Well, we could marshal arguments and experts on both sides of this debate until the cows come home. And leave again. Disgusted. But as I said in Post # 1,076, I'll say again: Let’s stop the haggling over John 1:1, and just all concede that the Greek is inconclusive, i.e., it might be translated either as “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god.” We have to look for John’s meaning another way.
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- 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!
Well, we could marshal arguments and experts on both sides of this debate until the cows come home. And leave again. Disgusted. But as I said in Post # 1,076, I'll say again: Let’s stop the haggling over John 1:1, and just all concede that the Greek is inconclusive, i.e., it might be translated either as “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god.” We have to look for John’s meaning another way.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Since this is the one verse that most trinitarians rely on (as well as Thomas’ exclamation) as a proof text, it’s important to note what the Scriptures teach concerning the very nature of God because this is a salvation issue….
There is no fence to sit on, scholars notwithstanding. It’s not a matter of only WHAT we believe…but WHO we believe. There is only one truth….either Jesus is “the son of ho theos” or he is “ho theos”……it matters, because if we give worship to the wrong “god” we are in breach of the first Commandment. (Ex 20:3)
John 17:3…Jesus words to his God and Father….
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (KJV)
If we do not know “the only true God AND the one whom he sent”…then no eternal life is offered to us.
We cannot afford to be sitting on an imaginary fence here. We know who wants us to lose our eternal life…
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..................................................
A portion of my study of John 20:28:
The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology (#2 above) and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana and Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. Furthermore, when using the term “Lord” (at least) in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is used than the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).
“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.
This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).
We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.
We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)![6] There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)
Therefore, it is probably safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”![7]
MYGOD
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..............................................
Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists. “Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
Other respected trinitarian scholars agree.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Every English Bible I've read declares that Jesus is God, even the JW bible.
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..........................................
Justin Martyr
A saying of Justin Martyr indicates what lack of clarity there was with regard to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as late as the middle of the second century .... He admits that Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, he goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, ‘Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth.’ As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:
“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Notice how worship (or ‘obeisance’) is given to the Son “and the host of other good angels.” Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel! - See the REAPS study.
Trinitarian scholar Dr. H. R. Boer tells us that the very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship with God in their writings were the Apologists, Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.............................................
Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)
The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary teaches us: “Irenaeus and Origen share with Tertullian the responsibility for the formulation [of the trinity doctrine] which is still, in the main, that of the Church ....” - p. 1222, Tyndale House Publ., 1982. Since most trinitarian historians give the blame to these three writers for beginning the development of Christendom’s trinity doctrine, let’s examine them first.
Trinitarian scholar H. R. Boer writes: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul from 178 to his death in about 203, had the most biblical approach of the early theologians in his discussion of Christ.
Boer then quotes Irenaeus:
‘But there is only one God, the Creator ... He it is ... whom Christ reveals .... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed.’ - pp. 110, 111, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans, 1976. (Ellipses were provided by Boer. Irenaeus quote by Boer is from ANF, 1:406.)
And noted trinitarian scholar Robert M. Grant tells us the following:
Irenaeus cited Justin [Martyr]...: “Justin well says in his work Against Marcion that he would not have believed the Lord [Jesus] himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator.” - p. 84, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Trinitarian Grant admits that Irenaeus agrees with Justin Martyr in his statement showing there is no other God than the Creator and that it is not Jesus! Justin (and Irenaeus) certainly would never say that they would “not have believed” Jesus under any circumstances if they really believed he was equally God with the Father!
Yes, Irenaeus actually teaches the following concerning the Christian doctrine of God and Jesus: “The Church ... [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit ...” (1:330, Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], by the trinitarian Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eerdmans Publ..)
* * * *
“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.” (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets ... which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him.” (ANF, 1:428, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“And that the whole range of the doctrine of the Apostles proclaimed one and the same God ... That He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory, - they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the Apostles, and may contemplate the fact that God is one, above whom is no other.” (ANF, 1:434, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“Those, therefore, who delivered up their souls to death for Christ's Gospel .... To the Jews {who already knew the one true God of the Bible, Jehovah, the Father}, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks {who did NOT yet know the one true God of the Bible} they preached one God who made all things, and, Jesus Christ His Son.” (ANF, 1:435, ‘Against Heresies’) Material within special brackets { } supplied by me.
* * * *
Notice that Ireneaus, above, teaches us that the very first Christians did not teach a new understanding of God to the Jews. Why? Because they already knew the God of the Bible was the Father. But to the Greeks, who did not know the God of the Bible, they also had to teach that the one God is the Father!
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
John 5:15-18
The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason, the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working." For this reason, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason, the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working." For this reason, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..................................................................
Origen
Origen was probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church - p. 6346, Vol. 17, Universal Standard Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls), 1956.
The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 229, Vol. IV, Eerdmans.
Origen was a great scholar as well as a great theologian. …. His work on the words of Scripture has a value quite independently of his theological views. Some of the most important qualifications of the worthy interpreter of Scripture he possesses in a supreme degree. His knowledge of Scripture is extraordinary both for its range and its minute accuracy. He had no concordance to help him; but he was himself a concordance. Whatever word occurs he is able to bring from every part of Scripture the passages in which it is used. …. a knowledge of all parts of the Bible as is probably without parallel. It has to be added that he is strong in grammar, and has a true eye for the real meaning of his text; the discussions in which he does this often leave nothing to be desired. – p. 293, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.
Yes, even respected trinitarian scholars admit not only the stellar scholarship and knowledge of Origen, but also his outstanding moral qualities and pure character. This man simply would not lie nor distort.
Origen actually taught: The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.Origen believed that ‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is qeoV (god), but only the Father is autoqeoV (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.
Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:
‘Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between qeoV and oJ qeoV. As qeoV, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is oJ qeoV and autoqeoV (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:
“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos [oJ qeoV], ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.
In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323. (A thirteenth century manuscript seems to be the earliest extant source of Origen’s Commentary on John.)
Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character are not questioned even by his severest opponents!
Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Everyone who agrees with the Governing Body is a scholar. Just ask a JW.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.....................................
Origen (continued)
Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
For example, Origen writes:
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:
“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.
These creatures were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself - see the BOWGOD study)! - ANF, 10:323.
Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom” speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:
“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: “‘The Lord {“Jehovah” in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25} “He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’” {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis’.
So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.
It’s obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements,[5] but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited” him with formulating the trinity doctrine!
De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.
_________________________________________
* “RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.” - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.
“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint”] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.” - ANF, 4:233.
In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove” that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!
Runningman
Active Member
God was clear He did it alone.
Isaiah 44
24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
He lied about going to newadvent.org for quotes.
He copy from CREEDS
I already quoted those church fathers in his site claim who are anti-trinity fathers.
The quotes I gave clearly show they believed in the Trinity.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.9 (St. Irenaeus)
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
IF he really wants to find out what they taught
Do a search Jesus is God there
Isaiah 44
Easy-to-Read Version
The Lord Is the Only God
44 “Jacob, you are my servant. Israel, I chose you. Listen to me! 2 I am the Lord, and I made you. I am the one who created you. I have helped you since you were in your mother’s womb. Jacob, my servant, don’t be afraid. Jeshurun,[a] I chose you.3 “I will pour water for thirsty people, and streams will flow through the desert. I will pour my Spirit on your children, and I will bless[b] your family. 4 They will sprout like grass in the spring and grow like trees by streams of water.
5 “One man will call himself, ‘I am the Lord’s.’ Another will use the name, ‘Jacob.’ Another man will sign his name as ‘The Lord’s Hand.’ And another will use the name, ‘Israel.’”
6 The Lord is the king of Israel. The Lord All-Powerful is the one who will set Israel free. And he says, “I am the only God. There are no other gods. I am the Beginning and the End. 7 There is no other God like me. If there is, that god should speak now. Let him lay out everything he has done since the time I made these ancient people. Let him show me the signs he gave long ago that prove he knew what would happen in the future.
8 “Don’t be afraid! Don’t worry. I am the one who always told you what would happen. You are my proof.[c] There is no other God; I am the only one. There is no other ‘Rock’; I know I am the only one.”
False Gods Are Useless
9 Some people make idols, but they are worthless. They love their statues, which are useless. Those who serve as witnesses for these statues cannot even see. They don’t know enough to be ashamed.10 Who made these false gods? Who covered these useless statues? 11 Workers made them, and the workers are only human. If they all would come together before me, we could discuss this. Then they would all be ashamed and afraid.
12 One worker uses his tools to heat iron over hot coals. Then he uses his hammer to beat the metal to shape it into a statue. He uses his own powerful arms, but when he gets hungry, he loses his strength. If he does not drink water, he becomes weak.
13 Another worker uses his string line[d] and compass[e] to draw lines on the wood to show where he should cut. Then he uses his chisels[f] and cuts a statue from the wood. He uses his calipers[g] to measure the statue. In this way the worker makes the wood look exactly like a man, and this statue of a man does nothing but sit in the house.
14 To split the cedar tree, the worker took some oak or cypress wedges. To make sure he had plenty of wood, he planted some pines. But it was the rain that made them grow.
15 When the man wanted a fire, he took some of the wood to keep him warm. He also used some of it to bake his bread. But then he used that same wood to make a statue to worship as a god! That god is only a statue that he made, but he bows down to it! 16 He burns half of the wood in the fire. He uses the fire to cook his meat, and he eats the meat until he is full. He burns the wood to keep himself warm. He says, “Good! Now I am warm, and I can see by the light of the fire.” 17 There is a little of the wood left, so he makes a statue and calls it his god. He bows down before it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “You are my god, save me!”
18 People like that don’t know what they are doing! They don’t understand. It is as if they have mud in their eyes so they cannot see. Their minds cannot understand. 19 They don’t realize what they are doing. They aren’t smart enough to think, “I burned half of the wood in the fire. I used the hot coals to bake my bread and cook the meat I ate. And I used the wood that was left to make this terrible thing. I am worshiping a block of wood!”
20 Someone like that is deceived. They don’t know what they are doing.[h] They cannot save themselves, and they will not admit, “This statue I am holding is a lie!”
The Lord, the True God, Helps Israel
21 “Jacob, remember these things!Israel, remember, you are my servant.
I made you, and you are my servant.
So, Israel, don’t forget me.
22 Your sins were like a big cloud,
but I wiped them all away.
Your sins are gone,
like a cloud that disappeared into thin air.
I rescued and protected you,
so come back to me.”
23 Skies, rejoice for what the Lord has done.
Earth, shout for joy down to your deepest parts!
Start singing, you mountains
and all you trees in the forest!
Yes, the Lord has saved Jacob.
He has shown his glory by rescuing Israel.
24 The one who rescued you is the Lord,
the one who formed you in your mother’s womb.
He says, “I, the Lord, made everything.
I put the skies there myself.
I spread out the earth before me.”
25 False prophets tell lies, but the Lord shows that their lies are false. He makes fools of those who do magic. He confuses even the wise. They think they know a lot, but he makes them look foolish. 26 The Lord sends his servants to tell his messages to the people, and he makes those messages come true. He sends messengers to tell the people what they should do, and he proves that the advice is good.
God Chooses Cyrus to Rebuild Judah
The Lord says to Jerusalem, “People will live in you again.”He says to the cities of Judah, “You will be rebuilt.”
He says to them, “I will repair your ruins.”
27 He tells the deep waters, “Become dry!
I will make your streams dry too.”
28 He says to Cyrus, “You are my shepherd.
You will do what I want.
You will say to Jerusalem, ‘You will be rebuilt!’
You will tell the Temple, ‘Your foundations will be put in place!’”
Footnotes
- Isaiah 44:2 Jeshurun Another name for Israel. It means “good” or “honest.”
- Isaiah 44:3 bless This is a wordplay. This Hebrew word sounds like the word meaning “pool.”
- Isaiah 44:8 proof Or “witnesses.”
- Isaiah 44:13 string line In ancient times, this was a piece of string with wet paint on it. It was used to make straight lines on wood or stone.
- Isaiah 44:13 compass A tool used to draw circles and copy measurements.
- Isaiah 44:13 chisels Sharp tools used to carve wood or stone.
- Isaiah 44:13 calipers A special measuring tool, like a compass.
- Isaiah 44:20 They … doing Literally, “They eat ashes.”
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..............................................................
Tertullian
Trinitarian Boer (as do most trinitarians) wants us to believe that Origen’s and Tertullian’s doctrines of God and the Son of God were actually leading to trinitarianism. But is this true? What did Tertullian actually intend? What about Tertullian’s “one nature (substantia in Latin) and two persons (persona in Latin)”? Did it really mean what later Church “scholars” wanted it to mean? Well, here is the admission of another highly-respected trinitarian scholar:
{Tertullian} therefore proposed to say that God is ‘one substance {substantia in Latin - compares to homoousios in Greek} consisting in three persons {persona}.’ The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian’s usage. {‘In Tertullian substantia could be used in the sense of character or nature [among other things].’ - p. 90, Chadwick.} - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick (trinitarian), 1986 ed., Dorset Press, New York.
And the trinitarian, Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity notes that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian’s terminology (e.g., substantia) to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense:
“hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”
For example, even many trinitarian NT Greek language experts admit that since John used the neuter form of the word “one” at John 10:30, he intended the meaning of “one in will or purpose”! That this is true is proved by the same usage at John 17:11, 22 (see the study entitled ‘ONE’). Tertullian, when making the same point, tells us that John writes at Jn 10:30 -
‘We are one thing’ Unum, not ‘one person’ Unus. .... He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son’s, who obeys the Father's will. - ANF, 3:618, ‘Against Praxeas.’
Here we see Tertullian using “one” in “essence” (as did Origen above) to mean both individuals having the same will or purpose. And that will is the Father’s which the Son obeys perfectly. They are “one” then in “essence” (will) only because one of them is completely, perfectly subordinate to the will of the other! But over 100 years later trinitarians began insisting that the renowned Tertullian and Origen had stated trinitarian truths by their uses of “substance/essence,” etc.
From the very beginning {of the proposal of the trinitarian creed at the Nicene Council, 325 A.D., which used such terms as homoousios}, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea {renowned scholar and historian who headed the majority of bishops at the Nicene council - and a non-trinitarian!} had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and non-technical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. .... the term was non-Scriptural, it had a very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius’s {non-trinitarian} point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed. - p. 135, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribner’s, 1985.
Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as “Wisdom”):
“‘At first the Lord {Jehovah} created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;’ that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence.” - ANF, 3:601, ‘Against Praxeas’.
And,
Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have Wisdom {the Son of God} saying, ‘But before the depths was I brought forth,’ in order that you may believe that the depths were also ‘brought forth’ - that is created just as we create sons also, though we ‘bring them forth.’ It matters not whether the depth {like Wisdom itself} was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it - ANF, 3:495, ‘Against Hermogenes.’
Of course the eternal, only true, Most High God had no beginning. (Rev. 3:14)
Similar threads
