Kenosis Heresy

cjab

Well-known member
The same thing applies to you and your scholars they are just as "fully committed (addicted)" to whatever they believe and that does not make it any more correct that any scholar I could quote.
Actually they are Trinitarians, as these professors also allow the term "essence" or properties or nature. But they aren't fanatical about this, as is Wallace and the Trinitarians on this board are. That is, these professors allow the grammar to dictate "no Trinitarian fanaticism here."

It's funny to see one set of Trinitarians accusing another set of being heretics. Not a good selling point for Trinitarians. Haven't they got better things to do that sit in judgement on each other all the time? This is the question that some here should ask themselves. Do they think they are going to get a reward from God? Methinks not.

Wallace is not the only scholar I could quote.
I'm not disagreeing with Wallace that "the Word was God." I just don't think he has explained his points adequately, especially in terms of Jn 1:1c denoting the "nature" of the Word by the Word being said to be "fully God," which is redundant when you grasp that Jn 1:1c is talking about identity.

It must be the same God in Jn 1:1c as in Jn 1:1b, as there is only one God by Deut 6:4. Jn 1:1c is not in the business of positing another God. So the Word is directly (re)presenting the Father's properties and form. This is a critical thing to get across. For Jesus said "I and the Father are One" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." He didn't say "He who has seen me has seen the Father's essence." If Jesus spoke of identity, then why does Wallace speak of "nature"? I tell you why: because he is an "addled" Trinitarian.

This section below sums up what these professors say about "Colwell's rule" and about Wallace's preference for the qualitative "fully God," with which they disagree, as also do I.

"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not. This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track.

"The interpretation of "interchangeability" confuses the formulated
rule that "the article may be inserted if the predicate noun is supposed
to be a unique or notable instance" with word order, "which means that
it could just as well have read: ό λόγος ην ό θεός". But how can the
word Θεός" be unique, when the word as such in the Greek language
is used of many |ods? And why should the articular predicate be και ό
Λόγος (subject) ην ό Θεός (predicacte) and not και ό Θεός (predicate)
ην ό Λόγος (subject)? Depending on the context and emphasis, in Greek
either form could be correct.

"Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'."


OBTW I went to your link I could not find an article on John 1;1.
Click on FILOLOGÍA NEOTESTAMENTARIA tab and go to Vol 21/2008.
 
Last edited:

Anthony

Active member
How do explain this then?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Yeshua is legal son of Mary as He came from her womb even though He didn't get any part of Mary's body. That's supernatural!

Paul in Rom 7 says that nothing good dwells in our flesh.

That's why RCC came up with the doctrine of immaculate conception. Those who believe in Yeshua receiving body from Mary have this RCC doctrine in their subconsciousness.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me
 

Anthony

Active member
No, you're dead wrong in not recognizing John 1:1. "The Word was with the God; and the Word was God."

This is the exegesis.

"At the beginning, when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the Two (like you). The Logos was God and yet he was not THE God (which he reserves for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I""
Very poor exegesis.

Bible itself gives interpretation of what Logos is:

Luk 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

God in His existence is invisible and unapproachable. He has no form. Ever since Gen 1:3 He took a visible form at least in Theophanies.

2Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

That's how Colossians 1:15 mentiones The Son as the image of the invisible God and firstborn of all creatures.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

That's how YHWH is presented as a Man of war in Exod 15:3

and in Ezk 1:26-28 as a Man above the throne. Isaiah 6:1 also presents YHWH as the High Priest.

YHWH is revealed in both OT and NT in duality of powers. The same Person in OT and NT - singular and not multiple.

Logos with God is not a secondary Person but God in accessible form who interacts with creation being part of the very creation He made.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Very poor exegesis.

Bible itself gives interpretation of what Logos is:

Luk 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

God in His existence is invisible and unapproachable. He has no form. Ever since Gen 1:3 He took a visible form at least in Theophanies.

2Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

That's how Colossians 1:15 mentiones The Son as the image of the invisible God and firstborn of all creatures.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

That's how YHWH is presented as a Man of war in Exod 15:3

and in Ezk 1:26-28 as a Man above the throne. Isaiah 6:1 also presents YHWH as the High Priest.

YHWH is revealed in both OT and NT in duality of powers. The same Person in OT and NT - singular and not multiple.

Logos with God is not a secondary Person but God in accessible form who interacts with creation being part of the very creation He made.
The Logos can't be part of the creation, as

Col 1:16

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
 

civic

Well-known member
The Logos can't be part of the creation, as

Col 1:16

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Correct and only God pre-exists creation.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Actually they are Trinitarians, as these professors also allow the term "essence" or properties or nature. But they aren't fanatical about this, as is Wallace and the Trinitarians on this board are. That is, these professors allow the grammar to dictate "no Trinitarian fanaticism here."
It's funny to see one set of Trinitarians accusing another set of being heretics. Not a good selling point for Trinitarians. Haven't they got better things to do that sit in judgement on each other all the time? This is the question that some here should ask themselves. Do they think they are going to get a reward from God? Methinks not.
I'm not disagreeing with Wallace that "the Word was God." I just don't think he has explained his points adequately, especially in terms of Jn 1:1c denoting the "nature" of the Word by the Word being said to be "fully God," which is redundant when you grasp that Jn 1:1c is talking about identity.
It must be the same God in Jn 1:1c as in Jn 1:1b, as there is only one God by Deut 6:4. Jn 1:1c is not in the business of positing another God. So the Word is directly (re)presenting the Father's properties and form. This is a critical thing to get across. For Jesus said "I and the Father are One" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." He didn't say "He who has seen me has seen the Father's essence." If Jesus spoke of identity, then why does Wallace speak of "nature"? I tell you why: because he is an "addled" Trinitarian.
This section below sums up what these professors say about "Colwell's rule" and about Wallace's preference for the qualitative "fully God," with which they disagree, as also do I.
"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not. This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track.
"The interpretation of "interchangeability" confuses the formulated
rule that "the article may be inserted if the predicate noun is supposed
to be a unique or notable instance" with word order, "which means that
it could just as well have read: ό λόγος ην ό θεός". But how can the
word Θεός" be unique, when the word as such in the Greek language
is used of many |ods? And why should the articular predicate be και ό
Λόγος (subject) ην ό Θεός (predicacte) and not και ό Θεός (predicate)
ην ό Λόγος (subject)? Depending on the context and emphasis, in Greek
either form could be correct.
"Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος'. Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'."
Click on FILOLOGÍA NEOTESTAMENTARIA tab and go to Vol 21/2008.
I have difficulty discerning when it is you speaking and when it someone you are quoting. As for "θεον" and "θεος" John 1:1 both "θεον" and "θεος" are nouns, have always been nouns and will always be nouns. The second occurrence "θεος" may have some qualitative sense but it never becomes an adjective. I think one of your guys said something like that.
Irenaeus [A.D. 30-107.] Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII.[student of John]
5….Since, therefore, he [John] treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2) Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” — this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” (Joh_1:3) for and the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him.
Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book II. Chap. XXII
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (Joh_1:1) showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally62 produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. VII.
Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God?The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh_1:1) It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.” (Exo_20:7) This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Phi_2:6) In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none.
Tertullian VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XXVI.
Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject,102 and so belongs to him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs. And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God, although He is an actually existing thing,103 yet He cannot be God Himself104 (exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole.​
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Active member
Which nature of Jesus "made himself nothing"?

I believe Jesus was GOD manifest as a human with a glorious body and "made himself nothing" by exchanging his glorious body for a mortal body.

Philippians 2:7 (KJV) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

If God could swap His Theophanic body with a mortal body to lose His actual power as you say, then that would make God at His core a powerless entity that needed to access an exterior power. Is that what you are saying?

I would say the way God ie the Word made Himself nothing is by ceasing the display of His power which includes His Theophany, not His actual power, of His Old Testament glory and coming under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses ie in that way becoming human.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I would say the way God ie the Word made Himself nothing is by ceasing the display of His power... and coming under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses ie in that way becoming human.

I'm just curious, how would describe the "ceasing the display of His power"? Certainly the Father and Spirit have at many times ceased the display of their power as well?

Also what to you does it mean to "com[e] under the influence of the ... human senses," in what way would the human senses "influence" the divine nature making it human?
 

Anthony

Active member
The Logos can't be part of the creation, as

Col 1:16

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Yes, He became part of creation to interact with creation. He is the creator and everything was made in light of salvation plan from the beginning.

No one has ever seen God dwelling in unapproachable Light. Yet it n OT, fathers have seen Him. Duality of powers but One God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Yes, He became part of creation to interact with creation. He is the creator and everything was made in light of salvation plan from the beginning.
He participated in creation to testify to the divine majesty.

No one has ever seen God dwelling in unapproachable Light. Yet it n OT, fathers have seen Him. Duality of powers but One God.
Christ (the Logos) alone has seen God, as he was with God (Jn 1:1b).
 

cjab

Well-known member
I have difficulty discerning when it is you speaking and when it someone you are quoting. As for "θεον" and "θεος" John 1:1 both "θεον" and "θεος" are nouns, have always been nouns and will always be nouns. The second occurrence "θεος" may have some qualitative sense but it never becomes an adjective. I think one of your guys said something like that.
OK

Irenaeus [A.D. 30-107.] Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII.[student of John]

I think you made an error. The passage below comes from "Adversus Haereses" (BOOK I VIII. HOW THE VALENTINIANS PERVERT THE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN PIOUS OPINIONS) by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), and not from Ignatius [A.D. 30-107] who was a disciple of John.

5….Since, therefore, he [John] treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2) Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” — this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;” (Joh_1:3) for and the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him.
This is reflective of middle platonism and its concept of heavenly emanations. It appears to be an unauthorized gloss on scripture, for the Greek of Jn 1:1 is "ev ἀρχῇ" "In the beginning," and not "of the beginning." In using the genitive case, it makes Christ out to be a created power / throne. You can see why Arianism and Trinitarianism arose.

In fact the only God in Jn 1:1 is "the God" of the Jn 1:1b, and there is only One beginning implied by Jn 1:1, and not two as by Irenaeus.

Is Irenaeus himself the author of a heresy as likely Athanasius also was the promulgator of it? It seems to have been a common mistake for writers against heresies to surreptitiously introduce them.

Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book II. Chap. XXII
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (Joh_1:1) showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally62 produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
I like "the Word was within God" better as it is authenticated from the words of Christ himself.

"Produced:" i.e. Christ was "sent to earth" and not "begotten in heaven."

Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. VII.
Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God?The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh_1:1) It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.” (Exo_20:7) This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Phi_2:6) In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none.
Tertullian VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XXVI.
Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject,102 and so belongs to him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs. And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God, although He is an actually existing thing,103 yet He cannot be God Himself104 (exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole.
So "same substance" infers something proceeding from being within God to being outside of God. Yet the Word is "in God" not "outside of God," viz. "I am in the Father," as taught by Christ himself. One could only allow "same substance" as an anthropomorphic metaphor for "the Word being IN God." But why introduce the metaphor at all? If the NT never uses it, it is completely unnecessary.

See, Tertullian seems to be mixing up Christ being sent into the world, with the idea of the Word being begotten in heaven, construed as "proceeding from God." There is no evidence for the Logos "proceeding from God" in heaven.

Thus this seems to be a capitulation to Greek philosophy and the basis of polytheistic Trinitarianism, even if Tertullian asserted that he rejected it.

"TERTULLIAN apparently presents so variable an attitude towards Greek philosophy that scholars have been led to such opposite conclusions regarding it that one can aver that he is no philosopher, while another asserts that in him such a philosophic spirit lived as is found in no other writer in Latin literature of his time, and that he was one of the first men who philosophized in the Christian sense. The former judgement is based upon apparently clear and plain evidence. The latter, which is nearer to the truth, is not so obvious."
 
Last edited:

OldShepherd

Well-known member
OK
I think you made an error. The passage below comes from "Adversus Haereses" (BOOK I VIII. HOW THE VALENTINIANS PERVERT THE SCRIPTURES TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN PIOUS OPINIONS) by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), and not from Ignatius [A.D. 30-107] who was a disciple of John.

This is reflective of middle platonism and its concept of heavenly emanations. It appears to be an unauthorized gloss on scripture, for the Greek of Jn 1:1 is "ev ἀρχῇ" "In the beginning," and not "of the beginning." In using the genitive case, it makes Christ out to be a created power / throne. You can see why Arianism and Trinitarianism arose.
In fact the only God in Jn 1:1 is "the God" of the Jn 1:1b, and there is only One beginning implied by Jn 1:1, and not two as by Irenaeus.
Is Irenaeus himself the author of a heresy as likely Athanasius also was the promulgator of it? It seems to have been a common mistake for writers against heresies to surreptitiously introduce them.
I like "the Word was within God" better as it is authenticated from the words of Christ himself.
"Produced:" i.e. Christ was "sent to earth" and not "begotten in heaven."
So "same substance" infers something proceeding from being within God to being outside of God. Yet the Word is "in God" not "outside of God," viz. "I am in the Father," as taught by Christ himself. One could only allow "same substance" as an anthropomorphic metaphor for "the Word being IN God." But why introduce the metaphor at all? If the NT never uses it, it is completely unnecessary.
See, Tertullian seems to be mixing up Christ being sent into the world, with the idea of the Word being begotten in heaven, construed as "proceeding from God." There is no evidence for the Logos "proceeding from God" in heaven.
Thus this seems to be a capitulation to Greek philosophy and the basis of polytheistic Trinitarianism, even if Tertullian asserted that he rejected it.
"TERTULLIAN apparently presents so variable an attitude towards Greek philosophy that scholars have been led to such opposite conclusions regarding it that one can aver that he is no philosopher, while another asserts that in him such a philosophic spirit lived as is found in no other writer in Latin literature of his time, and that he was one of the first men who philosophized in the Christian sense. The former judgement is based upon apparently clear and plain evidence. The latter, which is nearer to the truth, is not so obvious."
There is no point in even trying to answer this mess.
I quoted Irenaeus "In the beginning was the word..." you said "and not 'of the beginning.'"
That I got the date for Irenaeus wrong does not negate what I posted.
I am not interested in your opinion about the writings of the ECF.
 

Anthony

Active member
He participated in creation to testify to the divine majesty.


Christ (the Logos) alone has seen God, as he was with God (Jn 1:1b).
Looks like you are believing in two distinct Persons - one being a lesser God.

My view is the same God in duality of powers which scriptures affirm. The same Who is the First is also The Last.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Looks like you are believing in two distinct Persons - one being a lesser God.

My view is the same God in duality of powers which scriptures affirm. The same Who is the First is also The Last.
Any reference to "person" is an anthropomorphization because they are "Spirit" (God is Spirit). "Person" is only a representation of what Spirit is. Not only are they Spirit, but indefinable Spirit other than by their revealed attributes / nature. They are not "same Spirit" but have the "same properties", i.e. nature and form (as they are One). See what you are doing is refusing to allow the veil of one'ness to be pierced using human arguments. Such run counters to what is written in scripture about "the Word" being with "the God" in Jn 1:1.

In regard to lesser God and greater God, Jn 1:1 denies it, as the Word manifests the Father (fullness of deity). That doesn't mean that the Father isn't greater than the Word. It means they manifest the same properties of God, as God is conceptualized by man, which are the properties of the Father.

Consider an analogy: the atom. It represents a permanent unity, an element whose nucleus remains unchanged throughout all of material eternity (excepting external forces of a particular type such as nuclear fission/fusion). But that doesn't mean it isn't comprised of parts. When Christ came to earth, there was a spiritual fission (don't push the material analogy too far) but where the nucleus remained unaltered as to its core component (i..e. "God") and where the fissile material (Christ) continued to manifest the properties of "God." When Christ returned to the Father, there was a fusion. But these things have to be conceptualized in spiritual terms per scripture, not material terms.

And what about Daniel 7:13.14? How do you interpret it from a one'ness point of view? There are plainly two "persons" and in Revelation also, many instance where two "persons" are inferred.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
There is no point in even trying to answer this mess.
I quoted Irenaeus "In the beginning was the word..." you said "and not 'of the beginning.'"
John 1:1a is dative, not genitive. That's not an "opinion" but a "fact." Moreover it is a hugely significant fact. See the article I deferred to.

That I got the date for Irenaeus wrong does not negate what I posted.
You said Irenaeus was a "student of John" to lend support to his (your) assertions. That is manifestly untrue. Irenaeus is said to have been a "spiritual grandson" of John, which is not the same as a "student of John." Thus it negates what you posted, as it doesn't derive directly from John.

I am not interested in your opinion about the writings of the ECF.
You're not interested in debating ECF as for you, as for Calvin, as for Catholics, they are scripture. They are not scripture and neither can they be used to amend scripture.

I suggest you need to reflect on the distinction between monotheistic and polytheistic Trinitarianism.
 
Last edited:

OldShepherd

Well-known member
John 1:1a is dative, not genitive. That's not an "opinion" but a "fact." Moreover it is a hugely significant fact. See the article I deferred to.
You said Irenaeus was a "student of John" to lend support to his (your) assertions. That is manifestly untrue. Irenaeus is said to have been a "spiritual grandson" of John, which is not the same as a "student of John." Thus it negates what you posted, as it doesn't derive directly from John.
You're not interested in debating ECF as for you, as for Calvin, as for Catholics, they are scripture. They are not scripture and neither can they be used to amend scripture.
I suggest you need to reflect on the distinction between monotheistic and polytheistic Trinitarianism.
You reference to dative makes no sense to me. I read John 1:1a "in the beginning." I read Irenaeus "In the beginning." I don't know what you are arguing about.
Sorry amigo. I don't do links to the writings of others. You may quote scholars and I may or may not read or agree with them. But I require no instruction from persons not present.
Apparently Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John. Simply read the wrong intro.
I don't read him as changing scripture.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
John 1:1a is dative, not genitive. That's not an "opinion" but a "fact." Moreover it is a hugely significant fact. See the article I deferred to.


You said Irenaeus was a "student of John" to lend support to his (your) assertions. That is manifestly untrue. Irenaeus is said to have been a "spiritual grandson" of John, which is not the same as a "student of John." Thus it negates what you posted, as it doesn't derive directly from John.


You're not interested in debating ECF as for you, as for Calvin, as for Catholics, they are scripture. They are not scripture and neither can they be used to amend scripture.

I suggest you need to reflect on the distinction between monotheistic and polytheistic Trinitarianism.
NO such thing as "polytheistic Trinitarianism.
 
Top