What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
No I don’t believe in that.
Me personally I believe Gods creation began with Jesus first century. There is a scripture in the first chapter of John that states no man had ever seen God at any time. John also in the first chapter says he witnessed the light come into the world (let there be light) then we have the whole Thing about Jesus being the image of the invisible God, which to me further implies Jesus was the first to declare Him.
Let us create man in our image?
All that being said, my new course is to find out who this Yahweh of the Old Testament was, because he doesn’t seem to fit the character of the God Jesus was presenting at all to me.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Jesus came to declare the invisible God that no man had ever seen, as scripture teaches.
Tertullian the trinitarian?
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge; and the latter a Father.”
(Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)
Isn’t that what all trinitarians say @RLT63? There was a time when the Son never existed with the Father.
Of course not. That’s not what trinitarians believe; that’s not what trinitarians say. That’s not what trinitarianism teaches.
Tertullian used the word “trinity” in his writings - ah, Tertullian the trinitarian! - but when we dig deeper we discover that he didn’t believe what trinitarians (now) believe. His concept of “trinity” is very different from later trinitarianism.
Take what is of value from Tertullian, throw the rest away. That’s part of the process in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge; and the latter a Father.”
(Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)
Isn’t that what all trinitarians say @RLT63? There was a time when the Son never existed with the Father.
Of course not. That’s not what trinitarians believe; that’s not what trinitarians say. That’s not what trinitarianism teaches.
Tertullian used the word “trinity” in his writings - ah, Tertullian the trinitarian! - but when we dig deeper we discover that he didn’t believe what trinitarians (now) believe. His concept of “trinity” is very different from later trinitarianism.
Take what is of value from Tertullian, throw the rest away. That’s part of the process in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Even Google Translate understands that there is no “in” in that statement … God = word; word = God.
Let's talk about your free verse. God made Himself to be sin? Am I getting this correct? And that's your verse to show me WHY Jesus had to be God? So He could make Himself to be sin? God became sin?
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Jesus said he only spoke what he heard his father speak. I don’t understand why this is so hard to see?
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
“It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears more prominently, so much so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it. But we can document orthodoxy for all the centuries since then - in other words, for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence.“
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 5)
Why would Dr. Brown say such a thing about it being impossible to find orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity @RLT63? When we read Tertullian, to name only one, we find out why. It’s not there. Orthodoxy, as it later came to defined, is not what the church believed in those early centuries.
The church later did come to believe it, as Dr. Brown points out. And it’s easy to find in the preserved documents.
Notice what he says about heresy being more prominent and orthodoxy looking like a reaction to it. Think about what Heraclides said about the Church believing in two Gods. Think about what Tertullian said about there being a time when the Son didn’t exist with God.
We could think about a lot of things that were being said in the first two centuries in the Church which trinitarianism would later call heresy. One thing I would like for you to remember: Jewish monotheism is among those things.
The Church began as a sect of, and within, Judaism. The Messiah himself is a Jewish monotheist. The Church, as I will demonstrate, would eventually call Jewish monotheism heresy.
That knocks me out of the box… but not in the first couple of centuries.
Of greater significance, what does it do to the Messiah?
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 5)
Why would Dr. Brown say such a thing about it being impossible to find orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity @RLT63? When we read Tertullian, to name only one, we find out why. It’s not there. Orthodoxy, as it later came to defined, is not what the church believed in those early centuries.
The church later did come to believe it, as Dr. Brown points out. And it’s easy to find in the preserved documents.
Notice what he says about heresy being more prominent and orthodoxy looking like a reaction to it. Think about what Heraclides said about the Church believing in two Gods. Think about what Tertullian said about there being a time when the Son didn’t exist with God.
We could think about a lot of things that were being said in the first two centuries in the Church which trinitarianism would later call heresy. One thing I would like for you to remember: Jewish monotheism is among those things.
The Church began as a sect of, and within, Judaism. The Messiah himself is a Jewish monotheist. The Church, as I will demonstrate, would eventually call Jewish monotheism heresy.
That knocks me out of the box… but not in the first couple of centuries.
Of greater significance, what does it do to the Messiah?
Are you familiar with Gregory of Nyssa @RLT63? Most Protestants aren’t. He’s another incredibly important person in the post-biblical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. If you aren’t familiar with him, it’s well worth your time to learn about him.
Listen to what he says. He’s going to take what is useful from Jewish monotheism, then throw away the rest. Notice too, he’s going to take what is useful from pagan polytheism, then throw away the rest.
“...it’s own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus - the last of the Church Fathers.
The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”
(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)
Please note that he calls Jewish monotheism “heresy” and pronounces it “destroyed” by the Christian (i.e. orthodox trinitarian) concept of God.
Trinitarianism destroyed the Jewish concept of God.
Who in scripture believed the Jewish concept of God?
Listen to what he says. He’s going to take what is useful from Jewish monotheism, then throw away the rest. Notice too, he’s going to take what is useful from pagan polytheism, then throw away the rest.
“...it’s own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus - the last of the Church Fathers.
The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”
(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)
Please note that he calls Jewish monotheism “heresy” and pronounces it “destroyed” by the Christian (i.e. orthodox trinitarian) concept of God.
Trinitarianism destroyed the Jewish concept of God.
Who in scripture believed the Jewish concept of God?
Who is the God of deliverances?
Introducing Eliphelet.
Eliphalet, Eliphelet - Lockyer's All the Men of the Bible - Bible Gateway
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I believe that @Wrangler holds the same view, but scripturally I don't come to that conclusion. The pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, is referred to several times, such as in John 1:1 which talks about the Logos being "with God" "in the beginning"....this can only be the beginning of creation since the eternal God had no beginning. I believe that the son was that beginning. (Revelation 3:14)
Colossians 1:15-17 speaks of Jesus as being the "firstborn of all creation" so "all creation" means that nothing existed before him. He himself was the "beginning of God's creation"......this is what makes him "only begotten"...he is the only creation that came directly from the Father.....this is what I believe makes him unique.....he is not just an angel but the Chief and Commander of all the angels....second only to his God and Father.
And I believe that there is a reason for the differences we express.....as we are in the final part of “the last days” of this world system of things. There is only one truth, and it is being dispensed through only one channel.....Jesus said he would appoint a “faithful and wise slave” to “feed” his entire household their “food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45)
To me this means that the "wheat" that Jesus said would grow alongside the "weeds" in these last days, will be in one household....a united global body of Christians who are all being fed the same food, from the same source, and without dissent or argument. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
They would in turn be dispensing this "food" (spiritual nourishment) to others, teaching them what Christ taught (and NOT things that he didn't teach) and making disciples, baptizing them in full recognition of the role that the Father, son and holy spirit had played in their spiritual journey to baptism. (Matthew 28:19-20) We know that the mention of them in that verse is not claiming that there are a trinity of god...but that one's baptism was the result of the combined efforts of all three.
This is a time of separation when Jesus is seeing first hand who are remaining part of "Babylon the great" and who have heeded God's command to "get out of her" (Revelation 18:4-5)....this is a command for God's "people"...so it begs the question, "how did God's people find themselves in "Babylon the great" in the first place?
How did God's "people" (Israel) find themselves in original Babylon? For the same reason....stubborn and willful disobedience to his commands. God allowed their enemies to take them captive and God set an allotted time before he would release them. (70 years) Those taken into exile in ancient Babylon had choices.....adopt the ways of Babylonian worship, or stay true to the commands of their God.....Daniel and his three Hebrew companions were exemplary in this and faced death at the hands of God's enemies....but they were rescued as a reward for their faith...uncontaminated even by decades of exposure to Babylonian worship. We know that Israel as a nation did not follow their good examples, but fell away constantly to false worship.
Those in "Babylon the great" have also fallen away to false worship which was introduced after the death of Christ and his apostles......and their erroneous doctrines are carried on in Christendom to the present day....
We have to get out of "Babylon the great" or we will go down with her.....so who or what is this "city" that is personified by a harlot?
I understand “firstborn of all creation” to be speaking of the new creation.
How did we get here?
One day in the classroom, I asked students how we got to trinitariansism when Christianity began in Judaism. A trinitarian student replied, “The Church delivered it to us.”
That’s a brilliant answer; solidly grounded in history.
Theology in the making is messy. Theology complete is neat.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
