A Jehovah's Witness and a LDS member discussion.
LDS = italics
Well first off It seems your understanding of the Trinity is a little off.
So I quote the following from Wikipedia:
In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy. Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).
Quoted from this message
Reply,
As regards the Trinity, if something is true then it has always been true, it doesn’t take (hundreds of years) until the 4th century for it to become true! And no amount of councils can make it true; if it wasn’t true to begin with!
The Wikipedia is just quoting a man made creed and is not supported by biblical Christianity.
As for being “simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons” this is pure Hellenistic Greek Philosophical Metaphysics (try reading, some of the works of Plato, Plotinus’s Enneads, Parmenides and others…)
You say, “Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).”
“…the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings)…”
If this is truly the case with LDS theology, then Mormons are “polytheists”. As you believe in three separate beings (gods). Not a bible teaching, but extra biblical, and therefore pagan. (end of quote)
"Know our own statement regarding the Godhead is much simpler than the Nicene creed.
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. (First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price)"
When you say, “We believe in… (above)” this wording smacks of Trinitarianism. But then you say that you believe in three separate personages! This to many would be very confusing, as you say you don’t believe in the Trinity as some (on this board) understand it (and I respect their right to believe what they believe), but the wording of your belief leads me to the only conclusion of polytheism-3 separate gods! Again not a bible teaching, but can be found outside of the bible.
You quote,
“(First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price). This document has no authority whatsoever. The bible itself is the only authority. (end of quote)
"As to the nature of God and the Godhead I provide the following:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) "
Quoted from this message
Reply,
The above is not supported by the bible. The words you use, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit”, have more in common with Greek Mythology than the bible... The Greeks made the gods in their image and not the other way round.
And saying, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also…” Is diametrically opposed to what the bible teaches.
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Yes, as the bible plainly and clearly teaches, “flesh” and “blood” cannot inherit God’s kingdom. And it is of no use to try and add “bones” to make it palatable!
Just as, “…neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”, likewise with the “flesh” and heaven, otherwise, we could turn around and say, “…corruption [does] inherit incorruption”. Brackets mine for emphasis!
As regard “God” what does the bible say, as opposed to, “Doctrine and Covenants 130:22”?
John 4:24 (King James Version)
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”.
See also, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Eph 2:22.
Think about it! (end of quote)
"So there are two Physical Bodies and a Personage of Spirit, so three separate beings. For how they are one:
Though each God in the God-head is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others yet they are "one God", meaning that that are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith.
Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things, and yet they are three separate and distinct personalities ... The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints. (Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie)"
Again, you say, “So there are two Physical Bodies…”
Again, this is not what the bible teaches:
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that “flesh” … cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Notice the parallel contrast; “flesh” with “corruption”.
“For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge…”
If each has the fullness of knowledge, then whatever one knows the other knows, none would be ignorant of certain facts or would have to be given any etc.
Revelation 1:1 (King James Version)
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.
As regards knowing, knowledge, it would seem to contradict:
“Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie”.
The emphasis being on (knowledge)-“For instance each has the fullness of … knowledge…”
In the Revelation given to John, it would seem that John had to be given the revelation by an angel sent by Christ! In turn, Christ had to given the revelation by God! At this time Christ is in heaven, not on the earth.
But if the Father and the Son are coequal, how could the Son be ignorant of things the Father knows? Like John and the (sent) angel, Jesus had to be given the revelation in order to hand it down from its source! Just as John and the angel were not the source of the revelation, neither was Jesus the source of the revelation-he was given it!
‘Jesus had two natures,’ some will answer. ‘When on earth he spoke as a man.’ (See Mark 13:32 KJV below)
And, yet, even if that were so, what about the “Holy Ghost”? If it is the third person of the Trinity, why does it not know? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And the “Holy Ghost” is part of the “Trinitarian” chain.
Mark 13:32 (King James Version)
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
If the spirit was a person, don’t you think Mark would have included the Holy Spirit in knowing or not knowing? The fact is, he didn’t! (end of quote)
"So when you say Trinity, I and the rest of the English speaking world think of One God who is somehow three manifestations. We believe in Three Gods who are one in purpose and I suppose we could have used the word Trinity had not someone else used the word for a different doctrine."
You say, “We believe in Three Gods…” It is totally irrelevant when you say, “…are one in purpose…” That is beside the point! The true point is, your belief, you believe in three gods, therefore, you believe in 3 gods, and therefore you are polytheistic. Not a bible teaching, that finds its authority outside the bible.
"As regards the Comma I actually did know about it. But let's declare my biblical prejudice:
With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.
The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bible; Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures)"
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.”
We are now in possession of thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts going back to approximately (between) the 2nd cent upwards etc. So why have the LDS not revised and modernised the attitude towards the KJV and its some 20,00 errors.
Again, you quote “Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures” as if a recognised authority! As far as the bible is concerned it has no authority whatsoever!
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
“However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
In the light of many manuscripts being found how the LDS can say,”… the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions”.
This is really beyond belief and ridiculous to say the least!
Like Christendom the LDS holds to doctrines that are not supported by the bible, these doctrines are extra-biblical and that some of the LDS belief system have elements taken from Greek philosophy and Oriental Buddhism, i.e. Life before birth, life after death… and others. These and other beliefs are to be found in the above. Not a bible teaching.
It is obvious you do not know that the KJV of the bible has over 20,000 errors in it!
The Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the KJV of the Bible, with its Shakespearean English, and it’s over 20,000 errors which were already considered archaic in Joseph Smith’s day.
It has troubled some people that The Book of Mormon, this “most correct” of books, lifts at least 27,000 words directly from the Bible version that is purportedly full of errors and that Smith later undertook to revise, the KJV! In other words, the book of Mormon has incorporated in it the same errors carried over from the KJV. The Book of Mormon itself has had several revisions and changes since the original.
A very interesting point to note as regards the book of Mormon:
A comparison of the first edition of The Book of Mormon with current editions reveals to many Mormons a surprising fact. The book said to be “translated. . . by the gift and power of God” has itself undergone numerous changes in grammar, spelling, and substance.
Who is “the Eternal Father”?
For instance, there is apparent confusion over the identity of “the Eternal Father.”
According to the first edition at 1 Nephi 13:40, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father.”
But later editions say that “the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.” The two original 1830 manuscripts of The Book of Mormon still exist. One of the two originals, held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has the words “the Son” added between the lines. Can you explain this?
Also,
As for the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, the book The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by LDS scholar Lyndon W. Cook, explains in the preface:
Significant textual additions and deletions.
“Inasmuch as some revelations have been revised by those committees appointed to arrange them for publication, significant textual additions and deletions have been noted.” One such alteration is found at Book of Commandments 4:2, which said of Smith: “He has a gift to translate the book. . . I will grant him no other gift.”
Now please note this:
But when the revelation was reprinted in 1835 in Doctrine and Covenants, it read:
“For I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”—5:4.can you explain this as regards this “most perfect of books?”
I would like you to explain some of these “ENIGMAS”?
I find it difficult to reconcile that about 20 Jews were said to have left Jerusalem for America in 600 B.C.E. but that in less than 30 years, they had multiplied and split into two nations!
How many children can a woman produce in a year, even if she had twins or triplets etc-why not work it out? If there were some 20 Jews and let’s say that three quarters were women - say fifteen women, who had at least twins if not triplets on average, once per year…how do you get two sprawling civilizations out of 15 women (2 Nephi 5:28) within 19 years of their arrival?
This small band supposedly built a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon. . ., and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine”—a formidable task, indeed! The seven-year construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem occupied nearly 200,000 labourers, craftsmen, and overseers.—and yet there is nothing to show for it, no artefacts…2 Nephi 5:16; compare 1 Kings 5, 6.
Where is the archaeological evidence to be found to substantiate such a claim? If I go to the middle east and elsewhere, I see the evidence of ancient civilizations everywhere, where is your evidence?
Also,
Can you explain?
Careful readers of the Book of Mormon have puzzled over certain events that seem out of proper chronological sequence.
When were the first Christians?
For example, Acts 11:26 says: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (KJ) But Alma 46:15, purportedly describing events in 73 B.C.E., has Christians in America before Christ ever came to earth.
How do you get Christians before Christianity (ever existed 73 BC) was brought about by divine providence?
Also,
Perhaps you could explain?
The Book of Mormon presents itself more as a historical narrative than as a doctrinal treatise. The phrase “and it came to pass” occurs about 1,200 times in the current edition—about 2,000 times in the 1830 edition. Many places mentioned in the Bible still exist, yet the locations of virtually all sites named in The Book of Mormon, such as Gimgimno and Zeezrom, are unknown. Where are they?
Also,
The Mormon story tells of vast settlements across the North American continent.
Helaman 3:8 reads:
“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread. . . to cover the face of the whole earth.” According to Mormon 1:7, the land “had become covered with buildings.” Many people wonder where the remains of these sprawling civilizations are. Where are the Nephite artefacts, such as gold coins, swords, shields, or breastplates?—Alma 11:4; 43:18-20. The civilizations of the bible are there to be seen, but not so much as one in the book of Mormon.
Also,
You need to think about this:
Considering such questions, members of the Mormon faith do well to reflect seriously on the words of Mormon Rex E. Lee:
“The authenticity of Mormonism stands or falls with the book from which the Church derives its nickname.” A faith based upon solid Scriptural knowledge, rather than just on an emotional prayer experience, presents a challenge to sincere Mormons—as well as to all claiming to be Christians.”
Is it possible for you as an LDS member to correct what I have written? Perhaps, I have misunderstood you! I will stop the discussion here, as it will be updated later.
letusreason
Friday, 7 September 2007
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Wonderful Counsellor Isaiah 9:6
Wonderful Counsellor Isaiah 9:6
Taken from: ‘thechristianexpositor.org’ web site.
‘The Christian Expositor is a non-denominational, orthodox evangelical Christian group…’
The site says this:
“Jehovah's Witnesses WHO IS Jesus Christ? Is He God?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ask who is Jesus Christ. And, is He God?
Jehovah’s Witnesses know who Jesus Christ is [he is the son of Jehovah] and do not subscribe to the Trinitarian view that he is God [Jehovah]. The Lord Jehovah is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The site shows its bias and a lack of insight in understanding what texts like, Judg 13:18-22; Isa 9:6; 11:1-3; Gen 18; and Gen 32 and others texts really convey.
I have used the text from Judges 13:18-22 ASV that the site authors preferred to use.
It must be remembered that the site’s authors are ‘Evangelicals’ and avowed Trinitarians and therefore their site information is biased and leans toward their theology, i.e. Trinitarian theology.
You may be surprised at the findings when using various bible translations instead of just one or two that would seem to lean to a particular interpretational belief/theology.
Other than the NWT, all other translations are the works of Trinitarian translator(s).
It is my intention to show how the authors of this site have twisted and corrupted the scriptures and their meaning and misinforms unsuspecting readers. The site’s authors wish you to believe that Jesus is Jehovah (God) of the Hebrew Scriptures [O/T].
I have taken various [free online] bibles including the NWT to show how
the site leaves out is the fact that The God of Israel [Jehovah] is never called an ‘angel’ or referred to as an angel! Also, the site leaves out other translations and how they translate Isaiah 9:6
--------------------------------------------------------
I will start with the:
Isaiah 9: 6 NWT (Please, see (*))
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called *Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
*Wonderful Counsellor can also read: Lit.
“Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”
According to the Hebrew the titles are:
*Pele-yo’ez-el-gibbor-avi-‘ad-sar-shalom. (See above: M, LXX and Sy)
Five translation examples were chosen for this example. Please note the difference with these five Trinitarian bibles
Isaiah 9:6 five translations.
Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version)
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Footnotes:
Isaiah 9:6 Or is upon
Isaiah 9:6 Or is called
New International Version (NIV)
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Footnotes: Isaiah 9:6 or Wonderful, Counsellor
Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible)
6For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Now notice two of these Trinitarian translations and where they put the comma when it comes to ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor’.
Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”
Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”
Now look at these other Trinitarian translations and notice where the translators put the comma (,).
Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
New International Version (NIV): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
Why the sudden abrupt change (in punctuation) from “Wonderful Counsellor” to “Wonderful, Counsellor”?
Certain Trinitarian translations differ one from another and are not consistent with each other. The reason is Trinitarian bias. Altering the flow of “Wonderful Counsellor” only and not the others (titles) is forcing the text to mean what the authors want it to mean!
Why is it that “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Are not changed also to “Mighty, God; Everlasting, Father…”? (bias)
Altering the text in this way alters the meaning of Isaiah 9:6 and yet it will be noticed that the Trinitarian translators of the English Standard Version, New International Version, and the Amplified Bible show that they understand what is implicit in the text, that these are titles to be bestowed on the Messiah and therefore render the text, “Wonderful Counsellor” denoting a title like the rest of Isaiah 9:6. Please see (*) above.
Notice in the following texts what would happen to this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse when he turned up, and eventually, what the fulfilment of the prophesy would mean, and its outcome upon the foretold Messiah, and the effect he would have on the people.
Isaiah 11:1-3 (New Living Translation)
A Branch from David’s Line
1 Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot— yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. 2 And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. 3 He will delight in obeying the Lord…
Isaiah 11:1-3 (NWT)
And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes´se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah.
Zech.6:13 NWT
And he himself will build the temple of Jehovah, and he, for his part, will carry [the] dignity; and he must sit down and rule on his throne, and he must become a priest upon his throne, and the very counsel of peace will prove to be between both of them.
Zechariah 6:13 (New Living Translation)
Yes, he will build the Temple of the Lord. Then he will receive royal honour and will rule as king from his throne. He will also serve as priest from his throne, and there will be perfect harmony between his two roles.’
Footnotes:
Zechariah 6:13 Or There will be a priest by his throne.
What are the above translations telling us about this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse?
The Lord here means Jehovah.
the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord
He will delight in obeying the Lord
When the spirit of Jehovah rested on the Messiah what would this mean?
The Christ of Jehovah would have, “wisdom, understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and he would delight in obeying the (Lord) Jehovah…
The effect of all of this on the people that the Messiah would have, as a result of a fulfilling of the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6
Matthew 7:28 (Amplified Bible)
When Jesus had finished these sayings [the Sermon on the Mount], the crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewildered wonder at His teaching,
Mathew 7.28 NWT
Now when Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.
Matthew 12:42 (Darby Translation)
A queen of [the] south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, more than Solomon [is] here.
Mathew 12:42 NWT
The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than Solomon is here.
Notice the result this had on the people:
“The crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewilderment, wonder at His teaching”
“the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.”
Also, Jesus performed many wonderful miracles when he was on earth as Jehovah’s “twig/stump”. Please see (*) above.
What the site authors try to do!
What the Trinitarian authors of the site try and do, is to take the title “Wonderful Counsellor” (*) and proceed to disjoint it in such a way that that part of the title “Wonderful” is being used to refer to Jehovah. These are the lengths Trinitarians will go to, to prove their interpretation, belief, theology.
The Trinitarian translations above do not even agree with each other in regard to Isaiah 9:6. Is it “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”?
A basic definition of the word “wonder” is to be amazed, be in awe, astonishment etc. (*)
The context shows that the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6 wasn’t using “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”, or even “Wonderful” on its own (no matter which way the words are put) to identify Jesus with Jehovah.
No, the context shows that, because Jehovah’s spirit would be with Jesus the true Messiah (rest on him), people would stand in amazement, in awe, incredulous, speechless, bewildered, in wonder at this “Wonderful” miracle worker having more wisdom than even Solomon.
The people would have seen nothing or heard nothing of the like…The people would be astounded, amazed, dumbfounded, astonished… at his way of teaching…
*Wonderful Counsellor can also read: Lit.
“Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, this Evangelical site tries (yet again) to use scripture to prove that Jesus is Jehovah.
So, if I understand this correctly (see below), the Trinitarian Evangelical site authors are saying that, Jesus is Jehovah and therefore God, but not God the Father! So, we have God and God the Father and the authors use the texts below to prove this.
These are the words taken directly of the above Evangelical web site.
Judges 13:18-22. ASV
“Nine times in this passage He is referred to as the Angel of 'Jehovah': in verses 3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. But then, in verse 22, He is said to be God Himself. Note also in verse 18 that this Angel's name is "Wonderful."
The web site authors are correct in the above verses in that these verses refer to Jehovah’s angel 9 times. But when it comes to v22 the same authors show a blatant case of twisting the Hebrew text to make it fit Trinitarian theology. The authors cite the case of Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:18-22 emphasising v22.
First they say that it is Jehovah’s angel “the angel of Jehovah”, then turn and say that this same angel, who is Jehovah’s angel, is God, Jehovah Himself, because of what is said on the basis of the above verses up to v21.
Let’s look at vss 21 and 22 of Judges 13.
Judges 13:21, 22 RSV (Catholic Edition)
“…then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord”
“And Manoah said to his wife, “we shall surely die, for we have seen God”.
Was the angel actually God? Was he Jehovah? Did Manoah and his wife actually see God with their own eyes? The text just says “angel of Jehovah” and adds nothing else to it.
Turn your bible to Genesis 16 a familiar account about the troubles in Abraham’s household, between Sarai (Sarah) and Hagar. V7 lets us know that Jehovah’s angel finds Hagar in the wilderness.
Note that it just says “Jehovah’s angel” it doesn’t specify any particular angel and supplies no name, yet we have Hagar saying,
Genesis 16:13 (American Standard Version)
“And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?” (ASV)
Gen 32: 24-30 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Jacob Wrestles
24Then Jacob was left alone and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.
25When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him.
26Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
28 He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."
29Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.
30So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."
Footnotes:
Genesis 32:28 I.e. he who strives with God; or God strives
Genesis 32:30 I.e. the face of God
The angel asks Jacob the “man”, “What is your name?” Jacob replies!
Jacob asks the angel for his name, the angel does not reply!
In v28 the angel said that Jacob had contended with God. In v30 Jacob said that he had seen God face to face and lived.
In Genesis 18 the same can be said for angels (three men) meeting Abraham and one of them was Jehovah. In v22 of Gen18 it says the “men” went off but Jehovah stayed with Abraham. Now, in Gen 19 it says “the two angels arrived at Sodom…” Where was the other, the third one? Well, he stayed with Abraham as in Gen 18:22; this one was called Jehovah.
So, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Jacob and Manoah and his wife actually saw angels and then said as a result of their experience, that they had seen God (Jehovah) face to face, as it were! So, did they actually see Jehovah God Face to face?
Do angels at times speak in the place of God (the Father), as if they were God themselves?
Ex 3:2 Exodus 3:2 (New American Standard Bible)
The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
Ex 23:20 NWT
“Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.”
Other examples of angels speaking, as if they were the true God.
The angel who delivered God’s message to Moses at the burning thornbush was also a spokesman. He is identified as Jehovah’s angel at Exodus 3:2, where we are told:
“Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush.” Verse 4 says: “When Jehovah saw that he turned aside to inspect, God at once called to him out of the midst of the thornbush.” In verse 6, this angelic spokesman for God said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” So when speaking with this personal representative of God, Moses spoke as if he were speaking to Jehovah himself.—Exodus 4:10.
In the 6th chapter of Judges, we find another example of a man speaking to God through an angelic representative. Verse 11 identifies the message bearer as “Jehovah’s angel.” There we read:
“Later Jehovah’s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress so as to get it quickly out of the sight of Midian.” This messenger, “Jehovah’s angel,” is thereafter represented as if he were Jehovah [God the Father] himself. In verses 14 and 15, we read: “Upon that Jehovah faced [Gideon] and said:
‘Go in this power of yours, and you will certainly save Israel out of Midian’s palm. Do I not send you?’ In turn he said to him: ‘Excuse me, Jehovah. With what shall I save Israel?’”
So the materialized angel seen by Gideon and with whom he spoke is represented in the Biblical account as if he were God himself.
In verse 22, Gideon says:
“I have seen Jehovah’s angel face to face!” The angel spoke precisely what God told him to speak. Therefore, Gideon spoke with God through this angelic spokesman.
Now it is possible to understand why Abraham addressed the materialized angelic spokesman of God as if he were talking to Jehovah God himself.
Since this angel spoke precisely what God wanted to have said to Abraham and was there personally representing Him, the Biblical record could say that “Jehovah appeared to him.”—Genesis 18:1.
Remember that an angelic spokesman for God could transmit His messages just as precisely as a mobile phone or a radio can transmit our words to another person today in the 21st Century. Hence, it can be understood how Abraham, Moses, Manoah, and others could speak with a materialized angel as if they were talking to God.
While such individuals were able to see these angels and the glory of Jehovah reflected by them, they were not able to see God. Therefore, this in no way contradicts the apostle John’s statement: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) In contradiction to the Evangelical web site. What these men saw were angelic representatives and not God himself.
So, all the individuals above saw God face to face. What they saw in reality was an angelic representative of Jehovah God, acting as if they were Jehovah and not actually the person of God, Jehovah.
If the Queen of England, who might weigh 9 stones and is 80 years old and is 5 foot 5 inches and wears a size 6 shoe, sends out one of her ambassadors to another country, and he is 6 foot 4 inches, weighs 170 pounds, is 40 years of age and wears a size 10 shoe, he is her legal representative (Shaliach). He carries all the power and authority invested in him to carry out the Royal will. It is as if he were Elizabeth. He would be a reflection of the will of the Royal Sovereign, an ambassador, stepping in, substituting for the Queen of England.
Eleazar is the first mentioned Shaliach (intermediary). Put it another way, a man's shaliach was as the man himself. This means that the shaliach had the power of attorney and was authorized to act in the place (stead) of the person he or she represented.
Eleazar acted as if he was Abraham, in the execution of that ones will i.e. a wife for his son Isaac. He was Abraham’s ambassador, substituting for him.
The apostles were substitutes for Christ Eph 6:18-20; 2Cor 5:20
2 Cor 5:20 NWT
”We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:20 (Amplified Bible)
”So we are Christ's ambassadors, God making His appeal as it were through us. We [as Christ's personal representatives] beg you for His sake to lay hold of the divine favour [now offered you] and be reconciled to God.”
The apostles stood in the place of Christ (in his stead), and being “ambassadors substituting for Christ” places serious restrictions upon God’s representatives who are new creatures in union with Christ.
What are these restrictions?
Those similar to the restrictions that rest upon ambassadors of the political nations.
Not only today, but also in Bible times, ambassadors had no right to meddle in the politics of foreign nations to which they were sent. (Luke 19:12-15, 27) They might make an appeal to those foreign governments, or even a protest, but they must strictly keep out of the politics of such alien nations.
They must be loyal to their own home government and jealously take care of its interests when they are dealing with foreign governments. If they do not do this, they can be refused recognition or their credentials be turned down and their presence in the land can be denied.
So, the angels who visited Abraham, Manoah etc were Jehovah’s ambassadors, legal representatives, (Shaliach) not meddling in any affair except doing the will of their Sovereign Jehovah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above web site.
In the earlier study of Isaiah 9:6, it was pointed out that pele, the Hebrew word for "Wonderful," is only used of God, never of man, or an angel. The very fact that He claims this name for Himself shows that He is not a common angel, but God Himself. And, of course, the title belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ:
Judges 13:17, 18 NWT
Then Ma•no´ah said to Jehovah’s angel: “What is your name, that when your word comes true we shall certainly do you honour?” 18 However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Just why should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?”
Judges 13:18 (New American Standard Bible)
But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?"
Footnotes:
Judges 13:18 I.e. incomprehensible
Judges 13:18 (New Living Translation)
“Why do you ask my name?” the angel of the LORD replied. “It is too wonderful for you to understand.”
Judges 13:18 (King James Version)
And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
Judges 13:18 (New International Version - UK)
1 He replied, why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.
Judges 13:18 Jerusalem Bible
And the Angel of Yahweh replied, ‘why ask my name? It is a mystery.’
Judges 13:18 The Bible an American Translation. By E. J. Goodspeed
“Why do you ask for my name,” the angel of the Lord said to him, “seeing that it is ineffable.”
Judges 13:18 The bible in living English. By S T Byington
But the angel of Jehovah said to him “what do you ask my name for, when it is mysterious.”
If you look at the above texts on Judges 13:18 you will notice (and in a footnote) a very big difference in wording, giving the said text a different contextual understanding and not as the authors are implying.
The translators of the above various translations are making explicit what is implicit and their findings are simply saying:
‘A wonderful one, wonderful (footnote- incomprehensible), It is too wonderful for you to understand, it is secret, It is beyond understanding, It is a mystery, seeing that it is ineffable, it is mysterious.’
The above does not have the same connotation that the site authors will like you to believe, but the above shows the very opposite. You decide for yourself.
Where does he ‘claim this name for himself?’
The above uses the word “Wonderful”.
The context of the various translations below belie the claim made by the site authors, that “Wonderful” in this context has a special meaning, that it applies to Jesus and that because of this, Jesus is Jehovah and therefore Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same, but not God the Father. So, in this context we have God and God the Father. This belief is not a Bible teaching, but extra biblical. It has its roots outside the bible. Its origins lie in the metaphysics of Greek and Oriental philosophy.
This Evangelical site turns everything upside down. It makes an angel Jehovah, Jesus is “Wonderful” therefore must be Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah because Jehovah appeared as an angel, therefore, Jesus must be an angel!
Sorry, but that’s how it reads to me!
Yes, this is what the authors site says (below):
“Isa 9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
So who had all of these Old Testament figures been speaking with? Manoah said unto his wife, 'We shall surely die, because 'we have seen God.'
They recognised that they had seen and spoken to God - to 'Jehovah'.
But it could not have been God the Father because we read the words of Jesus:
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
So none of these appearances of the 'angel' shown to be 'Jehovah' could be God the Father, for He has never been seen by man at any time (John 1:18).”
But, do not forget the principle of the SHALIACH!
letusreason
Taken from: ‘thechristianexpositor.org’ web site.
‘The Christian Expositor is a non-denominational, orthodox evangelical Christian group…’
The site says this:
“Jehovah's Witnesses WHO IS Jesus Christ? Is He God?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ask who is Jesus Christ. And, is He God?
Jehovah’s Witnesses know who Jesus Christ is [he is the son of Jehovah] and do not subscribe to the Trinitarian view that he is God [Jehovah]. The Lord Jehovah is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The site shows its bias and a lack of insight in understanding what texts like, Judg 13:18-22; Isa 9:6; 11:1-3; Gen 18; and Gen 32 and others texts really convey.
I have used the text from Judges 13:18-22 ASV that the site authors preferred to use.
It must be remembered that the site’s authors are ‘Evangelicals’ and avowed Trinitarians and therefore their site information is biased and leans toward their theology, i.e. Trinitarian theology.
You may be surprised at the findings when using various bible translations instead of just one or two that would seem to lean to a particular interpretational belief/theology.
Other than the NWT, all other translations are the works of Trinitarian translator(s).
It is my intention to show how the authors of this site have twisted and corrupted the scriptures and their meaning and misinforms unsuspecting readers. The site’s authors wish you to believe that Jesus is Jehovah (God) of the Hebrew Scriptures [O/T].
I have taken various [free online] bibles including the NWT to show how
the site leaves out is the fact that The God of Israel [Jehovah] is never called an ‘angel’ or referred to as an angel! Also, the site leaves out other translations and how they translate Isaiah 9:6
--------------------------------------------------------
I will start with the:
Isaiah 9: 6 NWT (Please, see (*))
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called *Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
*Wonderful Counsellor can also read: Lit.
“Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”
According to the Hebrew the titles are:
*Pele-yo’ez-el-gibbor-avi-‘ad-sar-shalom. (See above: M, LXX and Sy)
Five translation examples were chosen for this example. Please note the difference with these five Trinitarian bibles
Isaiah 9:6 five translations.
Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version)
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Footnotes:
Isaiah 9:6 Or is upon
Isaiah 9:6 Or is called
New International Version (NIV)
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Footnotes: Isaiah 9:6 or Wonderful, Counsellor
Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible)
6For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Now notice two of these Trinitarian translations and where they put the comma when it comes to ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor’.
Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”
Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”
Now look at these other Trinitarian translations and notice where the translators put the comma (,).
Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
New International Version (NIV): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”
Why the sudden abrupt change (in punctuation) from “Wonderful Counsellor” to “Wonderful, Counsellor”?
Certain Trinitarian translations differ one from another and are not consistent with each other. The reason is Trinitarian bias. Altering the flow of “Wonderful Counsellor” only and not the others (titles) is forcing the text to mean what the authors want it to mean!
Why is it that “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Are not changed also to “Mighty, God; Everlasting, Father…”? (bias)
Altering the text in this way alters the meaning of Isaiah 9:6 and yet it will be noticed that the Trinitarian translators of the English Standard Version, New International Version, and the Amplified Bible show that they understand what is implicit in the text, that these are titles to be bestowed on the Messiah and therefore render the text, “Wonderful Counsellor” denoting a title like the rest of Isaiah 9:6. Please see (*) above.
Notice in the following texts what would happen to this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse when he turned up, and eventually, what the fulfilment of the prophesy would mean, and its outcome upon the foretold Messiah, and the effect he would have on the people.
Isaiah 11:1-3 (New Living Translation)
A Branch from David’s Line
1 Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot— yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. 2 And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. 3 He will delight in obeying the Lord…
Isaiah 11:1-3 (NWT)
And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes´se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah.
Zech.6:13 NWT
And he himself will build the temple of Jehovah, and he, for his part, will carry [the] dignity; and he must sit down and rule on his throne, and he must become a priest upon his throne, and the very counsel of peace will prove to be between both of them.
Zechariah 6:13 (New Living Translation)
Yes, he will build the Temple of the Lord. Then he will receive royal honour and will rule as king from his throne. He will also serve as priest from his throne, and there will be perfect harmony between his two roles.’
Footnotes:
Zechariah 6:13 Or There will be a priest by his throne.
What are the above translations telling us about this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse?
The Lord here means Jehovah.
the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord
He will delight in obeying the Lord
When the spirit of Jehovah rested on the Messiah what would this mean?
The Christ of Jehovah would have, “wisdom, understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and he would delight in obeying the (Lord) Jehovah…
The effect of all of this on the people that the Messiah would have, as a result of a fulfilling of the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6
Matthew 7:28 (Amplified Bible)
When Jesus had finished these sayings [the Sermon on the Mount], the crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewildered wonder at His teaching,
Mathew 7.28 NWT
Now when Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.
Matthew 12:42 (Darby Translation)
A queen of [the] south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, more than Solomon [is] here.
Mathew 12:42 NWT
The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than Solomon is here.
Notice the result this had on the people:
“The crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewilderment, wonder at His teaching”
“the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.”
Also, Jesus performed many wonderful miracles when he was on earth as Jehovah’s “twig/stump”. Please see (*) above.
What the site authors try to do!
What the Trinitarian authors of the site try and do, is to take the title “Wonderful Counsellor” (*) and proceed to disjoint it in such a way that that part of the title “Wonderful” is being used to refer to Jehovah. These are the lengths Trinitarians will go to, to prove their interpretation, belief, theology.
The Trinitarian translations above do not even agree with each other in regard to Isaiah 9:6. Is it “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”?
A basic definition of the word “wonder” is to be amazed, be in awe, astonishment etc. (*)
The context shows that the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6 wasn’t using “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”, or even “Wonderful” on its own (no matter which way the words are put) to identify Jesus with Jehovah.
No, the context shows that, because Jehovah’s spirit would be with Jesus the true Messiah (rest on him), people would stand in amazement, in awe, incredulous, speechless, bewildered, in wonder at this “Wonderful” miracle worker having more wisdom than even Solomon.
The people would have seen nothing or heard nothing of the like…The people would be astounded, amazed, dumbfounded, astonished… at his way of teaching…
*Wonderful Counsellor can also read: Lit.
“Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, this Evangelical site tries (yet again) to use scripture to prove that Jesus is Jehovah.
So, if I understand this correctly (see below), the Trinitarian Evangelical site authors are saying that, Jesus is Jehovah and therefore God, but not God the Father! So, we have God and God the Father and the authors use the texts below to prove this.
These are the words taken directly of the above Evangelical web site.
Judges 13:18-22. ASV
“Nine times in this passage He is referred to as the Angel of 'Jehovah': in verses 3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. But then, in verse 22, He is said to be God Himself. Note also in verse 18 that this Angel's name is "Wonderful."
The web site authors are correct in the above verses in that these verses refer to Jehovah’s angel 9 times. But when it comes to v22 the same authors show a blatant case of twisting the Hebrew text to make it fit Trinitarian theology. The authors cite the case of Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:18-22 emphasising v22.
First they say that it is Jehovah’s angel “the angel of Jehovah”, then turn and say that this same angel, who is Jehovah’s angel, is God, Jehovah Himself, because of what is said on the basis of the above verses up to v21.
Let’s look at vss 21 and 22 of Judges 13.
Judges 13:21, 22 RSV (Catholic Edition)
“…then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord”
“And Manoah said to his wife, “we shall surely die, for we have seen God”.
Was the angel actually God? Was he Jehovah? Did Manoah and his wife actually see God with their own eyes? The text just says “angel of Jehovah” and adds nothing else to it.
Turn your bible to Genesis 16 a familiar account about the troubles in Abraham’s household, between Sarai (Sarah) and Hagar. V7 lets us know that Jehovah’s angel finds Hagar in the wilderness.
Note that it just says “Jehovah’s angel” it doesn’t specify any particular angel and supplies no name, yet we have Hagar saying,
Genesis 16:13 (American Standard Version)
“And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?” (ASV)
Gen 32: 24-30 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Jacob Wrestles
24Then Jacob was left alone and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.
25When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him.
26Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
28 He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."
29Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.
30So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."
Footnotes:
Genesis 32:28 I.e. he who strives with God; or God strives
Genesis 32:30 I.e. the face of God
The angel asks Jacob the “man”, “What is your name?” Jacob replies!
Jacob asks the angel for his name, the angel does not reply!
In v28 the angel said that Jacob had contended with God. In v30 Jacob said that he had seen God face to face and lived.
In Genesis 18 the same can be said for angels (three men) meeting Abraham and one of them was Jehovah. In v22 of Gen18 it says the “men” went off but Jehovah stayed with Abraham. Now, in Gen 19 it says “the two angels arrived at Sodom…” Where was the other, the third one? Well, he stayed with Abraham as in Gen 18:22; this one was called Jehovah.
So, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Jacob and Manoah and his wife actually saw angels and then said as a result of their experience, that they had seen God (Jehovah) face to face, as it were! So, did they actually see Jehovah God Face to face?
Do angels at times speak in the place of God (the Father), as if they were God themselves?
Ex 3:2 Exodus 3:2 (New American Standard Bible)
The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
Ex 23:20 NWT
“Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.”
Other examples of angels speaking, as if they were the true God.
The angel who delivered God’s message to Moses at the burning thornbush was also a spokesman. He is identified as Jehovah’s angel at Exodus 3:2, where we are told:
“Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush.” Verse 4 says: “When Jehovah saw that he turned aside to inspect, God at once called to him out of the midst of the thornbush.” In verse 6, this angelic spokesman for God said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” So when speaking with this personal representative of God, Moses spoke as if he were speaking to Jehovah himself.—Exodus 4:10.
In the 6th chapter of Judges, we find another example of a man speaking to God through an angelic representative. Verse 11 identifies the message bearer as “Jehovah’s angel.” There we read:
“Later Jehovah’s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress so as to get it quickly out of the sight of Midian.” This messenger, “Jehovah’s angel,” is thereafter represented as if he were Jehovah [God the Father] himself. In verses 14 and 15, we read: “Upon that Jehovah faced [Gideon] and said:
‘Go in this power of yours, and you will certainly save Israel out of Midian’s palm. Do I not send you?’ In turn he said to him: ‘Excuse me, Jehovah. With what shall I save Israel?’”
So the materialized angel seen by Gideon and with whom he spoke is represented in the Biblical account as if he were God himself.
In verse 22, Gideon says:
“I have seen Jehovah’s angel face to face!” The angel spoke precisely what God told him to speak. Therefore, Gideon spoke with God through this angelic spokesman.
Now it is possible to understand why Abraham addressed the materialized angelic spokesman of God as if he were talking to Jehovah God himself.
Since this angel spoke precisely what God wanted to have said to Abraham and was there personally representing Him, the Biblical record could say that “Jehovah appeared to him.”—Genesis 18:1.
Remember that an angelic spokesman for God could transmit His messages just as precisely as a mobile phone or a radio can transmit our words to another person today in the 21st Century. Hence, it can be understood how Abraham, Moses, Manoah, and others could speak with a materialized angel as if they were talking to God.
While such individuals were able to see these angels and the glory of Jehovah reflected by them, they were not able to see God. Therefore, this in no way contradicts the apostle John’s statement: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) In contradiction to the Evangelical web site. What these men saw were angelic representatives and not God himself.
So, all the individuals above saw God face to face. What they saw in reality was an angelic representative of Jehovah God, acting as if they were Jehovah and not actually the person of God, Jehovah.
If the Queen of England, who might weigh 9 stones and is 80 years old and is 5 foot 5 inches and wears a size 6 shoe, sends out one of her ambassadors to another country, and he is 6 foot 4 inches, weighs 170 pounds, is 40 years of age and wears a size 10 shoe, he is her legal representative (Shaliach). He carries all the power and authority invested in him to carry out the Royal will. It is as if he were Elizabeth. He would be a reflection of the will of the Royal Sovereign, an ambassador, stepping in, substituting for the Queen of England.
Eleazar is the first mentioned Shaliach (intermediary). Put it another way, a man's shaliach was as the man himself. This means that the shaliach had the power of attorney and was authorized to act in the place (stead) of the person he or she represented.
Eleazar acted as if he was Abraham, in the execution of that ones will i.e. a wife for his son Isaac. He was Abraham’s ambassador, substituting for him.
The apostles were substitutes for Christ Eph 6:18-20; 2Cor 5:20
2 Cor 5:20 NWT
”We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:20 (Amplified Bible)
”So we are Christ's ambassadors, God making His appeal as it were through us. We [as Christ's personal representatives] beg you for His sake to lay hold of the divine favour [now offered you] and be reconciled to God.”
The apostles stood in the place of Christ (in his stead), and being “ambassadors substituting for Christ” places serious restrictions upon God’s representatives who are new creatures in union with Christ.
What are these restrictions?
Those similar to the restrictions that rest upon ambassadors of the political nations.
Not only today, but also in Bible times, ambassadors had no right to meddle in the politics of foreign nations to which they were sent. (Luke 19:12-15, 27) They might make an appeal to those foreign governments, or even a protest, but they must strictly keep out of the politics of such alien nations.
They must be loyal to their own home government and jealously take care of its interests when they are dealing with foreign governments. If they do not do this, they can be refused recognition or their credentials be turned down and their presence in the land can be denied.
So, the angels who visited Abraham, Manoah etc were Jehovah’s ambassadors, legal representatives, (Shaliach) not meddling in any affair except doing the will of their Sovereign Jehovah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above web site.
In the earlier study of Isaiah 9:6, it was pointed out that pele, the Hebrew word for "Wonderful," is only used of God, never of man, or an angel. The very fact that He claims this name for Himself shows that He is not a common angel, but God Himself. And, of course, the title belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ:
Judges 13:17, 18 NWT
Then Ma•no´ah said to Jehovah’s angel: “What is your name, that when your word comes true we shall certainly do you honour?” 18 However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Just why should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?”
Judges 13:18 (New American Standard Bible)
But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?"
Footnotes:
Judges 13:18 I.e. incomprehensible
Judges 13:18 (New Living Translation)
“Why do you ask my name?” the angel of the LORD replied. “It is too wonderful for you to understand.”
Judges 13:18 (King James Version)
And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
Judges 13:18 (New International Version - UK)
1 He replied, why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.
Judges 13:18 Jerusalem Bible
And the Angel of Yahweh replied, ‘why ask my name? It is a mystery.’
Judges 13:18 The Bible an American Translation. By E. J. Goodspeed
“Why do you ask for my name,” the angel of the Lord said to him, “seeing that it is ineffable.”
Judges 13:18 The bible in living English. By S T Byington
But the angel of Jehovah said to him “what do you ask my name for, when it is mysterious.”
If you look at the above texts on Judges 13:18 you will notice (and in a footnote) a very big difference in wording, giving the said text a different contextual understanding and not as the authors are implying.
The translators of the above various translations are making explicit what is implicit and their findings are simply saying:
‘A wonderful one, wonderful (footnote- incomprehensible), It is too wonderful for you to understand, it is secret, It is beyond understanding, It is a mystery, seeing that it is ineffable, it is mysterious.’
The above does not have the same connotation that the site authors will like you to believe, but the above shows the very opposite. You decide for yourself.
Where does he ‘claim this name for himself?’
The above uses the word “Wonderful”.
The context of the various translations below belie the claim made by the site authors, that “Wonderful” in this context has a special meaning, that it applies to Jesus and that because of this, Jesus is Jehovah and therefore Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same, but not God the Father. So, in this context we have God and God the Father. This belief is not a Bible teaching, but extra biblical. It has its roots outside the bible. Its origins lie in the metaphysics of Greek and Oriental philosophy.
This Evangelical site turns everything upside down. It makes an angel Jehovah, Jesus is “Wonderful” therefore must be Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah because Jehovah appeared as an angel, therefore, Jesus must be an angel!
Sorry, but that’s how it reads to me!
Yes, this is what the authors site says (below):
“Isa 9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
So who had all of these Old Testament figures been speaking with? Manoah said unto his wife, 'We shall surely die, because 'we have seen God.'
They recognised that they had seen and spoken to God - to 'Jehovah'.
But it could not have been God the Father because we read the words of Jesus:
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
So none of these appearances of the 'angel' shown to be 'Jehovah' could be God the Father, for He has never been seen by man at any time (John 1:18).”
But, do not forget the principle of the SHALIACH!
letusreason
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Col 1:15-20 NWT . "other". Why?
Col 1:15-20 NWT. "other" in vss16 and 17. Why?
The Nestle/Aland Greek NT and the ‘Diaglott’ by Benjamin Wilson (based on the Vatican manuscript 1209) are used as a basis for this discussion.
In the Col 1:15-20 in the NWT, why do the translators insert "other" five times in v16,17, 20 when the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text?Trinitarians seem to be of the opinion that Jehovah's Witnesses in their NWT have the Apostle Paul saying/adding the word "other" (allos or heteros) in Col 1:15, 16 four times and once in v20, when he didn't Paul never used the word ‘other’, so where Trinitarians get the idea from I do not know!Here is a very good example of naivety and a gross misunderstanding of translation taken from the BBC Christian message board:"Can you explain why the NWT has inserted the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 four times. There exist two Greek words for "other": allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which mean another of a different kind. Paul could have used either here if he wanted to show that Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times unless you are trying to make the original word "Firstborn" translate as first created. This is incorrect because Firstborn in this context means a title of pre-eminence as used in Psalm 89:20 .The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto: firstborn. The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo: first created. Paul did not use the second but the first.
"The above poster then goes on to direct any recipients of his comments to a web site to prove his argument http://www.douknow.net/jw_col115.htm
The site tries to prove (like the poster) that the NWT has inserted the word "other" due to "theological bias" to prove its argument, that Jesus is part of the created order of things.
What the poster and the internet site mentioned are really saying, is that Jesus is not part of the created order but part of a Trinity, that Jesus is really God-Jehovah and that they have one and the same essence (nature...), that the pre-human Jesus is eternal... and that the NWT has twisted the meaning of certain key texts to its advantage, to support an interpretation, a theology not supported by the Greek or English NT texts themselves.
In the matter of Col 1:15-20 does the NWT twist scripture as the above critics claim, or is it the other way round, that the critics of the NWT's rendering of Col 1:15-20 are twisting the outcome of the Greek texts because of Trinitarian theology (bias)?
First, there are three types of translations. (these are not interlinears)
Basically:
1. Literal (Formal Equivalence) Translations
These tend to look at individual Greek words put them into sentences and 'literally' try to put the 'equivalent' in modern English where necessary and laid out in such a way as to reveal the original style as much as possible. Literal (formal equivelance) translations have their strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes these particular translations incorporate 'Dynamic Equivalence' readings. The KJV, NRSV, NIV and others are examples of this (literal...translation), but sometimes lapse into 'Dynamic' readings.
2. Dynamic Equivalence Translation
These tend to look at blocks of meanings that are sometimes bigger than the word(s) or phrase(s) in order to produce good modern English. Dynamic equivalence is good for the English reader as it reads well, is simplified and is easy to comprehend. The TEV (also known as the Good News Bible), NWT, and others are examples of Dynamic equivalence translations.
Sometimes, when dealing with certain NT verses a dynamic equivalence may lapse into a literal (formal equivalence) translation mode. There is no absolute fine line here, and sometimes there is a crossover at times. Again the above has strengths and weaknesses.
3. Paraphrase
Is common in English. It puts the English in 'other words'. Parahrase has a similar goal as 'Dynamic Equivalence' i.e. to make the English text easily comprehensible and as simple as possible for the English reader.
A Paraphrase should never be looked at as a bible inthe traditional sense of the word. It is a commentary, an interpretation by its author. Care must be taken when handling any paraphrase and if the author's name is left out as if the author had no connection with the paraphrase edition, then suspect deception. It is not a bible and should not be thought as such!
From the Diaglott Greek Text NT.
Col 1:15 ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως1:16 οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται1:17 και αυτος εστιν προ παντων και τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν1:18 και αυτος εστιν η κεφαλη του σωματος της εκκλησιας ος εστιν [η] αρχη πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ινα γενηται εν πασιν αυτος πρωτευων1:19 οτι εν αυτω ευδοκησεν παν το πληρωμα κατοικησαι1:20 και δι αυτου αποκαταλλαξαι τα παντα εις αυτον ειρηνοποιησας δια του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου [δι αυτου] ειτε τα επι της γης ειτε τα εν τοις ουρανοις
If we look back to v16 we see"...οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα-panta=(all)..." Transliterated:"because in him were created the things all. οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα πανταbecause in him were created the things all
Put into English sense: Because in him were created all things...
V16
NWT Because by means of him all [other] things were created...
NIV For by him all things were created...
KJV For by him were all things created
NASB For by Him all things were created
AB For it was in Him that all things were created
Why does the NWT read differently to these other translations?
It is because the NWT makes "explicit" what is "implicit", the other translations do not at Col 1: 15-20. Why?
Because of [Trinitarian] theological bias and this will be shown a little later.To convey the correct and full meaning of Koine Greek words or even sometimes just a single word into English may require a translator to use several English words, this is a common practice of NT translators all over.
This may be necessary if the full meaning of the Greek word(s) is to be brought out and fully understood by the reader.The same principle applies to modern languages just as it does to Greek/English etc.
IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT
what does "implicit and explicit" mean when it comes to NT Greek? It has been known for a long time that a NT "source" text(s) such as Col 1: 15-20 has an "implicit" meaning that requires it to be "explicit" so that the reader will fully understand. Making something explicit does not add to the text, it serves to give the reader explicit information which was implicit in the Greek text that its early readers knew and were familiar with, such as "Christians" of the past.
What readers of modern bibles do not realize is that many translations of the NT have added words that do not appear in the source text (Greek NT).
They only realize this when they start to compare different bibles. What they don't realise is that the translators of the Greek NT are making explicit (in the KJ, NIV, AB, RSV, JB, NEB and the NWT...) what is implicit in the Greek NT.
In fact many people would be surprised to learn that the bible or bibles they frequently use contain hundreds of words that are not in the extant NT manuscripts, and these are the sources their NT is derived from.
If you look at various English NTs and look at Col 1:15-20 you will find that the word count is different for these same verses and not only that, but some of the words are different too, there is/are no corresponding word(s) in the Greek text.
Some of these added words are not in any of the Greek text. Ask yourself why there are added words? And the answer is that, the translator(s) is making explicit what is implicit for the benefit of the English reader.
Depending on the English NT you are using the word count for Col 1:15-20 can be from over 100 words to just under 200 words, and that is for the same Col 1:15-20. Why the difference?
The translator has made explicit what he/she saw as implicit by adding more words that are not in the Greek text. If the translator didn't do this, the English text may be incomprehensible to the reader!
When doctrine (theology) is injected into a text.
When it is neither implicit nor explicit, then what is it? Here is a good example of doctrine being forced into an English translation which also reflects the theology and beliefs (Trinitarian) of the translators.
The New International Version (NIV)
The translators have changed "firstborn "of" all creation" to "firstborn "over" all creation". This is a deliberate addition (bias) to the text and cannot be justified. There is no way that "over" can be derived in any way from the Greek "genitive" (article) "of".
What does this mean?
What does this mean? It means that the translators of the NIV injected their doctrinal (Trinitarian) theological beliefs into the Greek text. They make Jesus appear to be "over" creation, apart from it, whereas the Greek genitive "of" would make him not ‘apart’ from creation, but ‘a part’ of creation.
The New English Bible - NEB (NT) reads 1 Col 1:15 this way:
"He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all created things" How does one derive "primacy over all created things" from "firstborn of all creation"? Again, "over" cannot be derived from the genitive (article) "of". Theological interpretation is being injected here, a belief-in other words-bias
Clarification verses Interpretation
When it comes to being 'implicit' and 'explicit' there is a big difference in clarifying a particular text and interpreting that same text. Clarifying a text draws out meanings of Greek words and phrases. But to interpret that same text narrows and sets limitations on the meanings of the text under consideration. It is not uncommon for translators of various English NT bibles to inject their interpretations that reflect their theological beliefs. Unsuspecting NT bible readers are unaware of this, they only realise it, when they compare different NT translations.
These are just two examples of (Trinitarian) translators injecting their theological interpretations into the Greek text. The above two examples are not just cases of illuminating the "implicit or explicit"; they are deliberate alterations to make it look like the Greek text means what they say it means. Many (Trinitarian) translations do this, and the general bible reading public hasn’t a clue this is going on and has been going on for a long time.
For decades the NWT has been repeatedly attacked for using the word "other". But why the decades of attacks? Trinitarians want Col 1 to mean what the NIV, TEV and others translations endeavour to make it mean.
Trinitarians just cannot accept and see the sense behind "firstborn of all creation", as this identifies Jesus as "of creation".
"Other" is distasteful to Trinitarians because it draws their attention that Jesus is in fact "of creation" and not "over", apart from creation.
Other NT texts where "other" is "implied".
The Koine Greek 'pan' ‘all’.
Various forms of 'pan' (all) are used in Col1 and have the basis meaning 'all'.
In English, when we use the word 'all' it usually followed by some sort of ‘noun’. When Paul uses 'all' after pointing out Christ as 'the firstborn of creation' it is in reference to 'the rest of creation'. 'All' is with the exception of God (Jehovah), and semantics can be used when we talk about Jesus, because it is his (Jesus) part in relation to the rest ('all') of the creation that is being talked about. And Trinitarians don’t seem to understand this or seem to ignore it, or explain it away. This again, is due to theological bias.
The word ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed.
The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28.
1 Cor. 15: 27 (transliterated) Diaglott
V 27. ‘all things he subjected under the feet of him. When but it may be said, that all things have been subjected, it is evident, that is excepted the one having subjected to him the all things’
V 28. ‘when but may be subjected to him the all things, then [also] himself the son will be subject to the one having subjected to him the all things so that maybe the God [the] all things in all’
In the right hand column of the page in the Diaglott it is put in 19th cent. English sense.
V 27. “for he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that all things are subjected it is manifest that HE is excepted, who has subjected all things to him.”
V 28. And when he shall subdued all things to him then the son himself will be subject to HIM who subdued all things to him, that God may be all in all.”
How are we to understand these two verses in 1 Cor. 15?
As written above, ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed. Paul makes this very clear from the beginning. Note what Paul himself says, God will make all things subject to Christ. Then Paul goes on to make the point clear to his readers “of course” when he says “all things” he doesn’t mean that God (Jehovah) will be subject to Christ-remember “all things”, but Paul means, not that God will be subject to Jesus but “all [other] things will be!
Therefore, Trinitarians can have no legitimate reason in objecting to ‘other’ in Col. 1:15-20. Paul uses “all things” interchangeable with creation. Therefore, we must still reckon with Christ’s place as the “first born of creation”, and so the first born of “all things”.
What I would like to demonstrate (hyperbole) now are two simple examples (and the English NT has hundreds of them) of where ‘other’ is ‘implicit’ and then made ‘explicit’ in the English NT.
Trees and Herbs
Luke 21:29
The Greek (transliterated) is: “the fig tree and all the trees”. The fig tree is obviously a tree and the ancients knew it was a tree. The idiom really means, the fig tree and ‘all’ the [other] trees. The translators of the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB grasped the ‘implicit’ meaning locked up in the Luke text and made it explicit by bringing it out in their respective English NTs by putting ‘other’ into the English NT of Luke 21:29.
The NRSV, NIV, KJV, AB, NASB the AB violate this principle, their commitment to use modern English style and do not bring out the implicit, explicitly as the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB do, this is also known as back peddling, hoping the NT reader will not notice. This hides an important truth from the NT reader and proper style of modern English and therefore shows theological bias.
The NAB, TEV and LB translators understand the idiom in Luke 21:29 and many other NT texts but refuse to apply that same understanding to Col 1:15-20 again, because of theological [Trinitarian] bias.
Luke 11:42
“mint and the rue and every pot herb” (transliteration) Diaglott.
NWT. “every [other] herb…
TEV. “all other herb…
KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB all translate Luke 11:42 in such away as to imply that “mint and rue” are not herbs, again confusing the NT English reader who is probably not aware of theological bias.
TEV and NIV again show plainly that they understand the Greek idiom by which ‘other’ is ‘implied’ (implicit) by inserting “all” into the Luke text.
Since the similarity of implication (implicit) is the same, then why do the [Trinitarian] translators not equally bring it out in Col 1:15-20? Again because of [Trinitarian] theological bias. Only the NWT correctly brings to life (makes explicit) the Greek idiom for the English NT reader. As it applies in many hundreds of places in the NT, the NWT equally applies it in Col 1:15-20.
Trinitarian translators are very selective, where in the NT English text where ‘implicit’ readings in the Greek are made ‘explicit’ in modern English, as it all revolves around the Trinity, They have to be very careful so as not to negate, compromise Christ’s position in their Trinitarian “Godhead”
As regards the “fig tree” it is a tree “of” belonging to the tree family, it is a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; it is a part of the family of trees and not set apart from them.
As regards the “mint and the rue” they are a part “of” belonging to the herb family, they are a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; they are a part of the family of herbs and not set apart from them as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB show in their translations.
What has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity?
Readers may think, what has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity? It has much to do with the Trinity, in that when [Trinitarian] translators do not make the implicit, explicit, by making the texts say what they want them to say, by misleading and misinforming their NT readers (and trying to hide it (implication) from them)) as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB do, they want the NT English reader to think that this is what the Greek actually says! Not so!
Col 1:15-20
We have seen that there are additional words that occur in the English NT (Just one example, see KJV, Col 1:15-20 where certain words that do not appear in the Greek are italicised but appear in the English NT KJV) Trinitarians react badly to the NWT using ‘other’ in Col 1:15-20. Why?
Is it to be said that that Christ created himself [v16]? That Christ is before God and that God (Jehovah) was made to exist by means of Christ [v17]? That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God [v20]?
When the use of ‘other’ is just shoved aside by Trinitarians it can be seen how ridiculous the opposition charge is to the use and insertion of ‘other’, when it is clearly ‘implicit in the text of Col 1.
Those who object to the use of ‘other’ want to do away with the real meaning of ‘firstborn of creation’. When the subject of ‘adding words’ to the English NT is looked at, we see translators freely adding words and ideas not supported or not implicit’ in the Greek text. The only way the reader can find out is to do their own research and that takes time, plenty of time…and they may be shocked by the results they find…!
The irony is, the NWT has been hammered by Trinitarian translators and scholars…because of their theological bias from the start!
And they don't like it when they themselves are exposed for taking liberties with the Greek text and for hiding the real truth from the NT reading public, who are generally ignorant of what goes on behind the translating scene.
“If the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB translators are willing to” add words” in an effort to be transitive (shift) to the meaning of the passage away from the Greek text of Col 1:15-20 (or any other text in Greek) , Christ’s connection with creation and “all things”, then the NWT is correct and justified in adding ‘other’ to Col 1.
Many translators in their translations have consistently misunderstood and (knowingly) misapplied 1 Col 1:15-20 and that the principles laid down by ‘Nida and Taber’ are being flagrantly ignored by Trinitarian translators. The ‘implicit’ has to be made ‘explicit’ if the English NT (from the Greek) demands it and Col 1:15-20 like other English NT texts (Luke 21:29; 11:42 and hundreds of others) demands it!
Col 1 says Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”; he is “of” creation. He belongs to (creation) the family, group, and class of creation. He is not ‘apart’ from the creation but he is ‘a part’ of it.
A final note.
In prof. BeDuhn’s book (see above), his gist was that, like any Greek NT there is no perfect English NT (derived from Greek) and that goes for the NWT also. But to quote his words (p163):
“It can be said that the NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared…and a close second in its accuracy is the NAB”
letusreason
Friday, 13 July 2007
Constantine and the sword
Constantine’s sword-The Church and the Jews. By James Carrol.
(P 208,209)
THE PREVIOUS EASTER, in 387,1 this same Ambrose had taken a thirty-three-year-old man naked into a pool of water, and three times, pushing by the shoulders, he had forced the man under, saying, "I baptize you, Augustine." After Constantine, the conversion of Augustine (354—430) may be the most momentous in the history of the Church. He was born seventeen years after Constantine died. He was a bishop in Hippo, a small city in North Africa, but it is as a writer that he is remembered. He wrote nearly a hundred books, by his count, and thousands of letters and sermons, most of which survive. Garry Wills describes his method: "Augustine dictated to relays of stenographers, often late into the night . . . He employed teams of copyists.
His sermons, several a week, were taken down by his own or others' shorthand writers. In some seasons, he preached daily. His letters were sent off in many copies. He paced about as he dictated, a reflection of the mental restlessness and energy conveyed in the very rhythm of his prose"' His greatest work, to which we will turn, may be The City of God, a meditation on the relationship of the Church and the empire, of politics and virtue, of history and hope. But his most compelling work is surely The Confessions,' the Western world's first great autobiography.
This book, with its realistic exploration of human psychology and its affirmation that subjective experience is of ultimate value, stamped the mind of Europe. Its search for God in an act of memory makes each person a center of Christian revelation. That idea is the birthplace of modern individualism, for good and for ill.
Augustine's solid grounding in the classical intellectual tradition prepared him for the task of applying categories of Platonic thought to Christian theology.
To take only one example of the importance of his ideas, he marshalled the definitive argument against the Donatists, held that saintly virtue was a prerequisite for full membership in the Church.
Augustine's position was rooted in Plato's distinction between the ideal and the real and Augustine knew that the ideal would not be realized until God brought about the fulfillment of Creation at the end of time.
Therefore, he held, the human condition was by definition flawed. Gospel was addressed to human beings, not to angels. Because Augustine carried the day against the Donatists, Christians could come together before God, confessing sin, and knowing that the Church itself, too, remained imperfect. The Church would not be a sect of the saved but community open to all. Augustine is commonly credited as the father c Western Christian theology, but he is, perhaps more basically, the father of the inclusive Western Church we know, in both its Catholic and Protestant manifestations.
(P 578,579)
But recall further that the Dark Age itself was, in part at least, an unintended consequence of powerful but ambiguous developments occurring Christian theology, an intellectual equivalent of the Church's political accommodation of the imperium in the aftermath of Constantine's conversion.
The theological formulations that jelled between the council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381) had reflected an accommodation with Greek thought, and so had the work of the great Augustine (354-430).
In this period, the metaphors that early Christians used describe their experience of and faith in Jesus of Nazareth were reinvented in the categories of Hellenistic metaphysics.
Obviously, the movement from religious expression which began, essentially, as poetry, which prizes ambiguity and allusiveness, to religious philosophy, which values precision above implication, represents a decisive shift.
When the Church fathers found the mysteries of revelation to be illuminated by their understanding of Plato's dichotomy between form and matter — between the world, that is, of ideal perfection and the inherently awed material world of everyday experience — a new idea of the cosmos raced the Christian vision.
Less a construct of Plato than of his syncretist interpreters of late antiquity, especially Plotinus (c. 205-270), Neo-Platonism posited a dualism that would become Christianized as between grace and sin.
This was one culture's form of the perennial human temptation binary thinking, as evidenced among Gnostics of various kinds in the ancient world. The Neo-Platonic divide between soul and body would have its later equivalents in the post-Descartes alienation between the self and the world, and even in the postmodern deconstruction of the bond between the self and the self's expression.
Now God was understood to be the True, the One, the Holy; the material world — enigmatic, chaotic, profane — could only be ontologically unrelated to such a God.
Creation was merely the Creator's shadow. For a people with roots in the biblical view of reality, this was a massive mutation, for the God of Israel, while very much a transcendent God, was the Lord of human history who had chosen to be intimately involved in that history.
Among Christians, a new idea of the person took hold too, one equally foreign to the biblical idea, with a split between the body and the soul, which in nature could not be reconciled.
This split posed large problem for theologians who sought to define exactly how Jesus could he both God and man, and disagreements over the formulas constructed to answer the question — "begotten, not made," "hypostatic union," " filoque - became violent, leading to the first great condemnations of heresy.
But perhaps the most damaging consequence of this new dualism was the devaluation of the physical world that seemed logically to flow from a Neo-Platonic suspicion of "matter."
This led not only, say, to the distrust of sexual pleasure — original sin defined as the sex act — which has been a mark of Christianity ever since, but to the idea that human beings, mired in the material world, were inherently unable to arrive at a state of happiness — in religious language, salvation — that was natural to the realm of the ideal.
The body, that is, condemned the soul to live in permanent exile from the realm for which it was made. It is only when such Hellenistic categories shape Christian theology that the idea of the immortality of the soul becomes the content of religious hope — a notion that has nothing in common with biblical hope, which is based on personal wholeness, not dichotomy; on God's promise, not the soul's indestructibility.
But in the scheme of Christian Neo-Platonism, even the soul's intrinsic immortality was no hope, because its pollution by the body left it doomed.
The gulf between body and soul was itself a pale shadow of the infinitely larger gulf between God and the human person.
For the purposes of this book, it cannot be emphasized enough that one effect of this thoroughgoing Hellenization of the meaning of Jesus, whatever positive results it had as an intellectual construction, was the final obliteration of the Jewish character of that meaning.
With the Christian adoption of Greek intellectual categories, the parting of the ways became turnpikes set in concrete.
From now on, most ominously, since there was nothing intrinsically Jewish about Jesus, there would be nothing to prevent Christians from defining themselves in opposition to Jews.
Despite the intellectual monuments created by Church fathers from Tertullian to Augustine, a collapse of intellectual pursuit and scientific inquiry was an ultimate consequence of the Christian adoption of a dualistic worldview, since there was no reason to take the experience of the senses seriously.
On the contrary, the senses became the enemy, and where once the sexual body was celebrated as the very image of God — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." “the sexual body now became an "occasion of sin” to he subdued.
Among Christians, the Greek idea of soul became entirely removed from the biblical idea of spirit, which, since it literally means "breath," is intrinsically physical.
Indeed, now the body, even with its breath, was defined as the source of all evil. Christian piety became penitential — the self-flagellation of body hatred became the highest form of devotion — and even work of the mind, like reading.
(P 208,209)
THE PREVIOUS EASTER, in 387,1 this same Ambrose had taken a thirty-three-year-old man naked into a pool of water, and three times, pushing by the shoulders, he had forced the man under, saying, "I baptize you, Augustine." After Constantine, the conversion of Augustine (354—430) may be the most momentous in the history of the Church. He was born seventeen years after Constantine died. He was a bishop in Hippo, a small city in North Africa, but it is as a writer that he is remembered. He wrote nearly a hundred books, by his count, and thousands of letters and sermons, most of which survive. Garry Wills describes his method: "Augustine dictated to relays of stenographers, often late into the night . . . He employed teams of copyists.
His sermons, several a week, were taken down by his own or others' shorthand writers. In some seasons, he preached daily. His letters were sent off in many copies. He paced about as he dictated, a reflection of the mental restlessness and energy conveyed in the very rhythm of his prose"' His greatest work, to which we will turn, may be The City of God, a meditation on the relationship of the Church and the empire, of politics and virtue, of history and hope. But his most compelling work is surely The Confessions,' the Western world's first great autobiography.
This book, with its realistic exploration of human psychology and its affirmation that subjective experience is of ultimate value, stamped the mind of Europe. Its search for God in an act of memory makes each person a center of Christian revelation. That idea is the birthplace of modern individualism, for good and for ill.
Augustine's solid grounding in the classical intellectual tradition prepared him for the task of applying categories of Platonic thought to Christian theology.
To take only one example of the importance of his ideas, he marshalled the definitive argument against the Donatists, held that saintly virtue was a prerequisite for full membership in the Church.
Augustine's position was rooted in Plato's distinction between the ideal and the real and Augustine knew that the ideal would not be realized until God brought about the fulfillment of Creation at the end of time.
Therefore, he held, the human condition was by definition flawed. Gospel was addressed to human beings, not to angels. Because Augustine carried the day against the Donatists, Christians could come together before God, confessing sin, and knowing that the Church itself, too, remained imperfect. The Church would not be a sect of the saved but community open to all. Augustine is commonly credited as the father c Western Christian theology, but he is, perhaps more basically, the father of the inclusive Western Church we know, in both its Catholic and Protestant manifestations.
(P 578,579)
But recall further that the Dark Age itself was, in part at least, an unintended consequence of powerful but ambiguous developments occurring Christian theology, an intellectual equivalent of the Church's political accommodation of the imperium in the aftermath of Constantine's conversion.
The theological formulations that jelled between the council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381) had reflected an accommodation with Greek thought, and so had the work of the great Augustine (354-430).
In this period, the metaphors that early Christians used describe their experience of and faith in Jesus of Nazareth were reinvented in the categories of Hellenistic metaphysics.
Obviously, the movement from religious expression which began, essentially, as poetry, which prizes ambiguity and allusiveness, to religious philosophy, which values precision above implication, represents a decisive shift.
When the Church fathers found the mysteries of revelation to be illuminated by their understanding of Plato's dichotomy between form and matter — between the world, that is, of ideal perfection and the inherently awed material world of everyday experience — a new idea of the cosmos raced the Christian vision.
Less a construct of Plato than of his syncretist interpreters of late antiquity, especially Plotinus (c. 205-270), Neo-Platonism posited a dualism that would become Christianized as between grace and sin.
This was one culture's form of the perennial human temptation binary thinking, as evidenced among Gnostics of various kinds in the ancient world. The Neo-Platonic divide between soul and body would have its later equivalents in the post-Descartes alienation between the self and the world, and even in the postmodern deconstruction of the bond between the self and the self's expression.
Now God was understood to be the True, the One, the Holy; the material world — enigmatic, chaotic, profane — could only be ontologically unrelated to such a God.
Creation was merely the Creator's shadow. For a people with roots in the biblical view of reality, this was a massive mutation, for the God of Israel, while very much a transcendent God, was the Lord of human history who had chosen to be intimately involved in that history.
Among Christians, a new idea of the person took hold too, one equally foreign to the biblical idea, with a split between the body and the soul, which in nature could not be reconciled.
This split posed large problem for theologians who sought to define exactly how Jesus could he both God and man, and disagreements over the formulas constructed to answer the question — "begotten, not made," "hypostatic union," " filoque - became violent, leading to the first great condemnations of heresy.
But perhaps the most damaging consequence of this new dualism was the devaluation of the physical world that seemed logically to flow from a Neo-Platonic suspicion of "matter."
This led not only, say, to the distrust of sexual pleasure — original sin defined as the sex act — which has been a mark of Christianity ever since, but to the idea that human beings, mired in the material world, were inherently unable to arrive at a state of happiness — in religious language, salvation — that was natural to the realm of the ideal.
The body, that is, condemned the soul to live in permanent exile from the realm for which it was made. It is only when such Hellenistic categories shape Christian theology that the idea of the immortality of the soul becomes the content of religious hope — a notion that has nothing in common with biblical hope, which is based on personal wholeness, not dichotomy; on God's promise, not the soul's indestructibility.
But in the scheme of Christian Neo-Platonism, even the soul's intrinsic immortality was no hope, because its pollution by the body left it doomed.
The gulf between body and soul was itself a pale shadow of the infinitely larger gulf between God and the human person.
For the purposes of this book, it cannot be emphasized enough that one effect of this thoroughgoing Hellenization of the meaning of Jesus, whatever positive results it had as an intellectual construction, was the final obliteration of the Jewish character of that meaning.
With the Christian adoption of Greek intellectual categories, the parting of the ways became turnpikes set in concrete.
From now on, most ominously, since there was nothing intrinsically Jewish about Jesus, there would be nothing to prevent Christians from defining themselves in opposition to Jews.
Despite the intellectual monuments created by Church fathers from Tertullian to Augustine, a collapse of intellectual pursuit and scientific inquiry was an ultimate consequence of the Christian adoption of a dualistic worldview, since there was no reason to take the experience of the senses seriously.
On the contrary, the senses became the enemy, and where once the sexual body was celebrated as the very image of God — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." “the sexual body now became an "occasion of sin” to he subdued.
Among Christians, the Greek idea of soul became entirely removed from the biblical idea of spirit, which, since it literally means "breath," is intrinsically physical.
Indeed, now the body, even with its breath, was defined as the source of all evil. Christian piety became penitential — the self-flagellation of body hatred became the highest form of devotion — and even work of the mind, like reading.
The Development of Platonism & Neo-Platonism within Christendom
The Development of Platonism & NeoPlatonism within Christendom.
Does the Trinity have its Origin in the above?
Many thanks - for this external contribution.
This paper traces the development of the neo-Platonist trinitarian system from Greek philosophy into the post-Christian synthesis. It shows the origin of the Cappadocian system using both ancient philosophy and modern Catholic theology in admission of the origin of the doctrine.
The Development of the Neo-Platonist Model
The concept of God as three hypostases of the superior entity is developed from Greek thought. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Plato developed the concept of forms in his works. Plato uses the philosopher Parmenides as his model. Parmenides was the first of the Greek Monists. He was not Monotheist. The concepts were further developed by those who followed Plato. Plotinus developed a relatively simple metaphysical scheme:
providing for just three hypostases - One, Intellect, and Soul - [this scheme] seems to have suffered elaboration already at the hands of his senior pupil Amelius (who had a special weakness for triads), but from the perspective of the Athenian School it is Iamblichus (c. 245-325) who began the major system of scholastic elaboration which is the mark of later Neoplatonism (Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, General Introduction, p. xv, Morrow and Dillon, Princeton University Press, 1987).
Thus the Trinity is prefigured as the One, the Wisdom or Intellect and the Soul becoming the One as Father, Word equated with Wisdom and the Spirit as functional Soul. This Spirit as functional Soul is held to be capable of individuation yet remains complete as an entity separate to and equal with the other two hypostases.
Proclus developed the concept of an Unparticipated Divine Soul. Dillon says of this:
Once again the psychic realm must have its proper monad (or henad), Unparticipated Divine Soul, which itself participates in Nous and presides transcendently over its own realm. In the Elements of Theology, when Proclus comes to discuss Soul (props. 184-211), we find no mention of such an entity, only of souls in the plural, but it is plainly presupposed, and is in fact mentioned earlier, in prop. 164. There we learn that the Unparticipated Soul 'presides primarily over the cosmos' [prootoos huper tou kosmou esti], but does so transcendently and so is distinct from the immanent World Soul, as well as from individual souls.
Proclus holds that all monads (unities or single units, henads in Platonic philosophy) in and above the cosmos, intelligible and intellectual are attached to their own monads and ordered with respect to one another, with the One as the leader of secondary monads.
Similarly, the One is the source and basis of the triad. Proclus holds:
Parmenides abides in the transcendent One, Zeno projects the many as the One, and Socrates turns back even these many to the Parmenidean One, since the first member in the every triad is an analogue of rest, the second of procession and the third of reversion, and the reversion rounds out a kind of circular path connecting the end with the beginning .
The concepts of the three begin to emerge but the first step is necessarily that of the dyad (a unit of two parts) but the dyad is a copy of the Unity. Thus the second is inferior to the One of Parmenides which is termed by Zeno himself as logos or discourse. The One is greater than plurality and the paradigm superior to the copy.
Thus the logos concept of Greek philosophy is attributed to the One rather than the second. This is contrary to the Bible but the origin of the concept is thus evident. The important concept of the Greeks was to show, as Proclus did by improving on Zeno's arguments, that plurality devoid of unity is impossible. Thus the Godhead was logically required to be a unified plurality but the early Greeks had no concept of Agape.
Agape is a transliteration of the Hebrew term ’ahabah from the Song of Songs in the Septuagint. Thus the concept of the love of God by dispensation is limited among the early Greeks. The consequent sharing of godliness they thus regarded, where accidentally acquired, as divine theft having no real concept of a plan of salvation as was present in the Hebrew.
The theory of Ideas existed as early as the Pythagoreans and was taken up by Plato in the Sophist (248a). Socrates posits the existence of the itself by itself which is taken to be the unmixed simplicity and purity of the Ideas.
The Hebrew combines this concept as being present with God (Prov. 8:22). Wisdom was created by God as the beginning of His way, the first of His acts of old. This led the rabbis to assume that the law was the wisdom referred to as it established order instead of chaos.
The Ideas were distinguished from attributes predicated of particular things. Thus, for the Greeks, the logos as expression of ideas was taken to be appropriated to the prime cause rather than an attribute of the cause.
Hence the logic of the denial of a subordinate logos. From this also came the concept that God is pure thought. It is worth noting that from Acts 7:29 logos is merely an utterance or saying. See also logoi of God translating dabar Yahovah or oracle(s) of God in the LXX and New Testament.
Plato gave Orpheus to say (In Tim. I, 312.26 ff., and 324.14 ff., cf. Proclus ibid., p. 168).
...that all things came to be in Zeus, after the swallowing of Phanes, because, although the causes of all things in the cosmos appeared primarily and in a unified form in him (sc. Phanes), they appear secondarily and in a distinct form in the Demiurge. The sun, the moon, the heaven itself, the elements, and Eros the unifier - all came into being as a unity 'mixed together in the belly of Zeus' (Orph. fr. 167b.7 Kern).
The Demiurgic forms gave rise to the order and arrangement of sensible things (ibid.). All things stemming from the Father thus gave rise to animism, where the nature of the deity was immanent in all matter.
The Greeks, from Parmenides, turned the concept to Monism, making the One immanent. But Proclus shows that these concepts, particularly the Ideas which stemmed from the Will of the Father, have their origin in the Chaldean Oracles (fr. 37 Des Places).
The Intellect of the Father whirred, conceiving with his unwearying will
Ideas of every form; and they leapt out in flight from this single source
For this was the Father's counsel and achievement.
But they were divided by the fire of intelligence
and distributed among other intelligent beings. For their lord had placed
Before this multiform cosmos an eternal intelligible model; And the cosmos strove modestly to follow its traces,
And appeared in the form it has and graced with all sorts of Ideas.
Of these there was one source, but as they burst forth innumerable others were broken off and scattered
Through the bodies of the cosmos, swarming like bees
About the mighty hollows of the world,
And whirling about in various directions -
These intelligent Ideas, issued from the paternal source,
Laying hold on the mighty bloom of fire.
At the prime moment of unsleeping time
This primary and self sufficient source of the Father
Has spouted forth these primally-generative Ideas.
Proclus comments thus:
In these words the gods have clearly revealed where the Ideas have their foundation, in what god their single source is contained, how their plurality proceeds from this source, and how the cosmos is constituted in accordance with them; and also that they are moving agents in all the cosmic systems, all intelligent in essence and exceedingly diverse in their properties (op. cit., p. 169).
The concept of the Father as creator which is the biblical model is clearly understood in the Chaldean systems and in the original Greek texts. The application of the functions of God, however, become misapplied by them. However, the ancient concepts of the Father as supreme God was understood by all nations. It was the neo-Platonists who perverted it.
The Introduction to Book III of Proclus' Commentary holds that the summary (831.25 ff.) shows Proclus to specify:
three basic attributes of Forms - Goodness, Essentiality, Eternity, deriving respectively from the One (the First Cause), the One Being and Aeon. All paradigmatic Forms derive their being from these three (p. 155).
The requirement thus emerges of the three attributes of Goodness, Essentiality and Eternity being predicated to the Triune system. The Greeks thus had to assert that Christ was co-eternal with God in spite of the fact that the Bible clearly says he is not and that only God is immortal (1Tim. 6:16). The aspect of Christ as the Angel of YHVH also was required to be of the primary three, in view of the perceived requirements of the adequacy of the reconciliation of men to God through Christ.
The Greeks were themselves limited by their concepts of love to the primary relationships of filial and erotic love, hence they could not understand the biblical paradigms.
The concept of omniscience being applied to Christ, contrary to Scripture (e.g. Rev. 1:1), follows from the requirements of the attributes especially Essentiality. Proclus develops the argument from Book IV.1047, op. cit., p. 406.
In dealing with knowledge as single or multiple, Proclus shows that it must be single therefore the neo-Platonists had to assert omniscience to Christ to ensure the other attributes of the divine nature. Such assertion was, of itself, biblically absurd.
If, however, we are to state the single principle of knowledge, we must fix upon the One, which generates Intellect and all the knowledge both within it and what is seen on the secondary levels of being. For this, transcending the Many as it does, is the first principle of knowledge for them, and is not the same as them, as is Sameness in the intelligible realm.
This is co-ordinate with its Otherness and inferior to Being. The One, on the other hand, is beyond intellectual Being and grants coherence to it, and for this reason the One is God and so is Intellect, but not by reason of Sameness nor Being.
And in general Intellect is not god qua Intellect; for even the particular intellect is an intellect but is not a god. Also it is the proper role of Intellect to contemplate and intelligise and judge true being; but of God to unify, to generate, to exercise providence and suchlike. By virtue of that aspect of itself which is not intellect, the Intellect is God; and by virtue of that aspect of itself which is not God, the god in it is Intellect.
The divine Intellect, as a whole, is an intellectual essence along with its own summit and its proper unity, knowing itself in so far as it is intellectual, but being 'intoxicated on nectar,' as has been said, and generating the whole of cognition, in so far as it is the 'flower' of the Intellect and a supra-essential henad.
So once again, in seeking the first principle of knowledge, we have ascended to the One.
Similarly, the first principle was held to be the One (ibid.) and Socrates (Phaedrus 245d) says the first principle is ungenerated.
Here, Trinitarianism becomes confused because it holds Christ to be a generation of the Father. The newer Process Theologians hold the transcendent unity of the Godhead where there was an essential ungenerate co-eternal oneness which regards individuation as illusory. It is properly Monism and not Monotheism, hence it is properly a form of liberation theology akin to Buddhism and Hinduism rather than Christianity.
Logically it is popular with Mysticism. Indeed the recent developments of Trinitarianism seek to make God immanent as pure thought, present in matter, e.g. stone, wood, glass etc. This is not only not Christian it is not even transcendental Monotheism. It is Monism.
The logical requirements of the Greek philosophical form of reasoning have to assert equal divinity with Christ in order to predicate unconditional ascent to the One. This objective of ascent to God by individual determination rather than by God's allocation is the underlying motive of Cappadocian Trinitarianism.
The conclusion is verified from an examination of the history.
C M LaCugna (God For Us, Harper, San Francisco, 1973) states that the Cappadocians, despite the fact that they infrequently used the terms oikonomia and theologia, had considerably altered the concepts and their meaning became firmly set.
Theology is the science of 'God in Godself'; the economy is the sphere of God's condescension to flesh. The doctrine of the Trinity is Theology strictly speaking. In later Greek Patristic theology, usage will remain generally the same. The biblical concept of oikonomia [economy] as the gradual unfolding of the hidden mystery of God in the plan of salvation, is gradually constricted to mean the human nature of Christ, or the Incarnation.
Theologia, not a biblical concept at all, acquires in Athanasius and the Cappadocians the meaning of God's inner being beyond the historical manifestation of the Word incarnate.
Theologia in this sense now specifies the hypostases in God, but not the manner of their self revelation ad extra. If Christian theology had let go the insistence on God's impassibility and affirmed that God suffers in Christ, it could have kept together, against Arianism, the essential unity and identity between the being of God and the being of Christ (p. 43).
We are thus now at the illogical position which the process of Greek philosophy had led the theologians. They had to develop theology apart from soteriology (see ibid.). In other words, they considered theology apart from and without reference to the plan of salvation, which was fatal for Christianity.
The theologians cut theology adrift from the Bible and, hence, it achieved even greater levels of incoherence.
More particularly, the requirement for God to have suffered in Christ is not a biblical requirement; it is a requirement of Greek philosophy, which places improper limitations upon the adequacy of a subordinate sacrifice. The early Christian Church writers were all subordinationist. None of the early theologians ever claimed that Christ was God in the sense that God the Father was God. This was a late invention of Greek philosophy imported into Christianity.
LaCugna says that:
The Cappadocians were highly competent speculative theologians. They brilliantly synthesized elements of Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, biblical revelation, and pastoral concerns to argue against both Arius and Eunomius. Their central concern remained soteriological.
They saw as their task to clarify how God's relationship to us in Christ and the Spirit in the economy of Incarnation and deification reveals the essential unity and equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. In the process Basil and the Gregorys produced a sophisticated ‘metaphysics of the economy of salvation’.
Unfortunately that was not, in fact, the aim of Basil and the two Gregorys as Gregg had demonstrated from the texts in his Consolation Philosophy etc., Philadelphia Patristic Foundation Ltd, 1975.
Basil was attempting to separate from the world altogether in the one escape (Basil EP., 2 tr.
Defarrari, I, 11, Gregg, p. 224).
The passions were to be removed from the soul. The soul must be perfected for separation from the flesh. God Himself becomes visible to those who have seen the Son, His image.
Illuminated by the Spirit, souls become themselves spiritual [psuchai pneumatikai] and are initiated into life in which the future is known, mysteries come clear, and all the benefits of heavenly citizenship are enjoyed. The climax, Basil writes is:
...joy without end, abiding in God, being made like to God [he pros Theon homoioosis], and highest of all, being made God [Theon genesthai]
(Basil 9.23. trans from NPNF, V, 16) Gregg adds (fn3) Much of the thought of Basil's Spir. 9 was taken from Plotinus, as P Henry demonstrated in his Les etats de texte de Plotin (Brussels; n.p., 1938, p. 160). Jaeger argues that the ideas were borrowed from Basil by Gregory of Nyssa in his De Institutio Christiano, in Two Rediscovered works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden: E J Brill, 1954, pp. 100-103).
LaCugna noted that the Cappadocians oriented theology in a direction which further contributed to the separation of economy and theology. This trajectory led to the:
via negativa of Pseudo-Dionysius and, finally, to the theology of Gregory of Palamas (Chapter 6).
In the Latin West, in the period immediately following Nicaea, theologians such as Hilary of Poitiers and, perhaps to an extreme degree, Marcellus of Ancyra, retained the connection between the divine hypostases and the economy of salvation. Augustine inaugurated an entirely new approach. His starting point was no longer the monarchy of the Father but the divine substance shared equally by the three persons. Instead of inquiring into the nature of theologia as it is revealed in the Incarnation of Christ and deification by the Spirit, Augustine would inquire into the traces of the Trinity to be found in the soul of each human being.
Augustine's pursuit of a 'psychological' analogy for the intratrinitarian relations would mean that trinitarian doctrine thereafter would be concerned with the relations 'internal' to the godhead, disjoined from what we know of God through Christ in the Spirit (LaCugna, p. 44).
The Medieval Latin theology followed Augustine and the separation of theology from economy or soteriology. The entire structure became embroiled in neo-Platonism and Mysticism. The important notations of LaCugna are that from Augustine the Monarchy of the Father was no longer paramount. The Trinity assumed co-equality.
This was the second step following on from the false assertion of co-eternality. The correct premise was the concept of the manifestation of the Godhead in each individual, namely the operation of the Father by means of the Holy Spirit which emanated from Him through Jesus Christ.
This direction through Jesus Christ enabled Christ to monitor and direct the individual in accordance with the will of God who lived in each of the elect. Christ was not the origin of the Holy Spirit. He was its intermediary monitor. He acted for God as he had always acted for and in accordance with the will of God. But he was not the God.
The Trinitarians lost sight of this fact, if indeed they ever really understood the matter. As LaCugna says the:
Theology of the triune God appeared to be added on to consideration of the one God (p. 44).
This affected fundamentally the way Christians prayed. That is, they no longer prayed to the Father alone in the name of the Son as the Bible directs (from Mat. 6:6,9; Lk. 11:12) worshipping the Father (Jn. 4:23), but to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Further, the scholastics developed a metaphysics of theology itself. But the entire edifice was built in disregard to, or manipulation of, the Bible.
That is why Trinitarians never address all Bible texts on a subject and mistranslate and misquote other key texts ignoring the ones they cannot alter. But their system is based on Mysticism and Platonism. LaCugna states that:
The Cappadocians (and also Augustine) went considerably beyond the scriptural understanding of economy by locating God's relationship to the Son (and the Spirit) at the 'intradivine' level (p. 54).
The One God existed as ousia in three distinct hypostases. We have seen (in the paper) that the Platonic term ousia and the Stoic term hypostases mean essentially the same thing.
The theology of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus:
was formulated largely in response to the theology of Eunomius. Eunomius was also a Cappadocian, and for a brief time, bishop of Cyzicus. He was a neo-Arian, a rationalist who like Aetius believed in the radical subordination of Son to Father (heterousios).
For Eunomius, as for Arius, God is a unique and simple essence. But Eunomius drew further consequences for this essentially Arian premise. According to Eunomius, God is supremely arelational, God cannot communicate the divine nature, God cannot beget anything from the divine essence. Since the Son is begotten or generated (gennetos) by an energy, the Son cannot be of the same substance as the Father.
Thus there is no sense, not even a derivative sense, in which the divinity of the Son could be maintained.
Second, Arius had believed that while God is incomprehensible, the divine Son makes the incomprehensible God comprehensible. Eunomius believed human reason is capable of apprehending the very essence of God. His name for God is Agennesia: Ungenerateness, or Unbegottenness (LaCugna, p. 56).
Here we come to the issue. The Cappadocians repeatedly asserted that God can never be fully comprehended by human reason or language. Gregory of Nazianzus in his Theological Orations (hence the title Theologian) held that purity of heart and the leisure of contemplation are preconditions for the knowledge of God. Even this personal interaction does not enable the knowledge of God's ousia.
Only God's works and acts (energeiai) can be known, that which constitutes the hinder parts of God exposed to Moses between the gaps in the cliff in Exodus 33:23.Thus, Christ showed by this example that only an (as yet) imperfect knowledge of the Godhead was available to him.
LaCugna states:
The Cappadocian response to Arianism* and Eunomianism must be understood against the backdrop to mystical theology. The threads of the mystical theology of the Cappadocians are found already in their predecessors and in Middle Platonism.
The centrality of mysticism in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, combined with his intellectual acumen, produced a powerful refutation of the Eunomian position that God is knowable, and the Arian position that the Son is created (genetos). Both Gregorys worked out a theology of divine relations in the process.
But they were emphatic that even if we are able to explain what divine paternity means, words like begotten and unbegotten, generate and ungenerate, do not express the substance (ousia) of God but the characteristics of the divine hypostases, of how God is toward us.
The title 'Father', for example, does not give any information on the nature or qualities of divine fatherhood but indicates God's relation to the Son (LaCugna, p. 57).
* Arianism is applied generally to encompass subordinationists who all believed that Christ was a creation of the Father. This included Irenaeus, Polycarp, Paul, the apostles and even Christ himself.
Thus, early theologians are often termed Arians or early Arians even though they wrote centuries before Arius was born. It helps Trinitarians assert a spurious relativity to their position. The correct term is Subordinationist Unitarianism – or simply Unitarianism.
Trinitarians do not see or understand the universal relationship of the Sons of God to the Father.
The important aspect, which emerges from the above summary by LaCugna, is that we are able to see the non-biblical premises from which the Cappadocians attempt to reason.
For example, Christ clearly states that God is knowable. Christ knows and is known by the elect as he knows the Father and the Father knows him (Jn. 10:14). This knowledge was given to Christ by the Father as he was given power to lay down his life (Jn. 10:18).
The Son of God came and gave understanding to the elect to know him who is true and the elect are in him who is true and in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1Jn. 5:20). Thus the true God is He who is true and the Son is Jesus Christ.
The Son is not the true God, he is the Son through whom the elect are to know God. Thus the elect know God, where they did not formerly know God (Gal. 4:8), but came to know Him through the Father's willing self-revelation in the Son.
For what is known of God is manifested by God (Rom. 1:19 see Marshall's Interlinear), namely His invisible nature, His eternal power and deity (Rom. 1:20). It is a source of shame to the elect that some do not have a knowledge of God (1Cor. 15:34).
The knowledge is hence conditional and relative. It is revealed through the Spirit, which searches everything, even the depths of God (1Cor. 2:10).
The Cappadocians are thus wrong.
Further, their insistence that the Son is ungenerate or unbegotten, is not only contrary to Scripture but also contrary to logic and that is why they had to resort to Mysticism – because the logic of subordinationism, whether or not it is incorrectly labelled Arianism, is compelling.
Christ is an image or eikõn of the God, the first begotten (prõtotokos) of all creation (see Marshall's Interlinear Col. 1:15). Hence, Christ is the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14).
Christ said this to the Laodicean Church because it is in that Church that the apostasy became evident as it does in the last days with the man of lawlessness. It is the Gentiles who do not know God (1Thes. 4:5) and who reap God's vengeance (2Thes. 1:8) as the Cappadocians so amply demonstrate from their mystical cosmology.
You cannot be punished for not knowing God if that knowledge is unobtainable. God would be an unjust judge and thus unrighteous and hence not God.
The second point of error of the Cappadocians was that the divine paternity was not confined to Jesus Christ as we see from Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Satan was also a Son of God before his rebellion typified by Genesis 6:4 and Jude 6. We are all to become Sons of God (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:14; 1Jn. 3:1,2) and hence co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Titus 3:7; Heb. 1:14; 6:17; 11:9; Jas. 2:5; 1Pet. 3:7).
Because we are Sons, God has sent the spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal. 4:6). Thus the Spirit is extended through the Son to the Sons of God in Christ.
Paul's writings are subordinationist but confusing to Gentiles unfamiliar with the allocation of name by authority. For example, in Titus 1:3 he refers to God as the saviour of us. In Titus 1:4, he distinguishes from God the Father and Christ and refers to Christ as the saviour of us.
Thus, Trinitarians assert that the function of God as saviour is here asserted as the aspect known as Son. This is incorrect. The authority of the Son is derived from the Father as we have seen in John 10:18. The adequacy of the sacrifice was determined by the Father, as it was to reconcile man to the Father that it was required to be made. God determines the adequacy of the sacrifice as it was to Him that the debt was owed.
There is no question that Paul makes clear distinction between God and Christ. Paul is an absolute and incontestable subordinationist. No apostle was a Trinitarian – not because they did not need to develop the theory but because it is blasphemy.
Those who profess to know God must demonstrate their knowledge by their deeds (Titus 1:16). Thus the law is kept from a knowledge of and love of God. The law must be kept because sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn. 3:4) and, if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:26). Those sins are carried to judgment as a profanation of the blood of the covenant by which we are sanctified (Heb. 10:29).
The elect understand that Christ is a subordinate God. Further, that they will be co-heirs with Christ as subordinate theoi or elohim. They do not think that they can be equal to the God.
2Thessalonians 1:5-8 This is the evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering - since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
The punishment is meted out upon those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of Christ. There is no doubt that Paul distinguishes God from Christ in this text from 2Thessalonians 1:12: 2Thessalonians 1:12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus.
More particularly, the apostasy (apostasia) must come first before the coming of Christ when the Man of Sin or Lawlessness is revealed taking his seat in the shrine or the naos of God (2Thes. 2:4), the holy of holies of which we are.
Thus the Man of Sin is found amongst us as one of the elect. He sits in the naos of ton Theon, the Eloah or Elohim, placing himself above everything being called God declaring himself to be the God. Thus he is not one of the elect as subordinate theoi or elohim. He declares himself in equality to God as Basil sought to do by the introduction of trinitarian Mysticism.
The next development of Trinitarianism was by Augustine where the linear representation of the Cappadocians from Father to Son to the Holy Spirit was altered to an interrelationship which came to be represented as a triangle with each of the entities equally placed. His work De Trinitate is the most sustained treatment of his theology.
Written over the period 399-419 it was fundamentally influenced and probably altered by his reading of Gregory of Nazianzus' Theological Orations around 413 (LaCugna, p. 82, noting also Chevalier). Augustine sought to explain that:
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit constitute a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality (LaCugna, p. 82, quoting De Trinitate 1.4.7 PL 42,824).
Augustine's schema sought to return to God whom the soul images through contemplation (LaCugna, p. 83). Thus, he also was concerned with mystical contemplation.
The understanding of all the apologists of the second century, not to mention the first century, Church thought that the Son and Spirit had appeared in the Old Testament theophanies – for example, that the Son alone appeared to the Patriarchs (Novatian Treatise on the Trinity quoted also by LaCugna, p. 83.
The modern position is that all three as Father, Son and Holy Spirit appeared at Sinai because, in fact, God is pure thought and is expressed through the Son as logos. This misapprehends the nature of the Holy Spirit and the way in which it acts in the Son and, in fact, confers Godhood on the Son.
LaCugna argues that Arians interpreted the texts differently arguing that, if the Son appeared without the Father, this must indicate a difference in their natures (p. 83). We will assume that she is referring generically to Unitarians as the term Arian limits the nature of the inquiry.
The arguments of early theologians were quite clear and specific. Christ was a creation of the Father, in fact the primary act of the creation and hence its beginning. This is the position of the Bible. It was the Athanasians and the later Cappadocians who altered the structure contrary to the Bible.
Consequently, that is why the Cappadocian apologists in churches with a Bible foundation are caught up in this absurd position of denying the literal intent of the Bible.
The Process Theologians and neo-Buddhists in Christianity are attempting to assert a monist structure where the Godhead is an immanent non-divisive blob.
Thus is Christendom!
(Many thanks to my friends for this contribution)
letusreason
Does the Trinity have its Origin in the above?
Many thanks - for this external contribution.
This paper traces the development of the neo-Platonist trinitarian system from Greek philosophy into the post-Christian synthesis. It shows the origin of the Cappadocian system using both ancient philosophy and modern Catholic theology in admission of the origin of the doctrine.
The Development of the Neo-Platonist Model
The concept of God as three hypostases of the superior entity is developed from Greek thought. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Plato developed the concept of forms in his works. Plato uses the philosopher Parmenides as his model. Parmenides was the first of the Greek Monists. He was not Monotheist. The concepts were further developed by those who followed Plato. Plotinus developed a relatively simple metaphysical scheme:
providing for just three hypostases - One, Intellect, and Soul - [this scheme] seems to have suffered elaboration already at the hands of his senior pupil Amelius (who had a special weakness for triads), but from the perspective of the Athenian School it is Iamblichus (c. 245-325) who began the major system of scholastic elaboration which is the mark of later Neoplatonism (Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, General Introduction, p. xv, Morrow and Dillon, Princeton University Press, 1987).
Thus the Trinity is prefigured as the One, the Wisdom or Intellect and the Soul becoming the One as Father, Word equated with Wisdom and the Spirit as functional Soul. This Spirit as functional Soul is held to be capable of individuation yet remains complete as an entity separate to and equal with the other two hypostases.
Proclus developed the concept of an Unparticipated Divine Soul. Dillon says of this:
Once again the psychic realm must have its proper monad (or henad), Unparticipated Divine Soul, which itself participates in Nous and presides transcendently over its own realm. In the Elements of Theology, when Proclus comes to discuss Soul (props. 184-211), we find no mention of such an entity, only of souls in the plural, but it is plainly presupposed, and is in fact mentioned earlier, in prop. 164. There we learn that the Unparticipated Soul 'presides primarily over the cosmos' [prootoos huper tou kosmou esti], but does so transcendently and so is distinct from the immanent World Soul, as well as from individual souls.
Proclus holds that all monads (unities or single units, henads in Platonic philosophy) in and above the cosmos, intelligible and intellectual are attached to their own monads and ordered with respect to one another, with the One as the leader of secondary monads.
Similarly, the One is the source and basis of the triad. Proclus holds:
Parmenides abides in the transcendent One, Zeno projects the many as the One, and Socrates turns back even these many to the Parmenidean One, since the first member in the every triad is an analogue of rest, the second of procession and the third of reversion, and the reversion rounds out a kind of circular path connecting the end with the beginning .
The concepts of the three begin to emerge but the first step is necessarily that of the dyad (a unit of two parts) but the dyad is a copy of the Unity. Thus the second is inferior to the One of Parmenides which is termed by Zeno himself as logos or discourse. The One is greater than plurality and the paradigm superior to the copy.
Thus the logos concept of Greek philosophy is attributed to the One rather than the second. This is contrary to the Bible but the origin of the concept is thus evident. The important concept of the Greeks was to show, as Proclus did by improving on Zeno's arguments, that plurality devoid of unity is impossible. Thus the Godhead was logically required to be a unified plurality but the early Greeks had no concept of Agape.
Agape is a transliteration of the Hebrew term ’ahabah from the Song of Songs in the Septuagint. Thus the concept of the love of God by dispensation is limited among the early Greeks. The consequent sharing of godliness they thus regarded, where accidentally acquired, as divine theft having no real concept of a plan of salvation as was present in the Hebrew.
The theory of Ideas existed as early as the Pythagoreans and was taken up by Plato in the Sophist (248a). Socrates posits the existence of the itself by itself which is taken to be the unmixed simplicity and purity of the Ideas.
The Hebrew combines this concept as being present with God (Prov. 8:22). Wisdom was created by God as the beginning of His way, the first of His acts of old. This led the rabbis to assume that the law was the wisdom referred to as it established order instead of chaos.
The Ideas were distinguished from attributes predicated of particular things. Thus, for the Greeks, the logos as expression of ideas was taken to be appropriated to the prime cause rather than an attribute of the cause.
Hence the logic of the denial of a subordinate logos. From this also came the concept that God is pure thought. It is worth noting that from Acts 7:29 logos is merely an utterance or saying. See also logoi of God translating dabar Yahovah or oracle(s) of God in the LXX and New Testament.
Plato gave Orpheus to say (In Tim. I, 312.26 ff., and 324.14 ff., cf. Proclus ibid., p. 168).
...that all things came to be in Zeus, after the swallowing of Phanes, because, although the causes of all things in the cosmos appeared primarily and in a unified form in him (sc. Phanes), they appear secondarily and in a distinct form in the Demiurge. The sun, the moon, the heaven itself, the elements, and Eros the unifier - all came into being as a unity 'mixed together in the belly of Zeus' (Orph. fr. 167b.7 Kern).
The Demiurgic forms gave rise to the order and arrangement of sensible things (ibid.). All things stemming from the Father thus gave rise to animism, where the nature of the deity was immanent in all matter.
The Greeks, from Parmenides, turned the concept to Monism, making the One immanent. But Proclus shows that these concepts, particularly the Ideas which stemmed from the Will of the Father, have their origin in the Chaldean Oracles (fr. 37 Des Places).
The Intellect of the Father whirred, conceiving with his unwearying will
Ideas of every form; and they leapt out in flight from this single source
For this was the Father's counsel and achievement.
But they were divided by the fire of intelligence
and distributed among other intelligent beings. For their lord had placed
Before this multiform cosmos an eternal intelligible model; And the cosmos strove modestly to follow its traces,
And appeared in the form it has and graced with all sorts of Ideas.
Of these there was one source, but as they burst forth innumerable others were broken off and scattered
Through the bodies of the cosmos, swarming like bees
About the mighty hollows of the world,
And whirling about in various directions -
These intelligent Ideas, issued from the paternal source,
Laying hold on the mighty bloom of fire.
At the prime moment of unsleeping time
This primary and self sufficient source of the Father
Has spouted forth these primally-generative Ideas.
Proclus comments thus:
In these words the gods have clearly revealed where the Ideas have their foundation, in what god their single source is contained, how their plurality proceeds from this source, and how the cosmos is constituted in accordance with them; and also that they are moving agents in all the cosmic systems, all intelligent in essence and exceedingly diverse in their properties (op. cit., p. 169).
The concept of the Father as creator which is the biblical model is clearly understood in the Chaldean systems and in the original Greek texts. The application of the functions of God, however, become misapplied by them. However, the ancient concepts of the Father as supreme God was understood by all nations. It was the neo-Platonists who perverted it.
The Introduction to Book III of Proclus' Commentary holds that the summary (831.25 ff.) shows Proclus to specify:
three basic attributes of Forms - Goodness, Essentiality, Eternity, deriving respectively from the One (the First Cause), the One Being and Aeon. All paradigmatic Forms derive their being from these three (p. 155).
The requirement thus emerges of the three attributes of Goodness, Essentiality and Eternity being predicated to the Triune system. The Greeks thus had to assert that Christ was co-eternal with God in spite of the fact that the Bible clearly says he is not and that only God is immortal (1Tim. 6:16). The aspect of Christ as the Angel of YHVH also was required to be of the primary three, in view of the perceived requirements of the adequacy of the reconciliation of men to God through Christ.
The Greeks were themselves limited by their concepts of love to the primary relationships of filial and erotic love, hence they could not understand the biblical paradigms.
The concept of omniscience being applied to Christ, contrary to Scripture (e.g. Rev. 1:1), follows from the requirements of the attributes especially Essentiality. Proclus develops the argument from Book IV.1047, op. cit., p. 406.
In dealing with knowledge as single or multiple, Proclus shows that it must be single therefore the neo-Platonists had to assert omniscience to Christ to ensure the other attributes of the divine nature. Such assertion was, of itself, biblically absurd.
If, however, we are to state the single principle of knowledge, we must fix upon the One, which generates Intellect and all the knowledge both within it and what is seen on the secondary levels of being. For this, transcending the Many as it does, is the first principle of knowledge for them, and is not the same as them, as is Sameness in the intelligible realm.
This is co-ordinate with its Otherness and inferior to Being. The One, on the other hand, is beyond intellectual Being and grants coherence to it, and for this reason the One is God and so is Intellect, but not by reason of Sameness nor Being.
And in general Intellect is not god qua Intellect; for even the particular intellect is an intellect but is not a god. Also it is the proper role of Intellect to contemplate and intelligise and judge true being; but of God to unify, to generate, to exercise providence and suchlike. By virtue of that aspect of itself which is not intellect, the Intellect is God; and by virtue of that aspect of itself which is not God, the god in it is Intellect.
The divine Intellect, as a whole, is an intellectual essence along with its own summit and its proper unity, knowing itself in so far as it is intellectual, but being 'intoxicated on nectar,' as has been said, and generating the whole of cognition, in so far as it is the 'flower' of the Intellect and a supra-essential henad.
So once again, in seeking the first principle of knowledge, we have ascended to the One.
Similarly, the first principle was held to be the One (ibid.) and Socrates (Phaedrus 245d) says the first principle is ungenerated.
Here, Trinitarianism becomes confused because it holds Christ to be a generation of the Father. The newer Process Theologians hold the transcendent unity of the Godhead where there was an essential ungenerate co-eternal oneness which regards individuation as illusory. It is properly Monism and not Monotheism, hence it is properly a form of liberation theology akin to Buddhism and Hinduism rather than Christianity.
Logically it is popular with Mysticism. Indeed the recent developments of Trinitarianism seek to make God immanent as pure thought, present in matter, e.g. stone, wood, glass etc. This is not only not Christian it is not even transcendental Monotheism. It is Monism.
The logical requirements of the Greek philosophical form of reasoning have to assert equal divinity with Christ in order to predicate unconditional ascent to the One. This objective of ascent to God by individual determination rather than by God's allocation is the underlying motive of Cappadocian Trinitarianism.
The conclusion is verified from an examination of the history.
C M LaCugna (God For Us, Harper, San Francisco, 1973) states that the Cappadocians, despite the fact that they infrequently used the terms oikonomia and theologia, had considerably altered the concepts and their meaning became firmly set.
Theology is the science of 'God in Godself'; the economy is the sphere of God's condescension to flesh. The doctrine of the Trinity is Theology strictly speaking. In later Greek Patristic theology, usage will remain generally the same. The biblical concept of oikonomia [economy] as the gradual unfolding of the hidden mystery of God in the plan of salvation, is gradually constricted to mean the human nature of Christ, or the Incarnation.
Theologia, not a biblical concept at all, acquires in Athanasius and the Cappadocians the meaning of God's inner being beyond the historical manifestation of the Word incarnate.
Theologia in this sense now specifies the hypostases in God, but not the manner of their self revelation ad extra. If Christian theology had let go the insistence on God's impassibility and affirmed that God suffers in Christ, it could have kept together, against Arianism, the essential unity and identity between the being of God and the being of Christ (p. 43).
We are thus now at the illogical position which the process of Greek philosophy had led the theologians. They had to develop theology apart from soteriology (see ibid.). In other words, they considered theology apart from and without reference to the plan of salvation, which was fatal for Christianity.
The theologians cut theology adrift from the Bible and, hence, it achieved even greater levels of incoherence.
More particularly, the requirement for God to have suffered in Christ is not a biblical requirement; it is a requirement of Greek philosophy, which places improper limitations upon the adequacy of a subordinate sacrifice. The early Christian Church writers were all subordinationist. None of the early theologians ever claimed that Christ was God in the sense that God the Father was God. This was a late invention of Greek philosophy imported into Christianity.
LaCugna says that:
The Cappadocians were highly competent speculative theologians. They brilliantly synthesized elements of Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, biblical revelation, and pastoral concerns to argue against both Arius and Eunomius. Their central concern remained soteriological.
They saw as their task to clarify how God's relationship to us in Christ and the Spirit in the economy of Incarnation and deification reveals the essential unity and equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. In the process Basil and the Gregorys produced a sophisticated ‘metaphysics of the economy of salvation’.
Unfortunately that was not, in fact, the aim of Basil and the two Gregorys as Gregg had demonstrated from the texts in his Consolation Philosophy etc., Philadelphia Patristic Foundation Ltd, 1975.
Basil was attempting to separate from the world altogether in the one escape (Basil EP., 2 tr.
Defarrari, I, 11, Gregg, p. 224).
The passions were to be removed from the soul. The soul must be perfected for separation from the flesh. God Himself becomes visible to those who have seen the Son, His image.
Illuminated by the Spirit, souls become themselves spiritual [psuchai pneumatikai] and are initiated into life in which the future is known, mysteries come clear, and all the benefits of heavenly citizenship are enjoyed. The climax, Basil writes is:
...joy without end, abiding in God, being made like to God [he pros Theon homoioosis], and highest of all, being made God [Theon genesthai]
(Basil 9.23. trans from NPNF, V, 16) Gregg adds (fn3) Much of the thought of Basil's Spir. 9 was taken from Plotinus, as P Henry demonstrated in his Les etats de texte de Plotin (Brussels; n.p., 1938, p. 160). Jaeger argues that the ideas were borrowed from Basil by Gregory of Nyssa in his De Institutio Christiano, in Two Rediscovered works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden: E J Brill, 1954, pp. 100-103).
LaCugna noted that the Cappadocians oriented theology in a direction which further contributed to the separation of economy and theology. This trajectory led to the:
via negativa of Pseudo-Dionysius and, finally, to the theology of Gregory of Palamas (Chapter 6).
In the Latin West, in the period immediately following Nicaea, theologians such as Hilary of Poitiers and, perhaps to an extreme degree, Marcellus of Ancyra, retained the connection between the divine hypostases and the economy of salvation. Augustine inaugurated an entirely new approach. His starting point was no longer the monarchy of the Father but the divine substance shared equally by the three persons. Instead of inquiring into the nature of theologia as it is revealed in the Incarnation of Christ and deification by the Spirit, Augustine would inquire into the traces of the Trinity to be found in the soul of each human being.
Augustine's pursuit of a 'psychological' analogy for the intratrinitarian relations would mean that trinitarian doctrine thereafter would be concerned with the relations 'internal' to the godhead, disjoined from what we know of God through Christ in the Spirit (LaCugna, p. 44).
The Medieval Latin theology followed Augustine and the separation of theology from economy or soteriology. The entire structure became embroiled in neo-Platonism and Mysticism. The important notations of LaCugna are that from Augustine the Monarchy of the Father was no longer paramount. The Trinity assumed co-equality.
This was the second step following on from the false assertion of co-eternality. The correct premise was the concept of the manifestation of the Godhead in each individual, namely the operation of the Father by means of the Holy Spirit which emanated from Him through Jesus Christ.
This direction through Jesus Christ enabled Christ to monitor and direct the individual in accordance with the will of God who lived in each of the elect. Christ was not the origin of the Holy Spirit. He was its intermediary monitor. He acted for God as he had always acted for and in accordance with the will of God. But he was not the God.
The Trinitarians lost sight of this fact, if indeed they ever really understood the matter. As LaCugna says the:
Theology of the triune God appeared to be added on to consideration of the one God (p. 44).
This affected fundamentally the way Christians prayed. That is, they no longer prayed to the Father alone in the name of the Son as the Bible directs (from Mat. 6:6,9; Lk. 11:12) worshipping the Father (Jn. 4:23), but to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Further, the scholastics developed a metaphysics of theology itself. But the entire edifice was built in disregard to, or manipulation of, the Bible.
That is why Trinitarians never address all Bible texts on a subject and mistranslate and misquote other key texts ignoring the ones they cannot alter. But their system is based on Mysticism and Platonism. LaCugna states that:
The Cappadocians (and also Augustine) went considerably beyond the scriptural understanding of economy by locating God's relationship to the Son (and the Spirit) at the 'intradivine' level (p. 54).
The One God existed as ousia in three distinct hypostases. We have seen (in the paper) that the Platonic term ousia and the Stoic term hypostases mean essentially the same thing.
The theology of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus:
was formulated largely in response to the theology of Eunomius. Eunomius was also a Cappadocian, and for a brief time, bishop of Cyzicus. He was a neo-Arian, a rationalist who like Aetius believed in the radical subordination of Son to Father (heterousios).
For Eunomius, as for Arius, God is a unique and simple essence. But Eunomius drew further consequences for this essentially Arian premise. According to Eunomius, God is supremely arelational, God cannot communicate the divine nature, God cannot beget anything from the divine essence. Since the Son is begotten or generated (gennetos) by an energy, the Son cannot be of the same substance as the Father.
Thus there is no sense, not even a derivative sense, in which the divinity of the Son could be maintained.
Second, Arius had believed that while God is incomprehensible, the divine Son makes the incomprehensible God comprehensible. Eunomius believed human reason is capable of apprehending the very essence of God. His name for God is Agennesia: Ungenerateness, or Unbegottenness (LaCugna, p. 56).
Here we come to the issue. The Cappadocians repeatedly asserted that God can never be fully comprehended by human reason or language. Gregory of Nazianzus in his Theological Orations (hence the title Theologian) held that purity of heart and the leisure of contemplation are preconditions for the knowledge of God. Even this personal interaction does not enable the knowledge of God's ousia.
Only God's works and acts (energeiai) can be known, that which constitutes the hinder parts of God exposed to Moses between the gaps in the cliff in Exodus 33:23.Thus, Christ showed by this example that only an (as yet) imperfect knowledge of the Godhead was available to him.
LaCugna states:
The Cappadocian response to Arianism* and Eunomianism must be understood against the backdrop to mystical theology. The threads of the mystical theology of the Cappadocians are found already in their predecessors and in Middle Platonism.
The centrality of mysticism in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, combined with his intellectual acumen, produced a powerful refutation of the Eunomian position that God is knowable, and the Arian position that the Son is created (genetos). Both Gregorys worked out a theology of divine relations in the process.
But they were emphatic that even if we are able to explain what divine paternity means, words like begotten and unbegotten, generate and ungenerate, do not express the substance (ousia) of God but the characteristics of the divine hypostases, of how God is toward us.
The title 'Father', for example, does not give any information on the nature or qualities of divine fatherhood but indicates God's relation to the Son (LaCugna, p. 57).
* Arianism is applied generally to encompass subordinationists who all believed that Christ was a creation of the Father. This included Irenaeus, Polycarp, Paul, the apostles and even Christ himself.
Thus, early theologians are often termed Arians or early Arians even though they wrote centuries before Arius was born. It helps Trinitarians assert a spurious relativity to their position. The correct term is Subordinationist Unitarianism – or simply Unitarianism.
Trinitarians do not see or understand the universal relationship of the Sons of God to the Father.
The important aspect, which emerges from the above summary by LaCugna, is that we are able to see the non-biblical premises from which the Cappadocians attempt to reason.
For example, Christ clearly states that God is knowable. Christ knows and is known by the elect as he knows the Father and the Father knows him (Jn. 10:14). This knowledge was given to Christ by the Father as he was given power to lay down his life (Jn. 10:18).
The Son of God came and gave understanding to the elect to know him who is true and the elect are in him who is true and in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1Jn. 5:20). Thus the true God is He who is true and the Son is Jesus Christ.
The Son is not the true God, he is the Son through whom the elect are to know God. Thus the elect know God, where they did not formerly know God (Gal. 4:8), but came to know Him through the Father's willing self-revelation in the Son.
For what is known of God is manifested by God (Rom. 1:19 see Marshall's Interlinear), namely His invisible nature, His eternal power and deity (Rom. 1:20). It is a source of shame to the elect that some do not have a knowledge of God (1Cor. 15:34).
The knowledge is hence conditional and relative. It is revealed through the Spirit, which searches everything, even the depths of God (1Cor. 2:10).
The Cappadocians are thus wrong.
Further, their insistence that the Son is ungenerate or unbegotten, is not only contrary to Scripture but also contrary to logic and that is why they had to resort to Mysticism – because the logic of subordinationism, whether or not it is incorrectly labelled Arianism, is compelling.
Christ is an image or eikõn of the God, the first begotten (prõtotokos) of all creation (see Marshall's Interlinear Col. 1:15). Hence, Christ is the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14).
Christ said this to the Laodicean Church because it is in that Church that the apostasy became evident as it does in the last days with the man of lawlessness. It is the Gentiles who do not know God (1Thes. 4:5) and who reap God's vengeance (2Thes. 1:8) as the Cappadocians so amply demonstrate from their mystical cosmology.
You cannot be punished for not knowing God if that knowledge is unobtainable. God would be an unjust judge and thus unrighteous and hence not God.
The second point of error of the Cappadocians was that the divine paternity was not confined to Jesus Christ as we see from Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Satan was also a Son of God before his rebellion typified by Genesis 6:4 and Jude 6. We are all to become Sons of God (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:14; 1Jn. 3:1,2) and hence co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Titus 3:7; Heb. 1:14; 6:17; 11:9; Jas. 2:5; 1Pet. 3:7).
Because we are Sons, God has sent the spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal. 4:6). Thus the Spirit is extended through the Son to the Sons of God in Christ.
Paul's writings are subordinationist but confusing to Gentiles unfamiliar with the allocation of name by authority. For example, in Titus 1:3 he refers to God as the saviour of us. In Titus 1:4, he distinguishes from God the Father and Christ and refers to Christ as the saviour of us.
Thus, Trinitarians assert that the function of God as saviour is here asserted as the aspect known as Son. This is incorrect. The authority of the Son is derived from the Father as we have seen in John 10:18. The adequacy of the sacrifice was determined by the Father, as it was to reconcile man to the Father that it was required to be made. God determines the adequacy of the sacrifice as it was to Him that the debt was owed.
There is no question that Paul makes clear distinction between God and Christ. Paul is an absolute and incontestable subordinationist. No apostle was a Trinitarian – not because they did not need to develop the theory but because it is blasphemy.
Those who profess to know God must demonstrate their knowledge by their deeds (Titus 1:16). Thus the law is kept from a knowledge of and love of God. The law must be kept because sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn. 3:4) and, if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:26). Those sins are carried to judgment as a profanation of the blood of the covenant by which we are sanctified (Heb. 10:29).
The elect understand that Christ is a subordinate God. Further, that they will be co-heirs with Christ as subordinate theoi or elohim. They do not think that they can be equal to the God.
2Thessalonians 1:5-8 This is the evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering - since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
The punishment is meted out upon those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of Christ. There is no doubt that Paul distinguishes God from Christ in this text from 2Thessalonians 1:12: 2Thessalonians 1:12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus.
More particularly, the apostasy (apostasia) must come first before the coming of Christ when the Man of Sin or Lawlessness is revealed taking his seat in the shrine or the naos of God (2Thes. 2:4), the holy of holies of which we are.
Thus the Man of Sin is found amongst us as one of the elect. He sits in the naos of ton Theon, the Eloah or Elohim, placing himself above everything being called God declaring himself to be the God. Thus he is not one of the elect as subordinate theoi or elohim. He declares himself in equality to God as Basil sought to do by the introduction of trinitarian Mysticism.
The next development of Trinitarianism was by Augustine where the linear representation of the Cappadocians from Father to Son to the Holy Spirit was altered to an interrelationship which came to be represented as a triangle with each of the entities equally placed. His work De Trinitate is the most sustained treatment of his theology.
Written over the period 399-419 it was fundamentally influenced and probably altered by his reading of Gregory of Nazianzus' Theological Orations around 413 (LaCugna, p. 82, noting also Chevalier). Augustine sought to explain that:
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit constitute a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality (LaCugna, p. 82, quoting De Trinitate 1.4.7 PL 42,824).
Augustine's schema sought to return to God whom the soul images through contemplation (LaCugna, p. 83). Thus, he also was concerned with mystical contemplation.
The understanding of all the apologists of the second century, not to mention the first century, Church thought that the Son and Spirit had appeared in the Old Testament theophanies – for example, that the Son alone appeared to the Patriarchs (Novatian Treatise on the Trinity quoted also by LaCugna, p. 83.
The modern position is that all three as Father, Son and Holy Spirit appeared at Sinai because, in fact, God is pure thought and is expressed through the Son as logos. This misapprehends the nature of the Holy Spirit and the way in which it acts in the Son and, in fact, confers Godhood on the Son.
LaCugna argues that Arians interpreted the texts differently arguing that, if the Son appeared without the Father, this must indicate a difference in their natures (p. 83). We will assume that she is referring generically to Unitarians as the term Arian limits the nature of the inquiry.
The arguments of early theologians were quite clear and specific. Christ was a creation of the Father, in fact the primary act of the creation and hence its beginning. This is the position of the Bible. It was the Athanasians and the later Cappadocians who altered the structure contrary to the Bible.
Consequently, that is why the Cappadocian apologists in churches with a Bible foundation are caught up in this absurd position of denying the literal intent of the Bible.
The Process Theologians and neo-Buddhists in Christianity are attempting to assert a monist structure where the Godhead is an immanent non-divisive blob.
Thus is Christendom!
(Many thanks to my friends for this contribution)
letusreason
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)