Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

Otherness,

No offense meant, but I would not want you as a seminary or Bible school teacher. Your post was a little hard to follow. I think you and I are on the same page, but I'm not sure. I'm glad the Bible itself was not written with such words. The Bible is generally clear speaking using plain language, making it not difficult to follow. Why can't we follow that example?

[dwight92070]

Otherness,

An afterthought: Steve's teaching is a good example of how we should teach, in my opinion.

[Otherness]

Hello Dwight,

No offense taken my brother, and I appreciate your forthrightness. Also, no need to worry as I have no, and desire no, future as a seminary or Bible school teacher. We may not be on the exact same page, but we are definitely in the same book, same chapter, and not that many “words” apart. I agree that the Bible does not use the words I use the way I use them, but it does most definitely use the concepts I use the way I use them. If you care to pursue this I can justify everything I say using the Bible's words the way the Bible uses them. It's just, as I've said repeatedly, that my witness here concerning these concepts I'm dealing with come primarily from a Natural Theology perspective. So my language is heavily tinged with extra-biblical / non-biblical “jargon.” I've made it quite clear that this is where I'm coming from, all the while stressing that Steve has already done all the heavy lifting (in Trinitarian apologetics) coming from a purely biblical approach.

As a matter of fact, in my almost 52 year walk with the Lord I've never heard a more competent “Bible teacher” than Steve. For this I give glory to, and thank, our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ for the gift of his ministry. I always commend him to anyone and everyone interested in knowing what the Bible (truly) teaches. In other words, he balances and prioritizes the “words” of the Bible so well that the Spirit of them (which gives life) speaks for itself (Himself). But enough about Steve, I'm sure he is as thankful for his ministry as we are (John 3:27).

Wait a minute...let me say one more thing about Steve's ministry in regard to your comment that “the Bible is generally clear speaking using plain language, making it not difficult to follow.” The (greatest?) failure of “the Church” is the denominationalism that has all but concealed the Presence of God that we have in the Gospel. It is His Presence (in us) that creates the unity that is the (greatest) witness that the world so desperately needs. Denominations are built upon disagreements about the “plain language” of the Bible, and these denominations make it all but impossible for us, His Body, to fulfill our mission (John 17:21). Steve's ministry goes a long way in breaking down these denominational walls, and I actually believe there is a “practical benefit” to our Christian walk in understanding our Creator's “Trinitarian State.” That is, that the existence of “Otherness” (the existence of the “OTHER”) is His First Love, and identifies Him as LOVE (1 John 4:8), even before any creation : the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father before any Creation. When we look at each other we should love that “that other” even exists [regardless of who or what he or she is (or believes)], and then be devoted to the goal God has in bringing her or him into being : perfection / completion in Christ. Our identity should be that we are other-centered, as God is in Himself.

As I have said from the beginning of my posting here, I perceive that God is redeeming the witness of man's search for meaning in his longing to understand the natural world. Man, as he plumbs the depth of the nature of “the world” is painting himself into a corner, and waxing ever more “mystical” as he tries to articulate what he is finding. Not only is “the world” disappearing before his very eyes (his scientific insights), but he is finding “consciousness” to be “possibly” the most fundamental aspect (ingredient) of reality. Once he takes this inevitable step the next logical one is going to be pantheism, and then the only escape from this remaining darkness is understanding “why” the Creator wills His Triune State.

Love in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Paidion]

The earliest Christians taught that the first act of God was the begetting of the Son.

Ignatius, born around A.D. 30 wrote in his letter to the Ephesians, Chapter XI these words concerning Christ:
..Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the virgin, Mary...

Justin Martyr, born around A.D. 110
...being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 105

Justin also compared the begetting of the Son to a small fire that has been started from a large fire. The small fire is of the same essence as the large fire, but yet is a different fire.

[dwight92070]

The earliest Christians taught that the first act of God was the begetting of the Son.

Dwight - Actually, the earliest Christians came on the scene shortly after (approximately) 26 A.D., when Jesus was about 30, which is about 4 years before Ignatius was born and about 84 years before Martyr was born. Among the earliest disciples were Peter, John, and Matthew, all writers of scripture. If they believed what you said, they must have forgot to mention it in their books. Even Paul, another writer of scripture, became a Christian, many believe, around 36 A.D., or about the time that Ignatius was 6 years old, or about 74 years before Martyr was born. Paul too, made no mention of "God's first act". In fact, none of the authors of the New or Old Testament talk about "the first act of God".

Dwight - If, by God's first act, you are referring to creation, then Genesis 1 tells us clearly what He did first. If you're referring to some time before creation, then God's first act, doesn't even make sense, since God, being eternal, always existed, so no particular act of His could be called His first.

Ignatius, born around A.D. 30 wrote in his letter to the Ephesians, Chapter XI these words concerning Christ:
..Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the virgin, Mary...

Dwight - What scripture did Ignatius use to confirm his statement?

Justin Martyr, born around A.D. 110
...being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 105

Dwight - What scripture did Justin Martyr use to verify his statement?

Justin also compared the begetting of the Son to a small fire that has been started from a large fire. The small fire is of the same essence as the large fire, but yet is a different fire.

Dwight - This statement cannot be accepted unless there is scripture to back it up.

[dwight92070]

By the way, Paidion, here are some additional quotes from Ignatius, to the Ephesians church:
In the first paragraph in his letter to the Ephesians: "... united and elect for genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ..." In the next paragraph, he says "... once you took on life through THE BLOOD OF GOD ...".

In his first paragraph of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius says: "... in accordance with faith in and love for JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ...". At the end of that paragraph, he says: " ... heartiest greetings blamelessly IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD."

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, second paragraph: "... I glorify JESUS CHRIST, THE GOD WHO MADE YOU SO WISE ..."

So, apparently, Ignatius came to the same conclusion that I did, that Jesus is God.

[darinhouston]

By the way, Paidion, here are some additional quotes from Ignatius, to the Ephesians church:
In the first paragraph in his letter to the Ephesians: "... united and elect for genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ..." In the next paragraph, he says "... once you took on life through THE BLOOD OF GOD ...".

In his first paragraph of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius says: "... in accordance with faith in and love for JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ...". At the end of that paragraph, he says: " ... heartiest greetings blamelessly IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD."

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, second paragraph: "... I glorify JESUS CHRIST, THE GOD WHO MADE YOU SO WISE ..."

So, apparently, Ignatius came to the same conclusion that I did, that Jesus is God.

Even Arius called Jesus God -- a subordinate God, a non-eternal begotten and lesser God, but a God nonetheless. Anyone trying to prove much of anything from these early church fathers are always going to be using syncretism. They almost never meant what we want them to mean.

[dwight92070]

By the way, Paidion, here are some additional quotes from Ignatius, to the Ephesians church:
In the first paragraph in his letter to the Ephesians: "... united and elect for genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ..." In the next paragraph, he says "... once you took on life through THE BLOOD OF GOD ...".

In his first paragraph of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius says: "... in accordance with faith in and love for JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD ...". At the end of that paragraph, he says: " ... heartiest greetings blamelessly IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD."

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, second paragraph: "... I glorify JESUS CHRIST, THE GOD WHO MADE YOU SO WISE ..."

So, apparently, Ignatius came to the same conclusion that I did, that Jesus is God.

Even Arius called Jesus God -- a subordinate God, a non-eternal begotten and lesser God, but a God nonetheless. Anyone trying to prove much of anything from these early church fathers are always going to be using syncretism. They almost never meant what we want them to mean.

Dwight - So what do you do with "the blood of God"?

[darinhouston]

Dwight - So what do you do with "the blood of God"?

Well, he's just quoting Paul from Acts - it's nothing more than saying he's God's son to my mind - like we say "my blood" or "my kin"

God is Spirit - he has no flesh or blood.

[dwight92070]

Darin, that may be true of some church fathers, but I don't think you can say it was true of all of them. The following church fathers and their quotes indicate to me that many of them thought Jesus was God, not necessarily a subordinate God. In fact, since there is only one God, how can there even be a subordinate God? That would move into the area of idolatry.

Polycarp, Philippians, 12:2. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 0.0. (This is the Greeting.) ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1.1. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.3. Holmes, AF, 229. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.1. Holmes, AF, 249. ↩
Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 3.2. Holmes, AF, 265. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128. Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:264. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 36. ANF, I:212. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229. ↩
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63. ANF, I:184. ↩
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 126. ANF, I:263. ↩
Melito, 5. ↩
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19.2. ↩
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7. ↩
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1. ↩
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2. ↩
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4. ↩
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 1. ↩
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10. ↩
Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41. ↩
Tertullian, Apology, 21. ↩
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 9. ↩
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2. ↩
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29. ↩
Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23. ↩
Hippolytus, Against Plato, Section 3. ↩
Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17. ↩
Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4. ↩
Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11. ↩
Origen, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15. ↩
Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2. ↩
Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4. ↩
Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10. ↩