and true...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
You have a lovely Orthodox-esque shape of conversing...
The only-begotten Son of God begotten without a mother
was born into flesh from a Virgin Mother without father...
She gave to Him a human body and soul...
She is not the mother of His Divinity...
But only of His fallen humanity...
Which He healed in His own human flesh...
Because He incarnated into His Own creation as a mortal man...
Arsenios
You pray to Mary ?
I appreciate the various responses to my post and the many contributors to this thread but I still can't avoid the elephant in the living room ... nobody is touching the Hebrew with a ten foot pole and, let's be honest about this, all of those who took pen in hand in contributing to the Bible were Jews ... and yet all we're referencing in this discussion to this point is Koine Greek. That begs the question why? ... at least to this observer.
Is that a word? :AMR: :chuckle:
Arsenios
Well-known member
Perhaps now it is...
The Hebraic text of the OT is long lost, as is the praxis of those who wrote it, and IF you think you can divine its meaning as an exercise in fallen human reasoning apart from the ancient Jewish Faith that wrote it, you might want to reconsider...
The same holds for the Koine text... It is not an intellectually organized series of words to be sliced and diced and dissected so as to be understood. The praxis of the Faith given to us by Christ is the sine-qua-non of apprehending the Koine text, and for that matter, from it, the more ancient text of the LXX, which is more of an Alexandrian Koine...
But to your querie, the Koine is the specifically Christian Bible, and the pointed Hebrew text we now have is a product of the Masoretes long after Christ passed from this world, and who had a huge axe to grind with Christianity... The Christian Faith cannot be understood outside its praxis - To insist that it can be is, from within that praxis, but the vanity of the intellect, the pride of the Fall of Adam, and the whole reason it came to us through Christ in the first place...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
Your reading scripture out of the prophets and into Plato. You need to understand the Hebrew concept of Agency... All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion. Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.
Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6
The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”
The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”
But
The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”
So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”
Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.
Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression (Sins) ; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).
In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the begotten Son of God himself?
Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).
However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)
So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.
Hope this helps...
oly::sherlock:Paul
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Your reading scripture out of the prophets and into Plato. You need to understand the Hebrew concept of Agency... All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion. Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.
Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6
The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”
The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”
But
The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”
So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”
Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.
Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression (Sins) ; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).
In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the begotten Son of God himself?
Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).
However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)
So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.
Hope this helps...
Paul
Is all this to contend against the eternal uncreated ontological divinity of Christ as Theanthropos and Messiah? Or is there another point you're bringing out.
(This thread has been dormant for a short period, and I'm not sure where you're jumping into the ebbed flow of the OP.)
Cross Reference
New member
PP, come down to earth. No one can follow you. Too much mental energy has to be put into figuring out whether you are for or against it.