The fear of the Lord (YHWH) = The fear of the Lord (Jesus)

[Theo1689]

Greetings again Fred,

I suggest that Philippians 2:9-11 and Psalm 110:1 indicate the relative position and status of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Everything you say above is true, yet you deny that the Son is also God:

Is. 9:6 For to us a child is born, ... and his name shall be called ... Mighty God,
John 1:1 ... and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh ...

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Acts 20:28 ... the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Rom. 9:5 is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Phil. 2:5 ... Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, ...
Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Titus 2:13 ... the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
2Pet. 1:1 ... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:


But wait! There's more!:


Eph. 1:0 Ignatius, ... by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God. (Ignatius)
Eph. 18:2 The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary ... (Ignatius)
Eph. 19:3 ... God was making His appearance in human form... (Ignatius)
Tral. 7:1 ... And you will do so if you ... cling inseparably to God Jesus Christ, (Ignatius)
Rom. 1:0 ... beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God;
Rom. 1:0 ... Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, (Ignatius)
Rom. 3:3 ... Our God Jesus Christ certainly is the more clearly seen now (Ignatius)
Smyr. 1:1 I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom. (Ignatius)
Smyr. 10:1 ... give them a warm reception as to servants of Christ God. (Ignatius)
Poly. 8:3 I say good-bye to you all forever in Jesus Christ our God, (Ignatius)

Phili. 12:2 ... who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ (Polycarp)

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God,” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128)

"who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63)

“God put to death! the King of Israel slain with Israel’s right hand! Alas for the new wickedness of the new murder! The Lord was exposed with naked body: He was not deemed worthy even of covering; and, in order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.” (Melito of Sardis, Part V)

“... and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1)

“Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4)

“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2)

“He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7)

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Saviour, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity,” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10)

“For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.” (Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, Part 1, 41)

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29)

 

[Predestined]

Everything you say above is true, yet you deny that the Son is also God:

Is. 9:6 For to us a child is born, ... and his name shall be called ... Mighty God,
John 1:1 ... and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh ...

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Acts 20:28 ... the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Rom. 9:5 is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Phil. 2:5 ... Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, ...
Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Titus 2:13 ... the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
2Pet. 1:1 ... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:


But wait! There's more!:


Eph. 1:0 Ignatius, ... by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God. (Ignatius)
Eph. 18:2 The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary ... (Ignatius)
Eph. 19:3 ... God was making His appearance in human form... (Ignatius)
Tral. 7:1 ... And you will do so if you ... cling inseparably to God Jesus Christ, (Ignatius)
Rom. 1:0 ... beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God;
Rom. 1:0 ... Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, (Ignatius)
Rom. 3:3 ... Our God Jesus Christ certainly is the more clearly seen now (Ignatius)
Smyr. 1:1 I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom. (Ignatius)
Smyr. 10:1 ... give them a warm reception as to servants of Christ God. (Ignatius)
Poly. 8:3 I say good-bye to you all forever in Jesus Christ our God, (Ignatius)

Phili. 12:2 ... who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ (Polycarp)

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God,” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128)

"who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63)

“God put to death! the King of Israel slain with Israel’s right hand! Alas for the new wickedness of the new murder! The Lord was exposed with naked body: He was not deemed worthy even of covering; and, in order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.” (Melito of Sardis, Part V)

“... and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1)

“Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4)

“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2)

“He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7)

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Saviour, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity,” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10)

“For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.” (Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, Part 1, 41)

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29)

Once again we have an excellent answer here folks. You make this look too easy Theo. But of course when you have the truth on your side it helps. I'm gonna swipe this one!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

Everything you say above is true, yet you deny that the Son is also God:

I was interested in your long list of supposed "Trinitarian" verses and also a list of statements by "Early Church fathers". I will briefly comment on a few of the verses and I am sure most of the others have been considered elsewhere.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

I believe that John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he" the same as John 8:24,28, and is part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ. John 8:58 is not quoting Exodus 3:14 and even this should be translated as "I will be". I have considered Exodus 3:14 in my thread "The Yahweh Name".

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

You failed to quote the whole passage John 8:30-36 where Jesus answers their false accusation and claims to be the Son of God.

I am interested in when you draw the line between your Protestant beliefs and the development of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast to your view that the ECFs taught the Trinity, the following is a few statements from one estimation of this development:

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Theo1689]

I believe that John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he" the same as John 8:24,28, and is part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ.

That's an invalid translation, as the word, "he" doesn't exist in the verse, and you ignore the mismatched tenses (past for Abraham, ongoing present for Jesus). Further, you ignore where the Jews tried to stone Him, for they knew He was claiming to be God.

John 8:58 is not quoting Exodus 3:14 and even this should be translated as "I will be".

I see.
So your response is nothing but a bankrupt, "nuh-huh".
Sorry, you are wrong.
The Jews knew what He was claiming, even if you don't.

I have considered Exodus 3:14 in my thread "The Yahweh Name".

Goodie for you...

You failed to quote the whole passage John 8:30-36 where Jesus answers their false accusation and claims to be the Son of God.

Lame, lame, lame...
No matter how much I quoted, you could accuse me of "not quoting enough", unless I quoted the entire Bible. Sorry, but that's INCREDIBLY unreasonable.

And Jesus being the "Son of God", does NOT deny that He is God.
In fact, it CONFIRMS that He is God.

I am interested in when you draw the line between your Protestant beliefs and the development of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

I draw the line by the Bible.
For instance... Trinity: Biblical.
Papacy: Not Biblical.

In contrast to your view that the ECFs taught the Trinity, the following is a few statements from one estimation of this development:

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Yeah, I see you reject primary sources in favour of biased secondary sources.
That makes this discussion worthless.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

That's an invalid translation, as the word, "he" doesn't exist in the verse, and you ignore the mismatched tenses (past for Abraham, ongoing present for Jesus). Further, you ignore where the Jews tried to stone Him, for they knew He was claiming to be God.

The word "he" is supplied in John 4:26 where the meaning is crystal clear, and in John 8:24,28 in the same context as John 8:58, and in John 9:9 and this shows that to make proper sense in English the word "he" is needed.

Yeah, I see you reject primary sources in favour of biased secondary sources.
That makes this discussion worthless.

I have not extensively read the ECFs and their teaching. If you want primary sources, the following is taken from the Lecture Slides of one of my Brethren, and he has extensively read and studied some of their writings:

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Theo1689]

Greetings again Theo1689,

The word "he" is supplied in John 4:26 where the meaning is crystal clear, and in John 8:24,28 in the same context as John 8:58, and in John 9:9 and this shows that to make proper sense in English the word "he" is needed.

Different passage, with different context.
Even if your bankrupt criticism had any validity, I quoted ELEVEN Bible passages which asserted the deity of Christ (and there are MANY more), and you only addressed TWO of them, and those with an almost worthless rebuttal.

And then I quoted countless quotes from the AF's and ECF's (who got their beliefs from SCRIPTURE, so that tells you how THEY interpreted those same passages), and all you did was IGNORE them.

I have not extensively read the ECFs and their teaching. If you want primary sources, the following is taken from the Lecture Slides of one of my Brethren, and he has extensively read and studied some of their writings:

Who is also anti-Trinitarian, right?
If you want to read the ECF's, they are readily available for free.

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

So they all quoted the exact same quote, verbatim?
Sorry, I'm calling cow dung on this, ESPECIALLY since you didn't provide any valid citations.

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

Again, NO citations for ANY of these garbage quotes.
And they don't make my (cited) quotes go away.

All you're doing is playing "smorgasbord" with the ECF's, taking the quotes which you think support your heresy, and IGNORING the quotes which refute it.

Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

Do you know ANYTHING about "Origen"?
I couldn't care less about ANYTHING he wrote.

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

No citations.
Your claim is worthless.

Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

Arius was a heretic, not a church father.

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

Do you even remember what you're trying to defend?
Thanks for refuting yourself!

1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)

This is sufficiently late as to be irrelevant.
But you don't care, do you?
All you care about is defending your heresy, no matter how worthless the evidence is.



Why don't we get back to SCRIPTURE, which you keep RUNNING AWAY from?:


Is. 9:6 For to us a child is born, ... and his name shall be called ... Mighty God,
John 1:1 ... and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh ...

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Acts 20:28 ... the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Rom. 9:5 is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Phil. 2:5 ... Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, ...
Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Titus 2:13 ... the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
2Pet. 1:1 ... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

Different passage, with different context. Even if your bankrupt criticism had any validity, I quoted ELEVEN Bible passages which asserted the deity of Christ (and there are MANY more), and you only addressed TWO of them, and those with an almost worthless rebuttal.

Perhaps you have received a hint that your understanding of John 8:58 and John 10:30-36 is incorrect, and then you repeat these two again in your list. I enjoyed a thorough discussion on the Trinity on a Baptist forum, and one Scripture at a time was considered over a number of months. The thread was terminated by the Moderator, who insisted on 1 John 5:7 despite objection by his fellow Trinitarians, and then he permanently banned me.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Theo1689]

Greetings again Theo1689,

Perhaps you have received a hint that your understanding of John 8:58 and John 10:30-36 is incorrect, and then you repeat these two again in your list.

Wow.... The attitude on you...
The fact that you think I haven't heard your lame criticism of John 8:58 a hundred times before, and that fueled on NOTHING but your anti-Jesus-deity bias?

How many years have you been studying Koine Greek?
How many Bible translations (by ACTUAL Greek scholars) translate it as you suggest?
Seriously, get over yourself.

I repeat these two since your criticism is bankrupt, so they still testify to the deity of Christ.

I enjoyed a thorough discussion on the Trinity on a Baptist forum, and one Scripture at a time was considered over a number of months.

Irrelevant.
This is a written medium, not a vocal one, so there is no issue in quoting many at once. You simply want to try to limit me and try to make it look like their are FEW passages which teach Christ's deity, when in fact there are HUNDREDS.

I've never given you a time limit to address them, so take as long as you want.

The thread was terminated by the Moderator, who insisted on 1 John 5:7 despite objection by his fellow Trinitarians, and then he permanently banned me.

Completely irrelevant.
I reject the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7, which came in from the Vulgate.
Just as I reject the KJV rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16.

You see, unlike you, I don't simply argue to support my theology, I argue to support TRUTH, and when a translation supports my theology, but is not based on truth, I disregard it.

Now, where were we?
Oh, yes...

Is. 9:6 For to us a child is born, ... and his name shall be called ... Mighty God,
John 1:1 ... and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh ...

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Acts 20:28 ... the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Rom. 9:5 is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Phil. 2:5 ... Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, ...
Col. 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
Titus 2:13 ... the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
2Pet. 1:1 ... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

 

[Theo1689]

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation).

And you have to actually ADDRESS things Irenaeus ACTUALLY said, including the following:

“... and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1)

“Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4)

“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2)

“He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7)

It appears that your "friend" is ignorant of what Irenaeus taught, or else is being dishonest about what Irenaeus taught, in which case, why do you even TRUST his biased lies?

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation).

I would love to see a citation where Tertullian taught "there was a time when he did not exist". If he taught that (and I'm pretty sure he didn't), it would be in direct contradiction to John 1:1 and 8:58.

“For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.” (Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, Part 1, 41)

“Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled ... that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God,” (Tertullian, Apology, 21)

So you're claiming that Tertullian believed Jesus was at one time non-existent, but later "became" God? I'm sorry, but your friend is a liar, and you really shouldn't trust the nonsense he teaches.

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation).

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

Amen!

1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Amen, but largely irrelevant, since it is so late.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

Amen, but largely irrelevant, since it is so late.


So basically, you have offered NOTHING to support your view from this post.
Do you realize that?

 

[Theo1689]

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Why would you blindly accept a source 1900 years after Christ?

And do you actually have a copy of this book, or is this simply a series of quotes that you anti-Trinitarians pass around to each other and blindly accept as accurate?

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

Nothing of substance in this quote.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Nothing relating to the veracity of the Trinity, only to the popularity.
So this quote is basically irrelevant.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

This quote is very vague and doesn't really address anything.
It hand-waves at the concept of "contradictions".
What SPECIFIC "contradictions" is it referring to?

(Since I'm sure you own a copy of this book, I'm sure you can answer this question, right?)

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Yes, Jesus was a man. That's called the "incarnation".
He was also God.
So what was the point of this quote?

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

What is the point of this quote?

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

This doesn't explicitly refer to the Trinity, or the deity of Christ, but even if it did, this is nothing more than one man's opinion. So why should anyone care about one man's opinion 1900 years after the fact?

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Citations?
Names of these alleged "Jewish-Christians"?
Let's see some quotes, please?

Otherise, all this is worthless stuff and nonsense.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Nothing of substance in this quote.
Only worthless opinion.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

More worthless opinion.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

How was he "unjustly vilified"?
And on what historical basis can they claim "ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance"?

The only think I can conclude is that the author of this book was completely IGNORANT of church history.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

What is the HISTORICAL evidence that "the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course"?!

The vote against Arius was something like 330-2.
It was a LANDSLIDE vote, a virtual no-brainer.

Again, the author of this book only demonstrates his ignorance of church history.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

More lies and worthless opinion.
Where is the objective EVIDENCE?

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Nobody ever claimed "the infallibliity of councils", so again, the author demonstrates his ignorance of church history.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church

More worthless opinion.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

The Jews knew what He was claiming, even if you don't.

I repeat these two since your criticism is bankrupt, so they still testify to the deity of Christ.

It is interesting that the Jews misunderstood and you misunderstand what Jesus was saying in both John 8:58 and John 10:30-36..

I'm about 99% sure that this is not a valid quote (as evidenced by the lack of citation), and even if it were accurate, it is not a denial of the deity of Christ. So why are you quoting it?

I am quoting these because they were part of a Lecture on the Development of the Trinity by one of my brethren in Christ. The citations on the slides were accompanied by a brief explanation, and this part was only possibly 15-20 minutes out of his 60-minute address. This was in response to your previous statement about my rejecting "primary sources."

Yeah, I see you reject primary sources in favour of biased secondary sources. That makes this discussion worthless.

The secondary sources that you mentioned was my citations from the book, History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905) Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

And do you actually have a copy of this book, or is this simply a series of quotes that you anti-Trinitarians pass around to each other and blindly accept as accurate?

Yes, I have a copy of this book, and the citations were what I collected when I first read the book, possibly nearly 25 years ago. No, I do not blindly follow everything he states, or his religious position, but he did have a fairly responsible academic position. I presented these citations to a workmate who was an ex-Baptist, now part-time Pentecostal Pastor, and it was in response to his paper on the Trinity, which he gave me and this was his graduation paper. If you really want to read the book it is now available on Archive. I am a hoarder / collector, and browse through 2nd hand bookshops, and this is also how I obtained the CH Spurgeon 3-Volume set, and the Baptist Confessions of Faith. I am also our meeting's librarian, but have a much larger personal collection of our fellowship's material and also outside material and reference works.

I mentioned my interest in the Anabaptists and how or if this developed into the Baptists. One significant difference even today is in the Baptists willingness to go to war, and they even participated in the American Civil War. I should imagine that the Baptists today endorse the military aspects of Constantine with his claim to be led by the Cross in his victory over the Pagan Roman Empire and as a result his dominance or influence at some of the religious Councils which gradually arrived at the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[johnny guitar]

Greetings again Theo1689,


It is interesting that the Jews misunderstood and you misunderstand what Jesus was saying in both John 8:58 and John 10:30-36..

I am quoting these because they were part of a Lecture on the Development of the Trinity by one of my brethren in Christ. The citations on the slides were accompanied by a brief explanation, and this part was only possibly 15-20 minutes out of his 60-minute address. This was in response to your previous statement about my rejecting "primary sources."

The secondary sources that you mentioned was my citations from the book, History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905) Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Yes, I have a copy of this book, and the citations were what I collected when I first read the book, possibly nearly 25 years ago. No, I do not blindly follow everything he states, or his religious position, but he did have a fairly responsible academic position. I presented these citations to a workmate who was an ex-Baptist, now part-time Pentecostal Pastor, and it was in response to his paper on the Trinity, which he gave me and this was his graduation paper. If you really want to read the book it is now available on Archive. I am a hoarder / collector, and browse through 2nd hand bookshops, and this is also how I obtained the CH Spurgeon 3-Volume set, and the Baptist Confessions of Faith. I am also our meeting's librarian, but have a much larger personal collection of our fellowship's material and also outside material and reference works.

I mentioned my interest in the Anabaptists and how or if this developed into the Baptists. One significant difference even today is in the Baptists willingness to go to war, and they even participated in the American Civil War. I should imagine that the Baptists today endorse the military aspects of Constantine with his claim to be led by the Cross in his victory over the Pagan Roman Empire and as a result his dominance or influence at some of the religious Councils which gradually arrived at the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

The Jews did NOT misunderstand what Jesus was saying: they FULLY knew what He was claiming.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

The Jews did NOT misunderstand what Jesus was saying: they FULLY knew what He was claiming.

Well. it appears that you also misunderstand what Jesus was saying. Especially consider how that Jesus "answered" them in the John 10:30-36 reference, and then consider that the Jews deliberately muddied the waters about what Jesus stated about Abraham seeing Jesus' day, and that Abraham saw it and was glad. What was Jesus saying here? When did Abraham see the day of Christ?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Theo1689]

It is interesting that the Jews misunderstood and you misunderstand what Jesus was saying in both John 8:58 and John 10:30-36..

Clearly you have no interest in truth. On what basis can you claim that the Jews (who were there) misunderstood Him, and you (who was NOT there) do correctly understand Him?

You simply proclaim, "I'm right, you're wrong, neener neener neener".
That's why "discussion" with you is a worthless waste of time.

I am quoting these because they were part of a Lecture on the Development of the Trinity by one of my brethren in Christ.

... who is either lying to you, or else has no clue what the ECF's taught.
If he was knowledgeable (and honest) about what the ECF's taught, and TRULY wanted to know what they thought of Jesus, why didn't he show you all the quotes *I* showed you, of them, all calling Christ "God"?

It's because he (like you) doesn't care about the truth, but only cares about promoting a false narrative that Christ isn't God.

The citations on the slides were accompanied by a brief explanation, and this part was only possibly 15-20 minutes out of his 60-minute address. This was in response to your previous statement about my rejecting "primary sources."

Since you didn't provide any actual citations where the ECF's where they ACTUALLY taught what your friend dishonestly claimed, these are NOT "primary sources".

When your FRIEND claims, "Irenaeus taught <X>", or "Tertullian taught <Y>", and doesn't give ANY citations where we can look up their writings for themselves to check the accuracy of the claims, then all you've provided is a SECONDARY source ("My friend says that Tertullian taught <Y>".

I'm a teacher, and your friend would have gotten a failure for his project.
It's worthless.

The secondary sources that you mentioned was my citations from the book, History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905) Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Yes, I have a copy of this book, and the citations were what I collected when I first read the book, possibly nearly 25 years ago. No, I do not blindly follow everything he states, or his religious position, but he did have a fairly responsible academic position.

So what PRIMARY source did Reville quote for his claim, "the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course". Was it some quote from the Nicene canons? Can you quote the PRIMARY source for us, to demonstrate that Reville wasn't simply giving worthless assumptions and worthless opinions?

I presented these citations to a workmate who was an ex-Baptist, now part-time Pentecostal Pastor, and it was in response to his paper on the Trinity, which he gave me and this was his graduation paper.

So what?

If you really want to read the book it is now available on Archive.

Why would I want to waste my time reading a worthless book which contains nothing but garbage biased opinions?

I'd rather read the PRIMARY SOURCES he allegedly got his information from.

I am a hoarder / collector, and browse through 2nd hand bookshops, and this is also how I obtained the CH Spurgeon 3-Volume set, and the Baptist Confessions of Faith. I am also our meeting's librarian,

Wow.... You're the second "librarian" who I've met online, and doesn't have a clue about what primary sources are or properly cited references for historical claims. Do better.


Meanwhile, you're STILL running away from SCRIPTURE.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

Clearly you have no interest in truth. On what basis can you claim that the Jews (who were there) misunderstood Him, and you (who was NOT there) do correctly understand Him?

Possibly some of them understood what he stated in verse 30, and understood the simplicity and power of his two answers and his declaration that verse 36 "I am the Son of God" was equivalent to what he said in verse 30 "I and my Father are one", but some of these who understood were not interested in the truth, but were seeking to condemn Jesus and stir up the crowd against him. Part of the power of Jesus' reply was the full meaning of Psalm 82 which taught that the Judges in Israel were corrupt, and they would themselves be judged and replaced, and the members of the Sanhedrin who were present would be stung by Jesus quoting Psalm 82:6 and allusion to their avarice in wrongly judging Jesus, the Messiah.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

... who is either lying to you, or else has no clue what the ECF's taught.
If he was knowledgeable (and honest) about what the ECF's taught, and TRULY wanted to know what they thought of Jesus, why didn't he show you all the quotes *I* showed you, of them, all calling Christ "God"?

Were all your "quotes" the product of your own reading, and a good summary of their overall teaching, or simply what you have access to from someone who is trying to weave the Trinity into the sayings of these ECFs? I have more confidence in both my brother in the faith and in his extensive studies and reading, and in Reville who would have been laughed out of his position at the University, than with your list of "primary sources".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Theo1689]

Greetings again Theo1689,

Possibly some of them understood what he stated in verse 30, and understood the simplicity and power of his two answers and his declaration that verse 36 "I am the Son of God" was equivalent to what he said in verse 30 "I and my Father are one", but some of these who understood were not interested in the truth, but were seeking to condemn Jesus and stir up the crowd against him. Part of the power of Jesus' reply was the full meaning of Psalm 82 which taught that the Judges in Israel were corrupt, and they would themselves be judged and replaced, and the members of the Sanhedrin who were present would be stung by Jesus quoting Psalm 82:6 and allusion to their avarice in wrongly judging Jesus, the Messiah.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Wow.
You make the same arguments as the Mormons do (they believe that EVERYONE can become gods).

The reason that Jesus quoted Ps. 82, was not to defend His claim (for He had no need to), but to show the Jews as hypocrites. Ps. 82 is an imprecatory Psalm, designed to condemn the evil human judges who were abusing the authority of God. Jesus was using that same Psalm to condemn the Jews of his day.

Now, not only have you STILL not shown that John 10 doesn't refer to Jesus as God, you continue to IGNORE Isa. 9:6, John 1:1,14, 8:58, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc. etc. etc.

You are fighting a losing battle.

Were all your "quotes" the product of your own reading, and a good summary of their overall teaching,

As a matter of fact, they were the product of my own reading, and a good summaray of their overall teaching.

But you don't have to take my word for it, because (unlike you) I gave you the specific citations, so you can look them up and see for yourself. That's what good scholarship and primary sources is all about.

or simply what you have access to from someone who is trying to weave the Trinity into the sayings of these ECFs?

Nope, I read the for myself.
You can find them on ccel.org, or newadvent.org, or in paperback. I happen to have them loaded into my Accordance Bible software.

I have more confidence in both my brother in the faith and in his extensive studies and reading, and in Reville who would have been laughed out of his position at the University, than with your list of "primary sources".

Yeah, I once had a Mormon friend (another "librarian") who blindly trusted the lies from secondary sources, and ignored primary sources.

It simply proves to me that you aren't interested in the truth, you're only interested in defending a false doctrine.

"Discussion" with you is a complete waste of time.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Theo1689,

You make the same arguments as the Mormons do (they believe that EVERYONE can become gods).

What has the wrong teachings of the Mormons got to do with what I stated? You seem to use every diversionary trick possible.

The reason that Jesus quoted Ps. 82, was not to defend His claim (for He had no need to), but to show the Jews as hypocrites. Ps. 82 is an imprecatory Psalm, designed to condemn the evil human judges who were abusing the authority of God. Jesus was using that same Psalm to condemn the Jews of his day.

This is not an adequate explanation of why Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 in the context of their false accusation, which by the way you have endorsed:
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The Scripture called the Judges in Israel "gods" or Hebrew "Elohim", because they had received the Word of God and they were responsible to administer this Word faithfully..

Kind regards
Trevor"

 

[Theo1689]

This is not an adequate explanation of why Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 in the context of their false accusation, which by the way you have endorsed:

Actually, it is a PERFECTLY adequate explanation.
I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree.
That's why a discussion with you is a complete waste of time.

Not to mention the fact that you keep IGNORING Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, 8:58, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc. etc. etc.

 

[johnny guitar]

Greetings again Theo1689,

What has the wrong teachings of the Mormons got to do with what I stated? You seem to use every diversionary trick possible.

This is not an adequate explanation of why Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 in the context of their false accusation, which by the way you have endorsed:
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The Scripture called the Judges in Israel "gods" or Hebrew "Elohim", because they had received the Word of God and they were responsible to administer this Word faithfully..

Kind regards
Trevor"

Their accusation was NOT false. He WAS making Himself God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again johnny guitar,

Their accusation was NOT false. He WAS making Himself God.

Another one line answer waving the Trinitarian flag. Btw I was waiting for another one line answer last night, but I had to turn the computer off as it was late. You did not respond to my question:

Well. it appears that you also misunderstand what Jesus was saying. Especially consider how that Jesus "answered" them in the John 10:30-36 reference, and then consider that the Jews deliberately muddied the waters about what Jesus stated about Abraham seeing Jesus' day, and that Abraham saw it and was glad. What was Jesus saying here? When did Abraham see the day of Christ?

Kind regards
Trevor