Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[cjab]

His conclusion is good, clearly he could be more decisive, but you read between the lines.

I don't think his conclusion is good. There's no sitting on the fence here. ὁ θεός is a quasi proper name when not decontextualized away to a false god or a strictly human agent of God per John 10:34-36.

ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ θεός occurs 9 times in the OT and once in the NT (Matt 22:32).

If someone says ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ θεός, and demands it be treated exclusively, then I see that as at least a quasi proper name and so outside of Sharp's rule. It's not just a title, e.g. to be dished out also on those he "begets."

 

[Steven Avery]

His conclusion is good, clearly he could be more decisive, but you read between the lines.

This is the sentiment I like, putting aside his textual criticism nonsense.

Lastly, let us simply say that God does not need our help in developing Bible doctrines. Thus, translators should render verses as they should be and textual scholars should follow the external an internal evidence as opposed to following their desired outcome. ... The translator may think he is defending the faith, the Word of God, while the objective outside observer may see it as it is, theological bias.

A polite way of saying that doctrinal bias has been behind the GSR push.

 

[cjab]

I don't think his conclusion is good.

As Jesus refers to the Father as ὁ θεός circa 7-10 times in John, and as ὁ θεός isn't a formal title of Jesus or the Word (John 1:1), the internal evidence would be against any attribution of ὁ θεός to Jesus or to the Word in a titular sense. Only in a purely descriptive sense (i.e. John 20:28, John 10:34-36) could this be permitted, which rules out nearly every application of Sharp's rule relating to ὁ θεός,

 

[The Real John Milton]

Actually Aarianism was quite as polytheistic as Trinitarianism: it's just that its Gods/gods weren't of the same substance.

That’s like arguing Jesus was a polytheist because he called human beings “gods” in John 10:34. No, the Arians ( JWs) were not polytheists. They worshipped only the Father and acknowledged him to be the only true God.

 

[cjab]

That’s like arguing Jesus was a polytheist because he called human beings “gods” in John 10:34. No, the Arians ( JWs) were not polytheists. They worshipped only the Father and acknowledged him to be the only true God.

I'm talking about the original Arians, not the JWs. The original ones credited the idea of God begetting gods in heaven, whereas Trinitarianians credited the idea of God begettings Gods in heaven

 

[The Real John Milton]

I'm talking about the original Arians, not the JWs.

They were pretty much like the JWs.

The original ones credited the idea of God begetting gods in heaven, whereas Trinitarianians credited the idea of God begettings Gods in heaven

They just called Jesus “a begotten god,” and were careful to declare him a creature . So quite different from the Trinitarians. Only the Father to them was the true God, and the only Eternal one, the only Creator.

 

[cjab]

They were pretty much like the JWs.

They just called Jesus “a begotten god,” and were careful to declare him a creature . So quite different from the Trinitarians. Only the Father to them was the true God, and the only Eternal one, the only Creator.

Wiki: "Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,[4][a][5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-7 who was begotten by God the Father[2] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father."

It is the co-eternity of god the Son with God the Father than they refused to accept. But they did accept a begotten god, the Word, as a "god" - just not God himself

"Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[7] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[3]."

Subordination is accepted by many trinitarians (not 'T'rinitarians). The core distinction between Arianism and T/trinitarianism (of every variety) lies in the distinction between the Word being co-eternal and being created (begotten in heaven or on earth) within time.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Arians in general, and also Eusebius, show themselves to be against “three are one.” Eusebius specifically considers it Sabellian. The Arians even would bring out their position in song.

This supports the ides that in the 4th century in the Greek east the heavenly witnesses verse was controversial, and in some mss. while missing in others.

=========

In some cases, like with the Vandals in North Africa, some scholars object to their being called Arians, preferring the distinction of Homousian versus Homoian.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Wiki: "Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,[4][a][5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-7 who was begotten by God the Father[2] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father."

It is the co-eternity of god the Son with God the Father than they refused to accept. But they did accept a begotten god, the Word, as a "god" - just not God himself

"Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[7] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[3]."

Subordination is accepted by many trinitarians (not 'T'rinitarians). The core distinction between Arianism and T/trinitarianism (of every variety) lies in the distinction between the Word being co-eternal and being created (begotten in heaven or on earth) within time.

Because they understood the range and function of the word Θεὸς in the GNT, and knew for instance that even Moses was called a god ( Exodus 7:1) in the bible. It is within this context that they were appropriating the word "a god" to Jesus. To be sure however, the bible itself never calls Jesus "god" / "a god" etc., so I object to the Arian's use of this word, but that's another story.

It is the co-eternity of god the Son with God the Father than they refused to accept.

Exactly, because that is polytheism, -- two Gods who are each the Almighty, two YHWHs. The bible doesn't say creatures can't be given the title "a god" (Exodus 7:1) or "gods" (John 10:34) etc., -- the title used in such contexts simply means "a powerful one" (etc.), it does not mean "YHWH." Don't confuse the anarthrous use of this title with the proper name of God himself. Kind of like not everyone in the bible who is called "a lord" or "lord" is the Lord.

 

[cjab]

Because they understood the range and function of the word Θεὸς in the GNT, and knew for instance that even Moses was called a god ( Exodus 7:1) in the bible. It is within this context that they were appropriating the word "a god" to Jesus. To be sure however, the bible itself never calls Jesus "god" / "a god" etc., so I object to the Arian's use of this word, but that's another story.

All I'm saying is that classical Arian, which was moulded on Greek Trinitarianism, and JW are different things. JW sees the Word as an angel (not).

Exactly, because that is polytheism, -- two Gods who are each the Almighty, two YHWHs. The bible doesn't say creatures can't be given the title "a god" (Exodus 7:1) or "gods" (John 10:34) etc., -- the title used in such contexts simply means "a powerful one" (etc.), it does not mean "YHWH." Don't confuse the anarthrous use of this title with the proper name of God himself. Kind of like not everyone in the bible who is called "a lord" or "lord" is the Lord.

It isn't polytheism to suggest that the Father and the Word are co-eternal. It would only be polytheism if the Word was made co-equal to the Father. That is ruled out by Christ saying "The Father is greater than I."

 

[The Real John Milton]

It isn't polytheism to suggest that the Father and the Word are co-eternal. It would only be polytheism if the Word was made co-equal to the Father. That is ruled out by Christ saying "The Father is greater than I."

It is however. Two (poly) entities who are each God ( theism).”Co” (as in co-eternal) is another dead give away.

 

[cjab]

It is however. Two (poly) entities who are each God ( theism).”Co” (as in co-eternal) is another dead give away.

Not if one is of the other. You are limiting God by dogmatism. Word of God, Spirit of God: are you suggesting God could not have had word or spirit before he created the universe? You have no authority even to suggest it.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not if one is of the other. You are limiting God by dogmatism. Word of God, Spirit of God: are you suggesting God could not have had word or spirit before he created the universe? You have no authority even to suggest it.

Two is two, …? which is more than one, no matter how you try to slice it.

Word of God, Spirit of God: are you suggesting God could not have had word or spirit before he created the universe? You have no authority even to suggest it.

Ofcourse God can have attributes. But these are not different individuals. Apostle Paul’s spirit is not a different person from him.

 

[cjab]

Two is two, …? which is more than one, no matter how you try to slice it.

You have a paradox, because of Deut 6:4. The Word of God (the word of YHWH = ὁ ῥῆμα κύριος) is clearly referred to in the OT, and construed divine and de facto God, yet there was just one God.

Now that this word was God was not in any doubt "Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him"
Num 15:31.

Seems to me you're not grasping the wider spiritual concept. God isn't simple (i.e. made in the image of man). That's the mistake of JWs, and Arians in general, to suppose God is in the image of man.

Ofcourse God can have attributes. But these are not different individuals. Apostle Paul’s spirit is not a different person from him.

When Paul died, his body died but his spirit / soul departed. God can emanate from himself without dying (Lev 10:2 - fire, Isa 48:3 - prophecy, Jhn 8:42 - Jesus, Spirits(Spirit) - Rev 5:6).

 

[brianrw]

"The appearance of the glory of the great God" using the idea of genitives being "attributive" in order to change this natural, theologically uncontroversial, rendition.

This is not a controversial usage of the genitive, and it is certainly employed as attributive in many occasions in the scriptures. You're hung up on the theological aspect and trying to work the grammar around it.

The innuendo in the below is clear: manipulation of grammar is being employed to alter the teachings handed down:

"But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God."

I don't see that as clear at all; he accused them of altering the teachings. As I noted also, immediately after he supports this point by accusing the apostle John of altering the doctrine because he was afraid of so many who were worshipping Christ as God, but because he was ashamed of what he was doing he never put "Jesus" or "Christ" when he called Christ "Word" or "God." Julian is clearly orchestrating a sophist attack against Christianity, and I don't know how an Arian turned pagan who makes incredible claims can be seen or treated as credible. His arguments didn't hold up well at the time, and certainly don't hold up now. And if you look at the evangelist's choices of cross references, his claims about Matthew, Luke, and Mark also prove to be problematic. But some of you have no problem being his apostles, if you think it might help you win points in an argument.

The idea of God as only one person (namely the Father ) originated / “sprung up” in the fourth century ? But that God is more than one person, preceded that notion ?

The concept of the "Word" springs from the Jewish Targums. Feel free to take some time and read about the "Memrah" of Jewish theology.

I don’t think even you truly believe this upside down nonsense, even though you may be spewing it publicly.

I was specifically speaking of when Arianism was founded, and they also believed that Christ was a lesser, begotten "God." They referred to him as a "little God." You can assume all you want about what the early Christians taught. If you want to have your ignorance removed, actually go and read them. Our range of ante-Nicene writers is very limited, and very nearly all of them specifically refer to Christ as "God." The earliest of them, Ignatius, who was a student of the Apostle John, refers to Christ as such on multiple occasions. And Irenaeus, who was a student of John's disciple Polycarp, wrote that form of doctrine he received from Polycarp in a work called "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching." That doctrine is clearly not what we find among the Unitarians and Arians. I'm speaking strictly from a historic perspective, while you are making assumptions.

Unless we can get this topic back on point, there's probably nothing else to be said. It seems some of you want to turn a "biblical languages" thread into a theological discussion, championing a sophist attack on Christianity by Julian the Apostate. It doesn't seem to me that is what CARM is about.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Same ol’ nonsense.

 

[cjab]

This is not a controversial usage of the genitive,

It is controversial where two genitives follow in succession. I suggest you re-read the article.

I don't see that as clear at all; he accused them of altering the teachings. As I noted also, immediately after he supports this point by accusing the apostle John of altering the doctrine because he was afraid of so many who were worshipping Christ as God, but because he was ashamed of what he was doing he never put "Jesus" or "Christ" when he called Christ "Word" or "God." Julian is clearly orchestrating a sophist attack against Christianity, and I don't know how an Arian turned pagan who makes incredible claims can be seen or treated as credible. His arguments didn't hold up well at the time, and certainly don't hold up now. And if you look at the evangelist's choices of cross references, his claims about Matthew, Luke, and Mark also prove to be problematic. But some of you have no problem being his apostles, if you think it might help you win points in an argument.

I agree Julian's arguments per se are invalid, because the whole Arian/Trinitarian project in assuming that the Word was begotten in heaven is invalid. Julian couldn't understand why the Trinitarians and Arians (both were equally culpable) had altered the Jewish conception of one God-person, YHWH, to include a new and second God-person, God the Word, equal to the Father no less.

This was more than nibbling at paganism, but espousal of paganism. I guess the explanation for Julian's apostasy was partly because he despised the "Christians" for seeking to ape paganism in the idea of Gods begettings Gods or gods in heaven. Such was hardly controvertible: many sought to contrast Christianity with Greek philosophy, but it was always ideologically distinct and incompatible.

It is this idea of the "Word begotten in heaven" that you have to account for to justify the ECF project, which relies on this premise: once begotten a God, then always a God, even when incarnated.

As you're not able to show the Word being begotten of God the Father from the bible, the project collapses as an exercise in hubris. You might as well accept that the apostles had no such notion of the Word begotten of God the Father, and neither did they regard Christ the man as ὁ Θεός except in that non-titular descriptive sense authorized by the OT re John 10:34-36.

 

[brianrw]

I agree Julian's arguments per se are invalid

If they are intrinsically invalid, why do you bother using them? I don't know why you are championing them, or why you decided to truncate his comment to avoid his charge against John. Julian clearly understood that John was calling Christ "God," but that wasn't convenient for you.

As you're not able to show the Word being begotten of God the Father from the bible, the project collapses as an exercise in hubris. You might as well accept that the apostles had no such notion of the Word begotten of God the Father, and neither did they regard Christ the man as ὁ Θεός except in that non-titular descriptive sense authorized by the OT re John 10:34-36.

Even your source, Julian is against you and clearly recognized that John was speaking of Christ as "God." I don't see how you get this sort of statement based on the scriptures, and it doesn't help that you are appealing to a sophist attack on Christianity by a pagan apostate of Arian Christianity.

"The Word" is a name of Christ, which was clear from John more than a decade before he wrote his gospel (see Revelation 19:13). John also says "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. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory--the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Christ is the Word and is the Son of God. He was with the Father before the world began (John 17:5), returned to heaven "where he was before" at the ascension (Cf. John 6:62) and it was by him that all things were created (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-18).

Acts 20:28, "feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."
Colossians 2:9, 1"for in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"
Philippians 2:7, 8, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου

As you're not able to show the Word being begotten of God the Father from the bible, the project collapses as an exercise in hubris. You might as well accept that the apostles had no such notion of the Word begotten of God the Father, and neither did they regard Christ the man as ὁ Θεός except in that non-titular descriptive sense authorized by the OT re John 10:34-36.

So now the Word was "a god"?

 

[brianrw]

Same ol’ nonsense.

Because I read and take notes, I have at least sixty pages of comments by the ante-Nicene fathers referring to Christ as God, and not (as cjab alleges) in the "non-titular descriptive sense." There's a pretty consistent view that emerges among all of it. I doubt you've read them at all. So you can say "same ol' nonsense," but from the standpoint of an uninformed opinion. You are assuming something about the early fathers that is in fact not true. Unitarianism is an offshoot of Socinianism, and Socinianism was founded in the 16th century. That Christological view is novel, and its closest ancient relative was the heresy founded by Paul of Samosata in the third century which, when it emerged, was promptly condemned by a council of seventy bishops at Antioch. That heresy in it's original form did not outlive his lifetime.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Because I read and take notes, I have at least sixty pages of comments by the ante-Nicene fathers referring to Christ as God, and not (as cjab alleges) in the "non-titular descriptive sense." There's a pretty consistent view that emerges among all of it. I doubt you've read them at all. So you can say "same ol' nonsense," but from the standpoint of an uninformed opinion. You are assuming something about the early fathers that is in fact not true. Unitarianism is an offshoot of Socinianism, and Socinianism was founded in the 16th century. That Christological view is novel, and its closest ancient relative was the heresy founded by Paul of Samosata in the third century which, when it emerged, was promptly condemned by a council of seventy bishops at Antioch. That heresy in it's original form did not outlive his lifetime.

A “Unitarian” is someone who believes that only the Father is God. Moses was a Unitarian, so were all of the prophets of God. So were the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’s day, including all of the apostles of Christ. Therefore yes, you are spewing the same ol nonsense, and same ol word games .