Does God have eyes?

The Nicene creed-

begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Yes, per Eusebius of Caesarea, the word homousios was inserted in the Nicene Creed solely by the personal order of Constantine. And since no one can describe the "substance of God" who is Spirit, then the term is political rather than theological (which is presumably why it isn't found in the bible.)

I have to ask myself: do I (or you for that matter) worship Constantine, the Emperor of the Romans, or the God of Jesus?

From CARM-

or “…the persons are identical in all things except their eternal relations of origin (personal properties):
I wasn't aware that the origin of the Father, the Word or the Holy Spirit, was defined in the bible.

Their "personal properties" relate to economy (but see below re "authority").

paternity, filiation, spiration. These and these alone distinguish the persons.”
These again relate to economy, but they could also relate to "authority" or greatness - Jesus said "The Father is greater". In so far as they relate to authority/greatness, they are implicit and differentiable. But then Trinitarians would have problems with all three being "God" simultaneously (one "God" can't be greater than another.)

This leads to a further issue: what is it that defines "God"? Trinitarians allege it is "substance" (Gk: ousia) but the bible knows nothing of it.

Why would you define God by a word that doesn't even appear in the bible?
 
Last edited:
Jesus had a God. God doesn't have a God.
ERROR again, here is the scripture to test just what you said, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

who name did he write?


:ninja:
 
ERROR again, here is the scripture to test just what you said, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him (1) the name of my God, and the (2) name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him (3) my new name."

who name did he write?


:ninja:
There are lots of names here.

Rev 19:12 "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."
 
Their "personal properties" relate to economy (but see below re "authority").


These again relate to economy, but they could also relate to "authority" or greatness - Jesus said "The Father is greater". In so far as they relate to authority/greatness, they are implicit and differentiable. But then Trinitarians would have problems with all three being "God" simultaneously (one "God" can't be greater than another.)
You have it backwards. The economic trinity is has to do with how the trinity relates to salvation and immanent trinity is how they relate to each other within God. Basically, I've been told, the distinctions between the persons within God have to do with relationship. I think social trinitarians might take those distinctions to excess.

This is Dr. Fred Sanders. He wrote a book about it. I doubt you will believe me but you might believe him.

This leads to a further issue: what is it that defines "God"? Trinitarians allege it is "substance" (Gk: ousia) but the bible knows nothing of it.
I'm not a trinitarian but I try not to misrepresent their doctrine.

Why would you define God by a word that doesn't even appear in the bible?
In my opinion, the substance (and likely person) of God is spirit- whatever that is.
 
The phrase "His eyes were as a flame of fire" (οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρός) comes from Daniel 10:6.

Daniel 10:6 " his eyes as lamps of fire"
MT עיניו כלפידי אש
LXX οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ λαμπάδες πυρός

αὐγή עין
αὐγαί עיני eyes
λαμπάδος לפיד lamb

λαμπάδος is the poetic form of λαμπρός "bright, radiant, of the sun and stars, of the eyes".
# ὄμμα λαμπρὸν bright eyes


Daniel 10:6 also reads כעין נחשת קלל "like the gleam of polished bronze ", but עין here is not referring to eyes, but fallsback
unto αὐγή ; gleam, sheen, of bright objects .

αὐγὴ χάλκειος ("gleam of brass") Il.13.341
- Daniel 10:6
כעין נחשת קלל "ὡς αὐγής καυχοῦ ἐρυθροῦ " (like the gleam of polished copper) *Il. 9.365

More examples Biblical Hebrew is more Homeric than the Greek of the Septuagint.
 
There are lots of names here.

Rev 19:12 "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."
ERROR, LISTEN, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."
who name did he write?

and as for
Rev 19:12 "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."
Revelation 19:16 "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." and who is that? Revelation 17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

NOW, cjab who is the Lamb? .... (smile) LOL, LOL, now back to
Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

who name did he write? :eek: YIKES!
your answer please.

:ninja:
 
ERROR, LISTEN, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."
who name did he write?

and as for

Revelation 19:16 "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." and who is that? Revelation 17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

NOW, cjab who is the Lamb? .... (smile) LOL, LOL, now back to
Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

who name did he write? :eek: YIKES!
your answer please.

:ninja:
We are not told what the new name of Christ is; but we are told he has a new name that no man knoweth (except 101G - privy to all the secrets of God). And stop repeating yourself (it gets boring) and makes me disinclined to converse with you.

Who is the lamb? I guess it is "the passover lamb" (1 Cor 5:7), the one without blemish or defect (1 Pet 1:19).
 
Last edited:
You have it backwards. The economic trinity is has to do with how the trinity relates to salvation and immanent trinity is how they relate to each other within God.
If you say so.

Basically, I've been told, the distinctions between the persons within God have to do with relationship. I think social trinitarians might take those distinctions to excess.
Of course I accept an "ontological triad" just because I accept the deity of the Father, Son and Holy spirit (not everyone does - I do). However I do not accept the "processions of the trinity." I only accept the missions of the witnesses (1 John 5:7/8 - non Comma).

This is Dr. Fred Sanders. He wrote a book about it. I doubt you will believe me but you might believe him.


I'm not a trinitarian but I try not to misrepresent their doctrine.
Dr. Fred Sanders suggests that terms such as econonic (i.e. salvation) trinity/triad and immanent trinity/triad are not always helpful. For myself, I am happy with these terms in a strictly biblical context.

However I can see that from a Trinitarian (triune) view, disinguishing these concepts could be seen as unhelpful to Trinitarians, as Karl Rahner suggests, just because the idea of "trinity" is historically a unitary theory. And then there is the embarrassment that Tertullian's original economic trinity has been conceived by many orthdox (especially Catholic) Trinitarians as heretical, in that it is subordinationist (oh dear - did Tertullian inadvertently repudiate the immanent "trinity" that the "orthodox" went on to define?)

Let me suggest that another problem lies in what you are left with in terms of "trinity" if you take away the economic trinity (the missions). You are left with an "immanent trinity" that is either pagan polytheism, or sabellianism, depending on whether or not you include the idea of procession within the concept of immanent trinity. I guess the Carm (immanent) trinity definition does include this idea of procession but I personally do not see procession as belonging to the immanent trinity/triad, as whenever procession occurs in the bible, it is always in a salvation/economic/mission context - e.g. John 8:42.

Dr. Fred Sanders desires to think about salvation more in terms of mission and procession. It was the fallacy of the early Greek church to confound mission (biblically orthodox) with procession in accordance with the tenets of Greek paganism. Thus the begotteness of the Son (begotten by being conceived and born), which is central to the mission of Christ, became confounded with the idea of procession (God from God) in the Nicene creed. This causes all kinds of confusion, which orthodox Trinitarians find near impossible to sort out.


In my opinion, the substance (and likely person) of God is spirit- whatever that is.
No, because then all spirits would be divine.
 
Last edited:
This is the only response you've got?
You can find the essence of my theology in the The Expositor's Greek New Testament and in the Revised Standard Version of the bible. If you object to these, which it seems that you do, then you can critique them.

As for the idea of processions, which seems to be another method high Trinitarians use to distinguish themselves from Sabellians, I reject the contention, as "procession" is, biblical speaking, part of mission which involves economy.
 
Last edited:
You can find the essence of my theology in the The Expositor's Greek New Testament and in the Revised Standard Version of the bible. If you object to these, which it seems that you do, then you can critique them.

As for the idea of processions, which seems to be another method high Trinitarians use to distinguish themselves from Sabellians, I reject the contention, as "procession" is, biblical speaking, part of mission which involves economy.
I was referring to the fact that you had just quoted my post and run away from the substance of it by changing the subject.
 
@cjab You wrote, " As for the idea of processions, which seems to be another method high Trinitarians use to distinguish themselves from Sabellians, I reject the contention, as "procession" is, biblical speaking, part of mission which involves economy."



You can reject the trinitarian definitions of processions, see the Nicene definition which is in biblical language. The doctrine of the immanent trinity is specifically identifying the differences among the persons internal to God. It was differentiated expressly to make a difference between the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, in God and in their expression to creation, the economic trinity. You shouldn't use those terms interchangeably or with your own twist, or at all if you don't use them with their proper definitions. You will only muddy the waters.
 
Last edited:
We are not told what the new name of Christ is;
ERROR, not in English which was NOT the dominant language at that time, but in Hebrew the name was Given, Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I."

JESUS, which is a transliteration, and not a translation of Yeshua was not known to the Hebrew writer. there was no "J" in Hebrew. but God Name was given/Declared. John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."

so there is no excuse for not knowing God's Holy Name. Hebrew, "YESHUA", the NEW NAME in English, "JESUS".

Oh how so easy 2 not
Who is the lamb? I guess it is "the passover lamb" (1 Cor 5:7), the one without blemish or defect (1 Pet 1:19).
well u guess wrong, the LAMB in Heaven who is LORD of lords, and KING of kings is not the same Lamb that was sacrifice LOL, LOL, LOL, how IGNORANT when one tries to be silly.
understand. the LAMB in Heaven has NO BLOOD, the Lamb "of" God that was on Earth in Flesh had BLOOD. the Lamb on Earth the sacrifice is the OFFSPRING, the LAMB that Rose is the ROOT....... (smile), LOL, Oh how IGNORANT some are.

so, you're reproved in both,


:ninja:
 
You can reject the trinitarian definitions of processions, see the Nicene definition which is in biblical language.
Where exactly does "God from God" or "Homoousios" occur in the bible?

The doctrine of the immanent trinity is specifically identifying the differences among the persons internal to God. It was differentiated expressly to make a difference between the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, in God and in their expression to creation, the economic trinity. You shouldn't use those terms interchangeably or with your own twist, or at all if you don't use them with their proper definitions. You will only muddy the waters.
Trinitarians don't own the bible, despite Jn 1:1 and Romans 9:5 being overtly Trinitarian translations in most English renditions. I can use whatever terms I want: if Tertullian used them (or at least economic trinity), then so can I.

I now realize that "Trinitarians" object to these terms, because, as I have pointed out, they have become a real embarrassment to Trinitarians. It was Tertullian himself who showed that the economic trinity conception bestowed the "trinity" with a hierarchical flavor (God over Christ over the Holy Spirit), which has been anathema to votaries of the immanent trinity ever since.
 
I was referring to the fact that you had just quoted my post and run away from the substance of it by changing the subject.
Your post being "The problem you seem to have is that you imagine that everyone who disagrees with your position must be a Sabellian?"

It seems to me you don't wish to discource on this subject. I have been long pondering the deep malaise associated with Trinitarianism, and the almost continuous decline in attendances at Trinitarian churches in recent years, along with a proclivity to antinomianism. I believe it is a similar problem to that which beset the Latin church hierarchies in the age of Tertullian who also perceived a tendency to sabellianism. The exaggeration of the oneness of the Father and the Son is concealed under a number of gimmicks that are scarcely biblical, and only result in unbelief, where faith becomes replaced by dogma.
 
Your post being "The problem you seem to have is that you imagine that everyone who disagrees with your position must be a Sabellian?"

It seems to me you don't wish to discource on this subject. I have been long pondering the deep malaise associated with Trinitarianism, and the almost continuous decline in attendances at Trinitarian churches in recent years, along with a proclivity to antinomianism. I believe it is a similar problem to that which beset the Latin church hierarchies in the age of Tertullian who also perceived a tendency to sabellianism. The exaggeration of the oneness of the Father and the Son is concealed under a number of gimmicks that are scarcely biblical, and only result in unbelief, where faith becomes replaced by dogma.
You know full well that was only a small part at the bottom of my post. You ignored the rest. See:
For what it's worth it's a single post.

In John's gospel, Jesus was called, as you say "anarthrous theos" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.) and "o theos" (ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.). I don't know why you keep making a statement that you should know isn't true. The idea that God is "greater (or higher) than the Logos" is given in John's Gospel, but it isn't fleshed out. Such a hierarchy could temporarily arise during his incarnation while he was not in the form of God or simply be a matter of roles where they remain ontologically one. It's not clear exactly what John thinks.

These scriptures don't support the idea that the Father cannot be known except through the "Logos".

So you think that the system that has the least in common with John's conception of the "Logos" and is the most remote in terms of time is the one that informs John's gospel?

Not Plutarch or Philo.

Be careful in your research; most all of the information is second hand and filtered through other people's thoughts about his teaching.

I believe your earlier gripe was that the translators didn't pay attention to the anarthrous use of the word "theos" which, as I have explained to you countless times, is a false complaint. Your paraphrase is APPARENTLY (I'm emphasizing this so you don't get offended without cause again.) an attempt to divest the Word of his divinity by making him completely dependent upon the Father thus abrogating the difficulty of the Word being "God" while there is but one God. Yet, this might not be quite right, because you say puzzling things like:
Where you seem to imply that you think the "Logos" is divine "distinct from the Father".

You label practically everyone else a Sabellian.
You think I'm a Sabellian:

You think Trinitarians are Sabellians:

You think Oneness are Sabellians:
Etc.

It reads just fine alongside the many passages in John that say Jesus and the Father are one. The problem you seem to have is that you imagine that everyone who disagrees with your position must be a Sabellian.
 
Where exactly does "God from God" or "Homoousios" occur in the bible?
I never mentioned homoousias, the same essence, nature, being. It's a logical deduction trinitarians make when faced with 3, Father, Son, and Spirit, who are referred to in the scriptures as God. GryllusMajor wrote that he deduced that before learning of the doctrine of the trinity. Homoousias is simply a name for something found in the bible...3 who are called God are of the same nature, a logical deduction.
Of course since I'm not a trinitarian, I disagree with it, but that's beside the point.

You wrote this in post # 38 "Whatever: he slanders me continuously. I am certainly not oneness, as I am a subordinationist, which is irreconcilable with oneness." Would you please explain what YOU mean by it? Is this an eternal form of subordinationism or did it come about because of the incarnation? If it is erernal, what would the name of the subordinate one be?
In your opinion, would we all be completely correct in doctrine if we believed just like you?
Trinitarians don't own the bible, despite Jn 1:1 and Romans 9:5 being overtly Trinitarian translations in most English renditions. I can use whatever terms I want: if Tertullian used them (or at least economic trinity), then so can I.
You will only confuse others who know the meanings that trinitarians pour into those terms and likely be corrected by knowledgeable trinitarians and derided for using trinitarian terms that have been around for quite a while incorrectly. They will think that you don't know what you are talking about if you slander their doctrine and are not understanding it correctly.
I now realize that "Trinitarians" object to these terms, because, as I have pointed out, they have become a real embarrassment to Trinitarians. It was Tertullian himself who showed that the economic trinity conception bestowed the "trinity" with a hierarchical flavor (God over Christ over the Holy Spirit), which has been anathema to votaries of the immanent trinity ever since.
Trinitarians believe in both economic and immanent trinity definitions as Sanders spoke of in his video. The subordination of the Father to Son in the sending and because of the Son's humanity is expressed in the Bible and trinitarians don't seem to have a problem with it.

Do you realize that the word, subordination, is not in the Bible? The doctrine is easy enough to find in the Bible. So what substantiates your objection to homoousias?

Would you please give the reference to Against Praexas in which Tertullian describes this?
 
Last edited:
You know full well that was only a small part at the bottom of my post. You ignored the rest. See:
You said "In John's gospel, Jesus was called, as you say "anarthrous theos" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.) and "o theos" (ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.). I don't know why you keep making a statement that you should know isn't true. The idea that God is "greater (or higher) than the Logos" is given in John's Gospel, but it isn't fleshed out. Such a hierarchy could temporarily arise during his incarnation while he was not in the form of God or simply be a matter of roles where they remain ontologically one. It's not clear exactly what John thinks."

Once again, you accuse me of lying (highlighted above), and I'm not going to respond to verbal hooliganism.

I AM NOT RESPONDING TO YOUR MALICE. Just as I don't respond to Fred anymore, so you are also are on borrowed time.

I don't care what Thomas said: It's not part of John's doctrinal teaching and has nothing to do with Jn 1:1. You can't seriously think you can pull in arbitary verses from different contexts and conjoin them to promulgate some nonsensical sabellian doctrine?

You clearly don't believe Jesus' own words, and that essentially sums up your approach.
 
I never mentioned homoousias, the same essence, nature, being. It's a logical deduction trinitarians make when faced with 3, Father, Son, and Spirit, who are referred to in the scriptures as God. GryllusMajor wrote that he deduced that before learning of the doctrine of the trinity. Homoousias is simply a name for something found in the bible...3 who are called God are of the same nature, a logical deduction.
As I said before, the word "ousia" is not in the bible contextual to God.

Such was a formulation introduced by Constantine. "homoousious" in the context of Christianity was condemned as a heretical doctrine by the synods of Antioch 264, 269 AD, long before Nicea,.

You wrote this in post # 38 "Whatever: he slanders me continuously. I am certainly not oneness, as I am a subordinationist, which is irreconcilable with oneness." Would you please explain what YOU mean by it? Is this an eternal form of subordinationism? If it is, what would the name of the subordinate one be?
In your opinion, would we all be completely correct in doctrine if we believed just like you?
1 Cor 11:3 is what I mean. "God is the head of Christ." Since trinitarians and oneness have junked this verse as heretical, may be it's time for them to come clean.

You will only confuse others who know the meanings that trinitarians pour into those terms and likely be corrected by knowledgeable trinitarians and derided for using trinitarian terms that have been around for quite a while incorrectly. They will think that you don't know what you are talking about if you slander their doctrine and are not understanding it correctly.
Trinitarians think they have the right to control the whole religious world. They have acted as persecutors throughout most of the last 2000 years. But as I have argued, there are different trinities, and the Catholic trinity that rules over most of the USA is not the only one. There are others, notably the hierarchical trinity or triad per 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 4:6. So Please back off. Trinitarians do not own the concept of trinity (or triadism).

Trinitarians believe in both economic and immanent trinity definitions as Sanders spoke of in his video. The subordination of the Father to Son in the sending and because of the Son's humanity is expressed in the Bible and trinitarians don't seem to have a problem with it.
You mean I think "The subordination of the Son to the Father."

Yes, it's curious that "God" can send "God" down to earth. It's why immanent trinitarians have a lot of explaining to do.

Do you realize that the word, subordination, is not in the Bible?
That Jesus obeyed his Father is in no doubt. That Jesus said his Father was greater is not in doubt.

The doctrine is easy enough to find in the Bible. So what substantiates your objection to homoousias?
The decisions of the synods of Antioch 264, 269 AD and the matter that Sabellius uses the term to promulgate his doctrine.
Would you please give the reference to Against Praexas in which Tertullian describes this?
You'll really need to study this book in some detail. But here is some of what he says to the Sabellians (p. 166):

"Yet in the economy itself it was the Father's will that the Son should
be regarded as on earth, but himself in heaven. And thither also
the Son looked up and prayed and made request of the Father 8 -
where also he taught us to lift ourselves up and pray, Our Father
which art in heaven 9 - though he is also everywhere. This the
Father would have for his abode: The heaven, he says, is my
throne
.10 From this also he made the Son a little less than the
angels by sending him down to earth, yet with the intention of
crowning him with glory and honour by taking him back into
heaven.11 This he was already granting him when he said, I have
both glorified it and will glorify it
.1 The Son makes request from
earth, the Father makes a promise from heaven. Why do you {Sabellians]
make both Father and Son a liar?"
 
You said "In John's gospel, Jesus was called, as you say "anarthrous theos" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.) and "o theos" (ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.). I don't know why you keep making a statement that you should know isn't true. The idea that God is "greater (or higher) than the Logos" is given in John's Gospel, but it isn't fleshed out. Such a hierarchy could temporarily arise during his incarnation while he was not in the form of God or simply be a matter of roles where they remain ontologically one. It's not clear exactly what John thinks."

Once again, you accuse me of lying (highlighted above), and I'm not going to respond to verbal hooliganism.
I don’t know what you are complaining about.
You know full well that you deny that anyone is called “o theos” other than the Father, and you know that I am aware of this.
Only if you treat ὁ Θεος as a mere proposition of logic. The bible identifies ὁ Θεος as the person of the Father, to the exclusion of anyone else.

I AM NOT RESPONDING TO YOUR MALICE. Just as I don't respond to Fred anymore, so you are also are on borrowed time.
There has been no malice on my part. You are the one who has been on the attack.
I don't care what Thomas said: It's not part of John's doctrinal teaching and has nothing to do with Jn 1:1.
It is part of “John’s” teaching, because he included it. More directly, he used “o theos” to refer to someone other than the Father, and this falsifies your claim. That you referred to John 1:1 specifically in what I quoted does not save you from the untruth of your broader claims.
You can't seriously think you can pull in arbitary verses from different contexts and conjoin them to promulgate some nonsensical sabellian doctrine?
I have done no such thing.
You clearly don't believe Jesus' own words, and that essentially sums up your approach.
You are the one who just admitted that you don’t care about some parts of scripture, not me.
 
Back
Top