Why is God a He
May 19, 2019 19:44:00 #
dtucker300 wrote:
I agree with your assessment of a scientific theor... (show quote)
I have found, not through my own research, that some of the premises used in Evolutionary Theory tangentially stray from accepted science into observations based on assumptions about human nature. It is usually an ugly picture of us.
May 19, 2019 19:46:27 #
TommyRadd
Loc: Midwest USA
Part 2 to Zemirah
“1Then [TommyRadd] was led up by the Spirit into the [OPP board] to be tempted by the [Trinitarians]... 5Then the [Trinitarians] took him to the [tradition of the Trinity doctrine], 6and said to him, “Jesus...is fully man and fully God”....'" [TommyRadd] said to the Trinitarian, [b][color=red]"Again, it is written...[/b].'”
14“Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold tightly to our confession. 15For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:14–15)
And, it is written again:
17“Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:14–18)
The Greek “péponthen autós” [“he himself”] here explicitly states that he personally experienced temptation. This is speaking of his very person, not merely his “human nature.” This Scripture totally refutes the false notion that Jesus was personally God but was only tempted as to his human nature. It absolutely proves that those who interpret other verses to mean Jesus was somehow God incarnate, or both “God and man at the same time” are absolutely mistaken. To the contrary, this passage explains in specific detail that Jesus was tempted as to his very person, explicitly, which would be utterly impossible if he were, personally, God.
13“Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God can’t be tempted by evil, and he himself (Gr. autos) tempts no one. 14But [b][u]each one is tempted, when[u] he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed[/b]. 15Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. (James 1:13–15)
This is how Incarnationists make a sham of Jesus’ overcoming temptation: by implying he was only tempted as to his human nature and not that he was tempted to the very core of his personal being, as the Bible clearly teaches!
"Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For [Hebrews 2:18 says, “[b]he himself has suffered being tempted[/b].' 11But you say, [“...Jesus...is fully man and fully God.”, 13[b]making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this[/b]." Mark 7:5-13
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
It is written again:
“Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)
“I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30).
It is written again,
“...with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
“...with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
“Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know...” Acts 2:22
26“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. 27He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a Son of man.” (John 5:26–27)
17“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)
“Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.” Joh 14:12
1“Jesus...said, ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 2even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4I glorified you on the earth. I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do. 5Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed’” (John 17:1, 3, 5).
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
It is written again:
“…All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)
1“For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed... 4Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. 5So also Christ didn't glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father.’” (Hebrews 5:1–5)
“Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)
“I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30).
It is written again,
“...with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
“...with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
It is written again:
“17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:17
“...our Lord Jesus Christ; 15which in its own times he will show, who is the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:14-16.
“17 Jesus said to her, ‘Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:16–17)
You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I [“Strong's Greek 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.”].
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
It is written again:
“18I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. 20In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” John 14:18
“35But someone will say, “How are the dead raised?” and, “With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind... 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, was made a living soul.” The last Adam was made a life-giving spirit. 46However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 15:35–46)
21“For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22)
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Continued in Part 3 to Zemirah
Zemirah wrote:
May 14, 2019 10:43:53
“...Jesus...is fully man and fully God.”
“...Jesus...is fully man and fully God.”
“1Then [TommyRadd] was led up by the Spirit into the [OPP board] to be tempted by the [Trinitarians]... 5Then the [Trinitarians] took him to the [tradition of the Trinity doctrine], 6and said to him, “Jesus...is fully man and fully God”....'" [TommyRadd] said to the Trinitarian, [b][color=red]"Again, it is written...[/b].'”
14“Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold tightly to our confession. 15For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:14–15)
And, it is written again:
17“Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:14–18)
The Greek “péponthen autós” [“he himself”] here explicitly states that he personally experienced temptation. This is speaking of his very person, not merely his “human nature.” This Scripture totally refutes the false notion that Jesus was personally God but was only tempted as to his human nature. It absolutely proves that those who interpret other verses to mean Jesus was somehow God incarnate, or both “God and man at the same time” are absolutely mistaken. To the contrary, this passage explains in specific detail that Jesus was tempted as to his very person, explicitly, which would be utterly impossible if he were, personally, God.
13“Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God can’t be tempted by evil, and he himself (Gr. autos) tempts no one. 14But [b][u]each one is tempted, when[u] he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed[/b]. 15Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. (James 1:13–15)
This is how Incarnationists make a sham of Jesus’ overcoming temptation: by implying he was only tempted as to his human nature and not that he was tempted to the very core of his personal being, as the Bible clearly teaches!
"Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For [Hebrews 2:18 says, “[b]he himself has suffered being tempted[/b].' 11But you say, [“...Jesus...is fully man and fully God.”, 13[b]making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this[/b]." Mark 7:5-13
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
2. Matthew 12:28 “But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
... 9. Acts 10:38
“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”
2. Matthew 12:28 “But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
... 9. Acts 10:38
“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”
It is written again:
“Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)
“I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30).
It is written again,
“...with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
“...with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
“Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know...” Acts 2:22
26“For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. 27He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a Son of man.” (John 5:26–27)
17“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)
“Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.” Joh 14:12
1“Jesus...said, ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 2even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4I glorified you on the earth. I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do. 5Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed’” (John 17:1, 3, 5).
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
3. Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .
... You can deny that the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence, with one goal, but it will avail you nothing on earth and certainly not in heaven.”
3. Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .
... You can deny that the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence, with one goal, but it will avail you nothing on earth and certainly not in heaven.”
It is written again:
“…All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)
1“For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed... 4Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. 5So also Christ didn't glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father.’” (Hebrews 5:1–5)
“Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)
“I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30).
It is written again,
“...with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
“...with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
4. Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
4. Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
It is written again:
“17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:17
“...our Lord Jesus Christ; 15which in its own times he will show, who is the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:14-16.
“17 Jesus said to her, ‘Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:16–17)
You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I [“Strong's Greek 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.”].
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
br “There are twenty verses with a clause that me... (show quote)
It is written again:
“18I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. 20In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” John 14:18
“35But someone will say, “How are the dead raised?” and, “With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind... 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, was made a living soul.” The last Adam was made a life-giving spirit. 46However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 15:35–46)
21“For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22)
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” Deut 4:2.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Continued in Part 3 to Zemirah
May 19, 2019 19:47:59 #
TommyRadd
Loc: Midwest USA
Part 3 to Zemirah
It is written again:
“When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son… Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:12–16)
[Moses said] “YHWH your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; according to all that you desired of YHWH your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of YHWH my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die. YHWH said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15–19)
“Yahweh has sworn to David in t***h. He will not turn from it: “I will set the fruit of your body on your throne.” (Psalms 132:11)
30“Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay. 32This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.” (Acts 2:30–32)
“Thus says the LORD, who created you…O Israel…You are My witnesses…and My servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior…you are my witnesses, says the LORD, that I am God…the Holy One…your Holy One…your King.” (Isaiah 43:1–15)
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
It is written again:
“5For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" 6yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
“1“Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.’” (John 17:1, 3).
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Amen to this. I assume you provided your best twenty verses, but not ONE of them “explains” the Father, Son and Holy Spirit like this:
You say you don’t believe in three gods, but then you name them for us:
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (extrabiblical phrase)
3. God the Holy Spirit (extrabiblical phrase)
It is written again:
“God is not a God of confusion”. 1 Cor 14:33
“But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Cor. 11:3
“12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.” 1 Cor. 2:12-13
“If any man speaketh let him speak as the oracles of God..” 1 Peter 4:11
Do words have no uncertain meaning? Consider this:
“7Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they didn't give a distinction in the sounds, how would it be known what is piped or harped? 8For if the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself for war? 9So also you, unless you uttered by the tongue words easy to understand, how would it be known what is spoken? For you would be speaking into the air.” 1 Corinthians 14:7-9.
Words have meaning, and you have just demonstrated that you have no scriptures whatsoever that mention the words “Trinity” or the phrases, “God the Son”, “God the Holy Spirit” or “three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence.”
Here was what I asked,
You have utterly failed. It wasn’t a trick question, it shouldn’t have been hard to do. But you have not provided even one verse that says, explains, teaches, or preaches that God is a Trinity of three persons in one substance.
This is important, not because I say so, but because what the Scripture commands!
“teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).
It isn’t me, but the scriptures that say to “teach no other teachings.” The word “teach” means to describe and explain in detail. This commandment actually commands against even talking about the mystery Trinity, because teaching something is to describe it in detail. It goes way beyond merely implying something. All you have provided are scriptures that you believe “imply” the Trinity, but not one of them state that it is so. Proverbs 91 “implied” that Jesus could jump off a pinnacle unscathed, but the commandment not to tempt God forbade him from doing it! So, what is implied won’t cut it, especially when it flat contradicts what the Bible does teach, that God is one “He”.
The Bible says:
“7...there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.” Galatians 1:7-9
Again, the word “preach” is not vague. It doesn’t mean an emotional appeal as some “preachers” thins, It simply means to “openly declare and to not keep hidden or mysterious.” None of the verses you quoted or cited “openly declare”, (as you do with your extrabiblical words and concepts,) that salvation requires a belief in three divine persons in one essence.
Since you can’t restrain yourself from openly declaring the opposite of what the apostles openly declared, it is scripture, not me, which states how you and your extrabiblical gospel are to be discerned.
Continued in Part 4 to Zemirah
Zemirah wrote:
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
10. Romans 1:4 “Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .”
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
10. Romans 1:4 “Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .”
It is written again:
“When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son… Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:12–16)
[Moses said] “YHWH your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; according to all that you desired of YHWH your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of YHWH my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die. YHWH said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15–19)
“Yahweh has sworn to David in t***h. He will not turn from it: “I will set the fruit of your body on your throne.” (Psalms 132:11)
30“Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay. 32This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.” (Acts 2:30–32)
“Thus says the LORD, who created you…O Israel…You are My witnesses…and My servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior…you are my witnesses, says the LORD, that I am God…the Holy One…your Holy One…your King.” (Isaiah 43:1–15)
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
11. Romans 8:9 “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
“There are twenty verses with a clause that mentions all three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...
11. Romans 8:9 “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
It is written again:
“5For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" 6yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
“1“Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.’” (John 17:1, 3).
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Zemirah wrote:
May 14, 2019 10:43:53
The only explanation as to who Jesus is, is found in Holy Scripture, Genesis to Revelation.
The only explanation as to who Jesus is, is found in Holy Scripture, Genesis to Revelation.
Amen to this. I assume you provided your best twenty verses, but not ONE of them “explains” the Father, Son and Holy Spirit like this:
Zemirah wrote:
“...three members of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son (the Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit.
You say you don’t believe in three gods, but then you name them for us:
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (extrabiblical phrase)
3. God the Holy Spirit (extrabiblical phrase)
It is written again:
“God is not a God of confusion”. 1 Cor 14:33
“But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Cor. 11:3
“12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.” 1 Cor. 2:12-13
“If any man speaketh let him speak as the oracles of God..” 1 Peter 4:11
Do words have no uncertain meaning? Consider this:
“7Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they didn't give a distinction in the sounds, how would it be known what is piped or harped? 8For if the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself for war? 9So also you, unless you uttered by the tongue words easy to understand, how would it be known what is spoken? For you would be speaking into the air.” 1 Corinthians 14:7-9.
Words have meaning, and you have just demonstrated that you have no scriptures whatsoever that mention the words “Trinity” or the phrases, “God the Son”, “God the Holy Spirit” or “three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence.”
Here was what I asked,
TommyRadd wrote:
” It seems to me, if Gill was such a good teacher,... (show quote)
You have utterly failed. It wasn’t a trick question, it shouldn’t have been hard to do. But you have not provided even one verse that says, explains, teaches, or preaches that God is a Trinity of three persons in one substance.
This is important, not because I say so, but because what the Scripture commands!
“teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3).
It isn’t me, but the scriptures that say to “teach no other teachings.” The word “teach” means to describe and explain in detail. This commandment actually commands against even talking about the mystery Trinity, because teaching something is to describe it in detail. It goes way beyond merely implying something. All you have provided are scriptures that you believe “imply” the Trinity, but not one of them state that it is so. Proverbs 91 “implied” that Jesus could jump off a pinnacle unscathed, but the commandment not to tempt God forbade him from doing it! So, what is implied won’t cut it, especially when it flat contradicts what the Bible does teach, that God is one “He”.
The Bible says:
“7...there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.” Galatians 1:7-9
Again, the word “preach” is not vague. It doesn’t mean an emotional appeal as some “preachers” thins, It simply means to “openly declare and to not keep hidden or mysterious.” None of the verses you quoted or cited “openly declare”, (as you do with your extrabiblical words and concepts,) that salvation requires a belief in three divine persons in one essence.
Since you can’t restrain yourself from openly declaring the opposite of what the apostles openly declared, it is scripture, not me, which states how you and your extrabiblical gospel are to be discerned.
Continued in Part 4 to Zemirah
May 19, 2019 19:49:37 #
TommyRadd wrote:
Thanks, but no thanks. You're wasting your time. Who is going to wade through page after page after page of one man's proselytizing? You are free to believe wh**ever you wish. Nothing you could possibly say threatens my personal relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. to Blade...
May 19, 2019 20:00:38 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
Zemirah wrote:
dtucker, br br In your appeal for public assistan... (show quote)
Zemirah, Thank you for your kind words: "In your appeal for public assistance on this forum, in which you, of your own free will, are participating, you have made perfectly clear your unambiguous impartiality, clear sightedness, and obvious t***hfulness toward those with opposing views."
I was not, however, appealing for public assistance. I can stick my foot in my mouth perfectly fine without anyone's help.
Your statement; "When I stated, in approximately these words or less, - that anyone who attended public schools and universities teaching "evolution" as a scientific fact, rather than unproven theory, for the twelve plus years of their schooling, has been "brainwashed, is not a facetious statement."
If this is what you are saying then why didn't you say it in the first instance? There was no reference to public schools and universities I can recall. But I may have missed that because my attentions are drawn elsewhere most of the time and I do not live on OPP. I do have a life outside of this.
I do not consider you my enemy. I do believe you sometimes enjoy the fight more than you enjoying arriving at the t***h. When I look back over your statements in your postings I find that you like to draw first blood. Maybe "like" is the wrong word. Perhaps it is unintentional. Be that as it may. Have we been uncivil, either of us? We strongly disagree with each other on some things, and the reasons for that have been stated. Since I do not know you I cannot say for certain that that is the case; much of the time you do appear to be inflexible. I am trying to remain open-minded and see all sides of the issue. Even so, I often cannot always come to the same consensus with you, the same as I cannot come to those of the Group-think masses.
I believe it was Rumitoid, responding to my previous remark, I told him that my problem was with the irrelevant questions and suppositions in each new posting that had no basis from previous statements. I am trying very hard to not make assumptions about you. If anything I am saying to you has been hurtful and based on unfounded assumptions I do apologize, as that is not my intent. I am certain that we have much more about which we agree than disagree. It is difficult to respond to anything when each new posting has additional remarks whose purpose appears to be muddying the waters even more. Does anyone remember what this thread was originally about (rhetorical question: I sure you do)?
Repeating what I wrote earlier, I have found the back-and-forth between Canuckus and yourself quite interesting and fodder for a lot of thinking as you both make some excellent arguments.
May 19, 2019 20:02:56 #
TommyRadd
Loc: Midwest USA
Part 4 to Zemirah
Now let’s address this:
Was this meant to contradict something I’ve written? Because, I totally agree with you said here in these particular words, and that is because you limited what you say to “any one individual.” Have I resorted to the teachings of any one individual? I have quoted theologians from the early period of Christianity to modern scholars and many in between. They all with one voice, when pressed, admit that the Trinitarians developed their doctrine over a space of hundreds of years, and some of them claim it still needs work! I’ve been citing the authors I found these things from so you could see for yourself. I certify to you that if I didn’t cite the source of someone or some scripture (or it wasn’t obvious), then I wrote it, either recently or from one of my own works or books.
Or did you write this against post-biblical writers in general?
I have a response to that, which is these scriptures:
“The things which you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2
“So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15.
“2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being revealed that you are a letter of Christ, served by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in tablets that are hearts of flesh.” 2 Corinthians 2:3:2-3.
“17Now I beg you, brothers, look out for those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them. 18For those who are such don't serve our Lord, Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and flattering speech, they deceive the hearts of the innocent.” Romans 16:17-18.
Since the full doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until the fourth century, there is no way these earlier disciples could have known the details of it. Thus, to teach it differently, these scriptures say, would mean by the ones who don’t serve the Lord, that is, they don’t keep his commandments. But we have to know what they were taught, and how they understood it, to know if what we are hearing or teaching lines up with what they understood from the apostles.
It was these scriptures that nudged me to my quest to discover what were the actual traditions that the apostles delivered, and how did those who heard the apostles understand what they were taught. That is because, like you have demonstrated through the silence of the scriptures that you use, there is no terminology describing the Trinity in the Bible, so such had to come from somewhere.
Furthermore, the Bible actually commands us to do align ourselves with the traditions that the apostles taught in 2 Thess. 2:15. So, through such verses, we can see that Paul clearly did not teach “sola scripture”, but, that he also taught that his disciples were his letter to the churches!
Although, strongly agreeably, the scriptures are the final authority, and thoroughly equip us unto every good work, nevertheless, the Bible itself says there are other *witnesses* that testify of the t***hs (both commandments and traditions) that the apostles taught. By ignoring these, like you are doing on one hand, while at the same time adopting the teachings of the ones those very same ones spoke and warned us against, Trinitarians have unwittingly, although literally, adopted the doctrines of devils and antichristians.
This is why Irenaeus is such an important witness. He was exactly that which Paul mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:2. He was taught by someone who was taught by the apostle John. And he was certainly NO Trinitarian! If you read my posts to Blade Runner, you’d see that Irenaeus adamantly spoke against a corporeal or compound God.
Now, let’s focus on your choice of the phrase “one essence.”
On one hand you tell us you could care less about the creeds that were developed during the church councils. But then you are perfectly comfortable applying the one word that by far caused virtually the whole stink during that period in the fourth century when the Trinity doctrine was hammered out on the workbenches of the theologians.
Are you aware of where that concept comes from? Well, let’s take a look and find out what the scholars tell us about it...
“The word homoousios, usually t***slated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential,’ appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century…It originally meant, ‘having the same substance,’ ousia; and in the majority of cases at least, the notion of ousia that is implied is either material or conceived in physical terms. It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same…kind of stuff.’” -Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 190.
So, Zemirah, your phrase “one essence”, which is precisely what “homoousios” means, is a phrase that originated with the antichristian gnostics of the second century. Let’s hear more...
“…the second century…pagan writing…the Poimandres…could conceivably be the earliest text which contains the word homoousios. The writer describes a revelation given to him by the god Poimandres, which explains the origin of the universe and of man; he draws freely on the book of Genesis, but boldly reinterprets its theology so as to present a fairly complex hierarchy of heavenly beings resembling those of the Gnostics. At the head of the hierarchy stands the supreme God whose name is Mind, Nous, and who is also characterized as ‘life and light’; next to him comes the Logos, who is described as ‘Son of God’…the Logos…was united with the Demiurge Mind, for he was of the same substance (homoousios)…” -ibid. 201-202.
Now, Zemirah, we are seeing your choice of concepts, “one essence/homoousios” being actually used in a pagan writing and being applied to the pagan philosophical view of what looks very much like the Father and Son of the scriptures, but in pagan terms they are nous and logos.
But the plot is just getting started. Next we want to see if early Christians were for or against God being spoken of in terms of substance or essence. For that we look to Irenaeus, the one the Bible tells us to consider, being as he was one who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John.
Speaking against the gnostics, Irenaeus wrote this:
“...If, however, they affirm (that this emission took place) just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so (by such reasoning) they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from Himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?
“If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this (intelligence) being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos. These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since they are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can anyone know Him less (than another) according to the descending order of their emission…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 4-6.
What we need to see hear, is that Irenaeus was criticizing the faulty logic of deific personalities being put forth from one another similar to how the sun puts forth a ray. Now, for goodness sakes, where did that crazy idea come from? Why, it came from Numenius, a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the mid-second century:
“But as the second (Divinity) is double, he himself produces the Idea of himself, and the World, inasmuch as his nature is that of a Creator, although he himself remains intelligible…The First God may not undertake creation, and therefore the First God must be considered as the Father of the Creating Divinity…When, however, the Divine is communicated, and passed over from the one to the other, it does not leave the Giver while being of service to the Receiver; not only does the Giver not lose anything thereby, but he gains this further advantage, the memory of his giving (or generosity). This beautiful process occurs with knowledge, by which the Receiver profits, as well as the Giver. This can be seen when one candle receives light from another by mere touch; the fire was not taken away from the other, but its component Matter was kindled by the fire of the other.” (As quoted in The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, t***s. Kenneth Guthrie (Lawrence, KS: Selene Books, [1917], rpt. 1987), 26–30.)
I don’t know if you’re aware, but this is the ultimate source of the “light from light” phrase that made its way into the Trinitarian creed of Nicea:
“I believe… 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 (homoousios) with the Father.” (The Nicene Creed, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/creeds-confessions/creeds/the-nicene-creed.html)
Now you, and everyone following along so far, knows the source of the “substance” of Trinitarianism. They adopted it from the anti-Christians, who in turn adopted it from paganism.
But we still haven’t figured out just how this concept of “homoousios/one essence” jumped from being a pagan word and doctrine to being a foundation of the Nicene Creed!
Oh but wait, there’s more...
“Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background. As can be seen clearly in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” -Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” Church History 71:2 (June 2002), available at Highbeam Reasearch, www.highbeam.com. Pier Franco Beatrice is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy. This paper was presented as a Master Theme of the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, 16-21 Aug. 1999).
Oh, so now your “one essence/homoousios” doctrine is found to have been imposed on the council by an unbaptized pagan Emperor who was drawing on his Egyptian paganism. Oh, but it is true...
Continued in Part 5 to Zemirah
Now let’s address this:
Zemirah wrote:
May 14, 2019 10:43:53 br br What any one individ... (show quote)
Was this meant to contradict something I’ve written? Because, I totally agree with you said here in these particular words, and that is because you limited what you say to “any one individual.” Have I resorted to the teachings of any one individual? I have quoted theologians from the early period of Christianity to modern scholars and many in between. They all with one voice, when pressed, admit that the Trinitarians developed their doctrine over a space of hundreds of years, and some of them claim it still needs work! I’ve been citing the authors I found these things from so you could see for yourself. I certify to you that if I didn’t cite the source of someone or some scripture (or it wasn’t obvious), then I wrote it, either recently or from one of my own works or books.
Or did you write this against post-biblical writers in general?
I have a response to that, which is these scriptures:
“The things which you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2
“So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15.
“2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being revealed that you are a letter of Christ, served by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in tablets that are hearts of flesh.” 2 Corinthians 2:3:2-3.
“17Now I beg you, brothers, look out for those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them. 18For those who are such don't serve our Lord, Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and flattering speech, they deceive the hearts of the innocent.” Romans 16:17-18.
Since the full doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until the fourth century, there is no way these earlier disciples could have known the details of it. Thus, to teach it differently, these scriptures say, would mean by the ones who don’t serve the Lord, that is, they don’t keep his commandments. But we have to know what they were taught, and how they understood it, to know if what we are hearing or teaching lines up with what they understood from the apostles.
It was these scriptures that nudged me to my quest to discover what were the actual traditions that the apostles delivered, and how did those who heard the apostles understand what they were taught. That is because, like you have demonstrated through the silence of the scriptures that you use, there is no terminology describing the Trinity in the Bible, so such had to come from somewhere.
Furthermore, the Bible actually commands us to do align ourselves with the traditions that the apostles taught in 2 Thess. 2:15. So, through such verses, we can see that Paul clearly did not teach “sola scripture”, but, that he also taught that his disciples were his letter to the churches!
Although, strongly agreeably, the scriptures are the final authority, and thoroughly equip us unto every good work, nevertheless, the Bible itself says there are other *witnesses* that testify of the t***hs (both commandments and traditions) that the apostles taught. By ignoring these, like you are doing on one hand, while at the same time adopting the teachings of the ones those very same ones spoke and warned us against, Trinitarians have unwittingly, although literally, adopted the doctrines of devils and antichristians.
This is why Irenaeus is such an important witness. He was exactly that which Paul mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:2. He was taught by someone who was taught by the apostle John. And he was certainly NO Trinitarian! If you read my posts to Blade Runner, you’d see that Irenaeus adamantly spoke against a corporeal or compound God.
Zemirah wrote:
“...I care not on what any individual Jew, Greek or Roman, or any of the so-called seven "church councils" (called together and dictated to by the Roman Emperor) pontificated. Their devised creeds are but the words of men....
...the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence...”
“...I care not on what any individual Jew, Greek or Roman, or any of the so-called seven "church councils" (called together and dictated to by the Roman Emperor) pontificated. Their devised creeds are but the words of men....
...the One God, throughout His Biblical message to mankind, is three personages in perfect unity within One Godhead, in one essence...”
Now, let’s focus on your choice of the phrase “one essence.”
On one hand you tell us you could care less about the creeds that were developed during the church councils. But then you are perfectly comfortable applying the one word that by far caused virtually the whole stink during that period in the fourth century when the Trinity doctrine was hammered out on the workbenches of the theologians.
Are you aware of where that concept comes from? Well, let’s take a look and find out what the scholars tell us about it...
“The word homoousios, usually t***slated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential,’ appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century…It originally meant, ‘having the same substance,’ ousia; and in the majority of cases at least, the notion of ousia that is implied is either material or conceived in physical terms. It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same…kind of stuff.’” -Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 190.
So, Zemirah, your phrase “one essence”, which is precisely what “homoousios” means, is a phrase that originated with the antichristian gnostics of the second century. Let’s hear more...
“…the second century…pagan writing…the Poimandres…could conceivably be the earliest text which contains the word homoousios. The writer describes a revelation given to him by the god Poimandres, which explains the origin of the universe and of man; he draws freely on the book of Genesis, but boldly reinterprets its theology so as to present a fairly complex hierarchy of heavenly beings resembling those of the Gnostics. At the head of the hierarchy stands the supreme God whose name is Mind, Nous, and who is also characterized as ‘life and light’; next to him comes the Logos, who is described as ‘Son of God’…the Logos…was united with the Demiurge Mind, for he was of the same substance (homoousios)…” -ibid. 201-202.
Now, Zemirah, we are seeing your choice of concepts, “one essence/homoousios” being actually used in a pagan writing and being applied to the pagan philosophical view of what looks very much like the Father and Son of the scriptures, but in pagan terms they are nous and logos.
But the plot is just getting started. Next we want to see if early Christians were for or against God being spoken of in terms of substance or essence. For that we look to Irenaeus, the one the Bible tells us to consider, being as he was one who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John.
Speaking against the gnostics, Irenaeus wrote this:
“...If, however, they affirm (that this emission took place) just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so (by such reasoning) they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from Himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?
“If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this (intelligence) being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos. These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since they are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can anyone know Him less (than another) according to the descending order of their emission…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 4-6.
What we need to see hear, is that Irenaeus was criticizing the faulty logic of deific personalities being put forth from one another similar to how the sun puts forth a ray. Now, for goodness sakes, where did that crazy idea come from? Why, it came from Numenius, a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the mid-second century:
“But as the second (Divinity) is double, he himself produces the Idea of himself, and the World, inasmuch as his nature is that of a Creator, although he himself remains intelligible…The First God may not undertake creation, and therefore the First God must be considered as the Father of the Creating Divinity…When, however, the Divine is communicated, and passed over from the one to the other, it does not leave the Giver while being of service to the Receiver; not only does the Giver not lose anything thereby, but he gains this further advantage, the memory of his giving (or generosity). This beautiful process occurs with knowledge, by which the Receiver profits, as well as the Giver. This can be seen when one candle receives light from another by mere touch; the fire was not taken away from the other, but its component Matter was kindled by the fire of the other.” (As quoted in The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, t***s. Kenneth Guthrie (Lawrence, KS: Selene Books, [1917], rpt. 1987), 26–30.)
I don’t know if you’re aware, but this is the ultimate source of the “light from light” phrase that made its way into the Trinitarian creed of Nicea:
“I believe… 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 (homoousios) with the Father.” (The Nicene Creed, https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/creeds-confessions/creeds/the-nicene-creed.html)
Now you, and everyone following along so far, knows the source of the “substance” of Trinitarianism. They adopted it from the anti-Christians, who in turn adopted it from paganism.
But we still haven’t figured out just how this concept of “homoousios/one essence” jumped from being a pagan word and doctrine to being a foundation of the Nicene Creed!
Oh but wait, there’s more...
“Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background. As can be seen clearly in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” -Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” Church History 71:2 (June 2002), available at Highbeam Reasearch, www.highbeam.com. Pier Franco Beatrice is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy. This paper was presented as a Master Theme of the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, 16-21 Aug. 1999).
Oh, so now your “one essence/homoousios” doctrine is found to have been imposed on the council by an unbaptized pagan Emperor who was drawing on his Egyptian paganism. Oh, but it is true...
Continued in Part 5 to Zemirah
May 19, 2019 20:07:46 #
No, Canuckus, I didn't. dtucker's "impression" of me is immaterial.
Your constant misrepresentation of my words speaks ill of you.
I answered dTucker's words, which were addressed to me. What has that to do with you?
Jumping in constantly to intervene: reinterpreting other's words of whom you approve, castigated those who fail to agree with your "understanding", who are addressing other's words, not yours, leaves the indelible impression you have crowned yourself as the sheriff and enforcer of who may say what and to whom on this forum.
This is not China. They may be amused by a Canadian buttinsky who is trying desperately to impress his audience with his blinding (without the benefit of background information) intellect.
Freedom of speech is still the law of the land, and unless you own this forum, the members of this privately owned internet site are subject to forum rules and forum moderators.
Where, exactly do you fit into that?
After ridiculing my posts, reinterpreting the meaning of my words, and mocking "fundamentalist Bible believers" who are stupid enough to believe what God has said in the way in which He has said it, your secular standards (or lack thereof) have been made clear.
As you have said repeatedly regarding God's Word, "I don't believe this, or this, or that, - but I am a Christian," clarification would better require your attention, rather than my beliefs and participation on OPP.
Wh**ever it is that you are attempting to demonstrate is best left between you and the Almighty.
"Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near." (Isaiah 55:6-7)
“Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2nd Corinthian 6:2)
Your constant misrepresentation of my words speaks ill of you.
I answered dTucker's words, which were addressed to me. What has that to do with you?
Jumping in constantly to intervene: reinterpreting other's words of whom you approve, castigated those who fail to agree with your "understanding", who are addressing other's words, not yours, leaves the indelible impression you have crowned yourself as the sheriff and enforcer of who may say what and to whom on this forum.
This is not China. They may be amused by a Canadian buttinsky who is trying desperately to impress his audience with his blinding (without the benefit of background information) intellect.
Freedom of speech is still the law of the land, and unless you own this forum, the members of this privately owned internet site are subject to forum rules and forum moderators.
Where, exactly do you fit into that?
After ridiculing my posts, reinterpreting the meaning of my words, and mocking "fundamentalist Bible believers" who are stupid enough to believe what God has said in the way in which He has said it, your secular standards (or lack thereof) have been made clear.
As you have said repeatedly regarding God's Word, "I don't believe this, or this, or that, - but I am a Christian," clarification would better require your attention, rather than my beliefs and participation on OPP.
Wh**ever it is that you are attempting to demonstrate is best left between you and the Almighty.
"Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near." (Isaiah 55:6-7)
“Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2nd Corinthian 6:2)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
It's like you read Tucker's post and then decided there was the need to demonstrate that his perceptions of you were true 
May 19, 2019 20:24:09 #
TommyRadd
Loc: Midwest USA
Part 5 to Zemirah
“Constantine did not confine himself to imposing, by his authority, the inclusion of homoousios in Eusebius’s creed. He also supplied a ‘philosophical’ explanation with the intention of dispelling any possible misunderstanding connected with the usual ‘materialistic’ interpretation of this word…
“Constantine enunciated his ‘philosophy’ in a more extensive way in the so-called Speech to the Assembly of the Saints. Here…Constantine praises Plato for having said many true things about God…This statement evidently has no relation at all with Plato’s real doctrine. Neither is Numenius likely to have exerted any influence on Constantine’s speech…
“On the contrary, Hermetism offers more significant similarities, and a careful scrutiny reveals strong analogies of thought and language between Constantine’s theology and the tradition found in both the Corpus Hermeticum and the five Egyptian theological oracles of the Theosophia…
“…[I]n Constantine’s view homoousios was a pregnant technical term, with its own precise, traditional Hermetic meaning. In his thought the word homoousios did not contradict the distinction of two divine ousiai, precisely because it was the heritage of the ancient Egyptian theology and of the revelation of Hermes Trismegistus, and had therefore nothing to do with the Sabellian or monarchian identification-theology of the one hypostasis. Hermetism forms the conceptual background of the emperor’s theology…
“Many centuries before being portrayed on the floor of the Siena cathedral (at the end of the fifteenth century), Hermes Trismegistus had already entered the body of Christian doctrine in the semblance of Constantine, setting his seal on the formulation of the Nicene Creed.” Ibid. 264-266, 270, 272.
Does this shock you? It should. It certainly shocked me when I first read it, and I was never a Trinitarian. What is really shocking to me, though, is how lackadaisical Trinitarians are in adopting an antichristian Gnostic doctrine. Were you aware that Constantine was the legal heir to the throne of satan according to Jesus in Revelation 2:12-13:
“To…the assembly in Pergamum write:…I know…where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.” (Revelation 2:12–13)
This statement refers to the earlier prophecies in the book of Daniel, such as Daniel 8:21. Daniel prophesied that the empire of Greece was in the line of Satan’s kingdoms. I’m not going to analyze those prophecies here other than to say they tell of the empires leading up to the kingdom of antichrist, beginning with the Medes and Persians. Jesus felt it significant enough to reveal to John just where the throne of that kingdom was established at the time of John’s writing. Jesus’ words were accurate, historically and politically.
“Pergamum served as the residence of the Attalid [hellenist/Greek] dynasty…When Eumenes’s son and second successor, Attalus III, died without an heir, he bequeathed the kingdom [Satan’s seat] to Rome (133 AD). Rome accepted it…” “Pergamum,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1974. [Bracket’s mine].
So pagan Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306 to 337 AD, who inherited the throne of satan that had been bequeathed to Rome, imposed his authority as satan’s legal heir to have the pagan, hermetic concept of “one essence/homoousios” into the Trinitarian Nicene Creed.
And then you come along and want me to believe that, just because you happen to use the same concept that was the cornerstone of the Trinitarian development of the fourth century, that doesn’t mean you care what they say... and we’re to believe you?
Well then, let me ask you a simple question: Where did you get the phrase “one essence [homoousious]” from? It obviously wasn’t found in any of the scriptures you quoted or cited. Therefore, just like Piero Franco Beatrice said, ““Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation”. And since you are the one who is using it to define your god, it is legitimate to ask you where you got that concept?
If you made it up, then you are are in the wrong for teaching unbiblical doctrines. For it is written:
16Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. 18He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” John 7:16-18.
According to Jesus it would be very unrighteous for you to “speak from yourself”, but hey, that’s only according to Jesus. But, Father God puts it like this:
“...behold, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who steal my words everyone from his neighbor. 31Behold, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who use their tongues, and say, He says. 32Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, says Yahweh, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their vain boasting: yet I didn't send them, nor commanded them; neither do they profit this people at all, says Yahweh.” Jerem. 23:30-32
Are you really sure you want to put words in God’s mouth that neither His prophets, nor Jesus, nor the Apostles ever uttered? Weren’t you aware that would put God against you? I mean, maybe you don’t have a problem with that, particularly since it seems you don’t have a problem adopting pagan concepts with which to describe your man-made idol.
The way I read what God said, stealing words from one’s neighbor would be like, well, plagiarism. Which is just another type of lying, and we know what happens to liars in the end:
“But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8
Maybe now you’re beginning to see why I felt reiterating this Psalm was so important:
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Or maybe you got your idea of “one essence/homoousios” from Trinitarians that haven’t been admitting where they got it from, is that it? If so, then they are either teaching unbiblical doctrines or they are the plagiarists.
But then, that wouldn’t be a good position to be in, because then this set of scriptures would apply to you:
“If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15.
“29For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Acts 20:29-30.
It seems to me with such high stakes you’d be a little more careful of the source and choice of your words.
It also seems to me; you’ve got some explaining to do.
The only goads I’m kicking against are the traditions of men that you can’t find scripture that explain in detail.
And what about you? Why do you kick against the goads, which in this case just happens to be the first commandment according to God and Jesus?
“1“Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.’” (John 17:1, 3).
“Constantine did not confine himself to imposing, by his authority, the inclusion of homoousios in Eusebius’s creed. He also supplied a ‘philosophical’ explanation with the intention of dispelling any possible misunderstanding connected with the usual ‘materialistic’ interpretation of this word…
“Constantine enunciated his ‘philosophy’ in a more extensive way in the so-called Speech to the Assembly of the Saints. Here…Constantine praises Plato for having said many true things about God…This statement evidently has no relation at all with Plato’s real doctrine. Neither is Numenius likely to have exerted any influence on Constantine’s speech…
“On the contrary, Hermetism offers more significant similarities, and a careful scrutiny reveals strong analogies of thought and language between Constantine’s theology and the tradition found in both the Corpus Hermeticum and the five Egyptian theological oracles of the Theosophia…
“…[I]n Constantine’s view homoousios was a pregnant technical term, with its own precise, traditional Hermetic meaning. In his thought the word homoousios did not contradict the distinction of two divine ousiai, precisely because it was the heritage of the ancient Egyptian theology and of the revelation of Hermes Trismegistus, and had therefore nothing to do with the Sabellian or monarchian identification-theology of the one hypostasis. Hermetism forms the conceptual background of the emperor’s theology…
“Many centuries before being portrayed on the floor of the Siena cathedral (at the end of the fifteenth century), Hermes Trismegistus had already entered the body of Christian doctrine in the semblance of Constantine, setting his seal on the formulation of the Nicene Creed.” Ibid. 264-266, 270, 272.
Does this shock you? It should. It certainly shocked me when I first read it, and I was never a Trinitarian. What is really shocking to me, though, is how lackadaisical Trinitarians are in adopting an antichristian Gnostic doctrine. Were you aware that Constantine was the legal heir to the throne of satan according to Jesus in Revelation 2:12-13:
“To…the assembly in Pergamum write:…I know…where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.” (Revelation 2:12–13)
This statement refers to the earlier prophecies in the book of Daniel, such as Daniel 8:21. Daniel prophesied that the empire of Greece was in the line of Satan’s kingdoms. I’m not going to analyze those prophecies here other than to say they tell of the empires leading up to the kingdom of antichrist, beginning with the Medes and Persians. Jesus felt it significant enough to reveal to John just where the throne of that kingdom was established at the time of John’s writing. Jesus’ words were accurate, historically and politically.
“Pergamum served as the residence of the Attalid [hellenist/Greek] dynasty…When Eumenes’s son and second successor, Attalus III, died without an heir, he bequeathed the kingdom [Satan’s seat] to Rome (133 AD). Rome accepted it…” “Pergamum,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1974. [Bracket’s mine].
So pagan Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306 to 337 AD, who inherited the throne of satan that had been bequeathed to Rome, imposed his authority as satan’s legal heir to have the pagan, hermetic concept of “one essence/homoousios” into the Trinitarian Nicene Creed.
And then you come along and want me to believe that, just because you happen to use the same concept that was the cornerstone of the Trinitarian development of the fourth century, that doesn’t mean you care what they say... and we’re to believe you?
Well then, let me ask you a simple question: Where did you get the phrase “one essence [homoousious]” from? It obviously wasn’t found in any of the scriptures you quoted or cited. Therefore, just like Piero Franco Beatrice said, ““Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation”. And since you are the one who is using it to define your god, it is legitimate to ask you where you got that concept?
If you made it up, then you are are in the wrong for teaching unbiblical doctrines. For it is written:
16Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. 18He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” John 7:16-18.
According to Jesus it would be very unrighteous for you to “speak from yourself”, but hey, that’s only according to Jesus. But, Father God puts it like this:
“...behold, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who steal my words everyone from his neighbor. 31Behold, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who use their tongues, and say, He says. 32Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, says Yahweh, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their vain boasting: yet I didn't send them, nor commanded them; neither do they profit this people at all, says Yahweh.” Jerem. 23:30-32
Are you really sure you want to put words in God’s mouth that neither His prophets, nor Jesus, nor the Apostles ever uttered? Weren’t you aware that would put God against you? I mean, maybe you don’t have a problem with that, particularly since it seems you don’t have a problem adopting pagan concepts with which to describe your man-made idol.
The way I read what God said, stealing words from one’s neighbor would be like, well, plagiarism. Which is just another type of lying, and we know what happens to liars in the end:
“But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8
Maybe now you’re beginning to see why I felt reiterating this Psalm was so important:
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Prov. 30:6
Or maybe you got your idea of “one essence/homoousios” from Trinitarians that haven’t been admitting where they got it from, is that it? If so, then they are either teaching unbiblical doctrines or they are the plagiarists.
But then, that wouldn’t be a good position to be in, because then this set of scriptures would apply to you:
“If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15.
“29For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Acts 20:29-30.
It seems to me with such high stakes you’d be a little more careful of the source and choice of your words.
It also seems to me; you’ve got some explaining to do.
Zemirah wrote:
Why do you kick against the goads?
Why do you kick against the goads?
The only goads I’m kicking against are the traditions of men that you can’t find scripture that explain in detail.
And what about you? Why do you kick against the goads, which in this case just happens to be the first commandment according to God and Jesus?
“1“Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.’” (John 17:1, 3).
May 19, 2019 20:29:57 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I feel you Tucker...
Although I never question a person's sincerity when it comes to faith...
We are none of us perfect and all of us on the same journey...
Stay strong brother...
Although I never question a person's sincerity when it comes to faith...
We are none of us perfect and all of us on the same journey...
Stay strong brother...
You too! What I really resented was being called a snowflake in need of a safe space, when nothing could be further from the t***h. It is really difficult to read people well when all you have are a few words taken out of context. Such as it is, that's life.
May 19, 2019 21:30:03 #
dtucker: This is from https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158042-14.html
I'm not sure why they were addressed on another thread: https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-157519-47.html#2847813
We are dealing in confused confusion...
Thank you, dtucker, for accepting my words as "kind." They were actually meant as satire, which I imagine you fully realized.
As for my "arriving at the t***h," - how long do you suppose that takes?
I arrived at the understanding that Jesus Christ is "the way, the 't***h' and the life," through the Word of God many decades ago. Everything else follows that.
Jesus also said, "Sanctify them in the 't***h;' Your word is t***h." (John 17:17)
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-t***h-20-great-scripture-quotes/#ixzz5oQD7a523
I have no intention of drawing anyone's blood, either figuratively or literally, anywhere at any time.
As for living on OPP - after six years as a member of this forum, I have a paltry 3,503 posts.
Compare that with the 30,000 to 50,000 posts others have accumulated in far less time.
For reference,our good friend, Canuckus has accumulated 6,866 posts in six months, since November of 2018, which is devotion, dedication or obsession (or a westerner missing his own culture).
I, too, have a life, although retired (Thank God). I have grown children, and grandchildren, extended family, civic clubs whose meetings I mostly ignore, and fellowship with the Triune God who loves me, and who has given me a life and a future eternity with Him, through Jesus' sacrificial sin debt paying death on Calvary's cross.
I assure you nothing that has ever been said on this forum will hurt, or has ever hurt my feelings.
That does not even compute. It's an internet forum!
I have accumulated a home library of approximately six thousand books on ancient history, ancient religion, comparative religion, Biblical history, the history of Judaism, the history of Islam and on World religion, and I have read them.
I rarely see a post touching on religion I wouldn't love to add dates, names or info to, but usually manage to restrain myself.
Genesis is the foundation for everything else said in the Bible. Dismiss that, or change it, believing that you know better than God, and you have no foundation for t***h. (I don't mean you specifically)
As Theologian and Philosopher Francis Schaeffer said, "God has spoken and He does not stutter."
I'm not sure why they were addressed on another thread: https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-157519-47.html#2847813
We are dealing in confused confusion...
zemirah wrote:
Generations of the world's youth have been taught lies as t***h in their schools and universities. The only one's who escape it are those who hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and accept His pardon in full.
Subsequently, studying the Bible, starting with Genesis, with the indwelling Holy Spirit as teacher and guide gives believers the spiritual discernment to distinguish the t***h from fiction, and to understand when they are being played.
Subsequently, studying the Bible, starting with Genesis, with the indwelling Holy Spirit as teacher and guide gives believers the spiritual discernment to distinguish the t***h from fiction, and to understand when they are being played.
Thank you, dtucker, for accepting my words as "kind." They were actually meant as satire, which I imagine you fully realized.
As for my "arriving at the t***h," - how long do you suppose that takes?
I arrived at the understanding that Jesus Christ is "the way, the 't***h' and the life," through the Word of God many decades ago. Everything else follows that.
Jesus also said, "Sanctify them in the 't***h;' Your word is t***h." (John 17:17)
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-t***h-20-great-scripture-quotes/#ixzz5oQD7a523
I have no intention of drawing anyone's blood, either figuratively or literally, anywhere at any time.
As for living on OPP - after six years as a member of this forum, I have a paltry 3,503 posts.
Compare that with the 30,000 to 50,000 posts others have accumulated in far less time.
For reference,our good friend, Canuckus has accumulated 6,866 posts in six months, since November of 2018, which is devotion, dedication or obsession (or a westerner missing his own culture).
I, too, have a life, although retired (Thank God). I have grown children, and grandchildren, extended family, civic clubs whose meetings I mostly ignore, and fellowship with the Triune God who loves me, and who has given me a life and a future eternity with Him, through Jesus' sacrificial sin debt paying death on Calvary's cross.
I assure you nothing that has ever been said on this forum will hurt, or has ever hurt my feelings.
That does not even compute. It's an internet forum!
I have accumulated a home library of approximately six thousand books on ancient history, ancient religion, comparative religion, Biblical history, the history of Judaism, the history of Islam and on World religion, and I have read them.
I rarely see a post touching on religion I wouldn't love to add dates, names or info to, but usually manage to restrain myself.
Genesis is the foundation for everything else said in the Bible. Dismiss that, or change it, believing that you know better than God, and you have no foundation for t***h. (I don't mean you specifically)
As Theologian and Philosopher Francis Schaeffer said, "God has spoken and He does not stutter."
dtucker300 wrote:
Zemirah, Thank you for your kind words: "In y... (show quote)
May 19, 2019 22:19:16 #
rumitoid wrote:
In my experience, to see Satan as my adversary, much less my one adversary, is a grave mistake. I am the devil of my thoughts, words, and deeds. Putting it outside myself within the incarnation of an evil force is part of evil's great deception. Ego fits what happened in the garden: the poisoned fruit of knowing good from evil. And it fits the title Lucifer: "bearer of light."
You read something that wasn’t there in what I said.
May 19, 2019 22:29:09 #
May 19, 2019 22:29:54 #
May 19, 2019 22:45:55 #
dtucker300 wrote:
You too! What I really resented was being called a snowflake in need of a safe space, when nothing could be further from the t***h. It is really difficult to read people well when all you have are a few words taken out of context. Such as it is, that's life.
Calling someone a snowflake is a deflection from one's inability to address the argument...
Sometimes we carry on discussions over multiple threads... Once Sici and I did It over four threads... If you read just the one thread the argument was bizarre... We can get confused over time...
I have read your threads and posts... You're more of an avalanche than a Snowflake
This is still an excellent thread...
And shows no sign of dying off anytime soon..
May 19, 2019 22:53:37 #
Zemirah wrote:
No, Canuckus, I didn't. dtucker's "impression... (show quote)
Apologies for interacting on an open forum...
I believe it was you who told me such is the acceptable practice on a forum...
Not once have I ever said I don't believe the words of God... That is a lie... And I declare you a liar...
I have different interpretations concerning some passages... Still a Christian
I have no idea how China fits into this discussion... (Deflection?)...
If I have broken any forum rules I am sure that Admin will notify me...
I have necer ridiculed a believer
(more projection?) Fundamentalist are welcome to their beliefs.. It was you who called evolutionists stupid...
Blind to your own actions/words?
If you don't enjoy the interactions on the forum there is a solution...
God bless...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.