Does God have a God?

[Guest]

Here's one that has given me "Trinititarion" fits;
Mat. 4:8-9 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their spendor". 9) "ALL THIS I WILL GIVE YOU", he said, "IF YOU WILL BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP ME".

Since Satan is a created being of God and subject to him, how then can he
"offer" Jesus (God) the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS anything?

Apparently Satan was given dominion when Adam gave it up because Jesus did'nt rebuke him on that point and if it were'nt a real offer it would'nt have been a real temptation.
In Matt 28 Jesus said "all authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN given to me" which apparently happened at his resurrection when Jesus regained his glory that he had emptied himself of (Phil 2.7).

[Guest]

Ely,

Interestingly enough here, but not surprising to me: The early (post 70AD) Rabbis condemned Jewish-Christians for their belief in "two powers in heaven"!!!! (I just had to bold-that)!

To which you replied: Rick, what evidence would you cite for this assertion? I know there are references in the Talmud to people being condemned for this belief, but I have not seen any clear evidence that these were believers in Yeshua. Do you have any such info?

I highly recommend:
TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN:
Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism,
by Alan F. Segal

Later (soon) I will post from excerpts the book....

We have few clear references to Christianity in the talmuds and midrash. Presumably this is partly due to censoring of texts by medeival Church authorities. Most references to Jesus are late, such as: "On the eve of passover they hanged Jesus and a herald went out before him for 40 days. Let him be stoned for he has committed sorcery and has deceived Israel and led it astray" (b. Sanh. 43a). However the charge that Jesus was a sorcerer was early: Justin refers to it (Dialogue with Trypho 69:7). The New Testament implies it. Since the historical references to first-century Christians are unsure and obscure in the talmud and midrash, Christianity becomes an even better candidate for the charge of "two powers in heaven."

Most of what can be said of Christianity as a candidate for "two powers" heresy may also be true of gnosticism, as we have seen. Where a demiurge and transcendent god are described, the rabbinic charge of "two powers in heaven" becomes plausible; where a complex system of archons and spheres is described, the closely associated charge of "many powers in heaven" becomes possible as well.

from the Conclusion, Segal, pp. 261-262, 264, 265:

Within the Palestinian community, with its many sects, polemics for monotheism were used in a variety of ways. Paul seems to use anti- "two powers" polemic against Jews with whom he charged of venerating angels (Col 2:18ff.) while he himself could have been charged with the identical crime by rabbinic Jews.
One heretical candidate was sure. The christological statements in Johannine literature are clearly heretical because the fourth gospel represents Jews as opposing Jesus when he equates himself with God. Johannine Christians, if not Jesus himself, were charged with the crime. "Two powers" seems to be one of the basic issues over which Judaism and Christianity separated.
--------------------
The earliest reports about "two powers" in the rabbinic texts were associated with gentiles. This may further indicate that proto-gnostic interpretations of angelic manifestation originated in a thoroughly Hellenized form of Judaism or among gentiles attracted to synagogue services. But "two powers" heresy has a clearly Jewish setting as well. Apparently, along with Jewish sectarians, gentiles who had been drawn to the synagogue to hear the Bible proclaimed were attracted to biblical monotheism that distinguished between the supreme God and a divine agent, possibly in a more extreme form than the system Philo had described (Philo descibed the Logos as "a second god", mine). All such doctrines, whether in apocalypticism, Christianity or philosophical speculations, were probably condemned by the rabbis as early as the end of the first century and the beginning of the second (Segal certainly refers to the Council of Jamnia, ff., here, mine). But the gentiles continued to hear the Christian message.
--------------------
Obviously, this [book] is not meant to be the authoritative reconstruction of events. But it seems to be a credible account of the complex evidence. Besides a general chronological scheme, a new hypothesis is assumed---namely, that the radicalization of gnosticism was a product of the battle between the rabbis, the Christians and various other "two powers" sectarians who inhabited the outskirts of Judaism. The battle was a debate over the meaning of several scriptural passages, among which were angelic or theophany texts of the Old Testament, followed closely by the plurals used by or about God in scripture.

I tried but couldn't find: "The early (post 70AD) Rabbis condemned Jewish-Christians for their belief in "two powers in heaven." I thought had seen a direct quote from Alan Segal saying that. Segal writes above that this probably happened by the Council of Jamnia (or Javneh) which is dated at about 89AD.

In any event, the evidences that suggest there was a belief in "two powers in heaven" in the first century -- and in first century Christianity -- are too many and weighty to ignore or gloss over as "peripheral" or insignificant. This strand of thought and belief deserves a thorough and ongoing examination, imo!

I had to edit out many typos, sorry if you tried to view it then.

Thanks,
Rick

[_Paidion]

Rick, what I said about Arius did not come from the source you quoted. It was indeed a letter Arius sent to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia in 321 A.D. Below is the letter. I will address the rest of your questions later:

To his dearest lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander on account of that all-conquering truth which you also champion, sends greetings in the Lord.

Since my father Ammonius is going into Nicomedia, I thought it my duty to salute you by him, and at the same time advise that naturally charitable disposition of yours, which you display towards the brethren for the sake of God and his Christ, how grievously the bishop attacks and persecutes us, and comes full tilt against us, so that he drives us from the city as atheists because we do not concur with him when he publicly preaches, “God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten; he is not born-by-begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God precede the Son; God always, Son always; the Son exists from God himself.”

Eusebius, you brother, Bishop of Caesarea, Theodatus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Aetius, and all the other bishops of the east, have been condemned for saying that God existed, without beginning, before the Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, men who are heretics and unlearned in the faith; some of whom say that the Son is an effluence, others a projection, others that he is co-unbegotten.

To these impieties we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any essence; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

And before he was begotten, or created, or appointed, or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any essence. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know.

I trust, Eusebius, that you are strong in the Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian.

[Guest]

Thanks Rick,

As you say, these "Two Powers" beliefs were certainly around in that era. However, there needs to be a lot more work done before asserting that Yeshua and the apostles were "TP" advocates. Maybe we should start a "Two Powers" thread to discuss these issues?

Shalom
Ely

[Guest]

Thanks, Paidion

You're welcome, Ely.
I've been wanting to get a thread going about Larry Hurtado. He and Alan Segal are NT Era experts and address "two powers" among other things. I've been reading and listening to Margaret Barker a lot lately too. She focusses on similar concepts, coming from her area of expertise in the Old Testament up to NT times. Hurtdado is an evangelical, Segal is Jewish, and Margaret Barker is in the liberal tradition of scholarship. These authors do not agree on details. I find the things they examine fascinating and often difficult to grasp, yet very important. They all paint a picture of what religious and cultural climates were like in the biblical eras. I admit to being somewhat reluctant posting much about Margaret Barker as she is definately "liberal" and radically so (this forum is more conservative, generally). Margaret Barker is an English Methodist. Are you familiar with her work?

In all this, I'm looking for a job: Lost it last week. We have time to look into these things... I'll do what I can....
Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Yes, I've become familiar with those names - partly through your constant citations ( ) and partly through online reading. Just the other day I came across Bakers thorygh a review of her book which didn't exactly fill me with the joy of the Lord.

I'll lift you in prayer for your job search.

Shalom,
Ely

[_Paidion]

Rick, I’d now like to show that it weren’t the Arians who originated the idea of the begetting (or generation) of the Son before all ages. This truth was taught from the earliest times of Christianity. Please note that the begetting of the Son before all ages is an expression common to the Caesarean, Nicene, “Blasphemy” of Sirmium(Arian) statement, and the “Dated” Creed (the “semi-Arian” Creed). At the council of Nicæa (325), Eusebius of Caesarea who was with the universal church of his day, suggested the adoption of the creed of his own local church:


THE CAESAREAN CREED

We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, the maker of things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Only-begotten Son, Firstborn of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom also all things were made; who was made flesh for our salvation and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead;
We believe also in the Holy Spirit.

What follows is the original creed set forth at Nicea, A.D. 325. It was altered later. Even later forms retained the statement that the Son of God was begotten as an act of God. It was only much later that the phrase was changed to “eternally begotten”.

THE NICENE CREED

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father;
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father,
Through whom all things were made; both things in heaven and things on earth;
Who for us people, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate,
and was made man;
He suffered, and was raised again the third day,
And ascended into heaven
And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead,
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
And in one baptism of repentance for deliverance from sins,
And in one holy universal Church,
And in the resurrection of the flesh,
And in everlasting life.

The Arian response to the Athanasians.

THE “BLASPHEMY” OF SIRMIUM 357 A.D.

It is agreed that there is one God, the Father all-sovereign, as it is universally believed, and his only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and saviour, begotten from him before all ages.
But that two Gods must not be spoken of, since the Lord himself says, “I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
But many are disturbed by questions about “essence”, or in Greek ousia, that is, to make it more clearly understood, about the term homoöusion [of the same essence]. Therefore no mention ought to be made of these, nor any exposition of them in the church; for this reason, that they are not contained in the divine scriptures and because they are beyond understanding of man. Also because no one can explain the generation [begetting] of the Son, of whom it is written, “Who shall explain his generation?” … There is no doubt that the Father is greater … than the Son in honour, renown, and deity, and in the very name of Father, for the Son himself testifies, “He that sent me is greater than I.” And everyone knows that this is catholic doctrine, that there are two persons of the Father and the Son, and that the Father is greater, the Son subject together with all the things that the Father has subjected to himself. That the Father has not a beginning, is invisible, immortal and impassible; that the Son has been begotten from the Father, God from God, light from light … that from the virgin Mary he … the Son of God our Lord and God … took humanity, by means of which he shared in suffering.

The moderates or “Semi-Arians” met at Sirmium to draw up a creed to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council of the universal church. This creed was accepted by both East and West, meeting separately. In the West, “in all things” was omitted after “like the Father”. In this form, the creed was issued as the universal (catholic) faith in 360 A.D., after a council at Constantinople.

THE “DATED” CREED 359 A.D.

We believe in One God, the only and true God, the Father all-sovereign, creator and artificer of all things;
And in one only-begotten Son of God, who, before all ages, and before all beginning and before conceivable time and before all comprehensible being, was begotten impassibly from God; and through him the ages were set in order and all things came into being; begotten as only-begotten, only from the only Father, God from God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the scriptures. No one understands his begetting except the Father who begat him. We know that he, the only-begotten the heavens for the doing away with sin, was born of the virgin, Mary, went around with his disciples, fulfilled all his stewardship according to the Father’s will, was crucified, died, and descended to the lower regions, and set in order things there, and the gate-keepers of Hades were frightened when they saw him; and he rose from the dead the third day and had converse with the disciples, and fulfilled all his stewardship; and when thirty days had expired, he ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and is to come at the last day in his Father’s glory, giving to each according to his works....
But the term “essence” has been taken up by the fathers rather unwisely, and gives offence because it is not understood by the people. It is also not contained in the scriptures. For these reasons, we have decided to do away with it, and that no use at all shall be made of it for the future in connection with God, because the divine scriptures nowhere use it of the Father and the Son. But we say that the So is like the Father in all things, as the holy scriptures say and teach.

According to Jerome, “The world groaned and marvelled at finding itself Arian.” Actually the church world was going back to its orinal teaching concerning the begetting of the Son. Jerome thought anyone who disagreed with his “eternal begetting” concept was an “Arian”. Jerome used this appellation for Eusebius of Caesarea (the church historian who was with the universal church of his day) and for even Origen (who died before Arius was born).

[

[Guest]

Ely,

Yes, I've become familiar with those names - partly through your constant citations and partly through online reading. Just the other day I came across Barker's through a review of her book which didn't exactly fill me with the joy of the Lord....I'll lift you in prayer for your job search.

I corrected some typos, knowing you posted "late" in UK, hope you don't mind...
Thanks very much for your prayer; I have a couple job possibilities tomorrow.

I don't want to digress from the thread's direction. But in my experience with message boards (forums) I've been accustomed to occasionally putting and reading "personal notes" in threads, like about my job. Also, side topics arise, like Margaret Barker's theology. Of course, we haven't discussed it as of yet other than your brief comment, above. For now I'll just say that Barker's ideas are unacceptable to most theologically-conservative Christians (this I understand). However, I read liberal scholars not as much because I am liberal myself, but for the sheer weight of information they offer. Perhaps a thread about Barker in Teachers, Authors, and Movements?...after I find a job.

Shalom to you too,
Rick

[Guest]

Paidion,

Nice work! You've given me a few things to mull over in my mind...hmmmm.
Be back tomorrow some time.

Thanks & God bless,
Rick

[Guest]

Paidion,

I have to ask, are all these different pics of you showing us your "regeneration" or...??? Had to ask bro! You went from an 'ole hippy'
lookin dude to a pretty handsome dude? (No I don't want a date!) Whats up?
Bob