If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't think even the fundamentalist scholars believe Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus. Supposedly he interviewed eyewitnesses and made a compendium of their stories. It's impossible that he was an eyewitness to Jesus since he wasn't a disciple and he would have lived through Paul's life even when he fled and hid from the Christians!

Luke even mentions that in the first chapter

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

What's interesting though is that Luke mentions other accounts.

 

[Dinner123]

He at least had a triadic thought, while affirming God's oneness; this is clear from his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 13 (in the shorter, authentic recension):

Be diligent therefore to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and the Apostles, that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit,[3]

[3] This confession, couched in an anti-Docetic form, may indicate that Ignatius feared the danger of Docetism at Magnesia. Or possibly he is thinking of the dangers threatening other churches, and so gives an anticipatory warning to the Magnesians.

It is true that none of the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius included, expressed their thoughts in the terminology and definitions provided by the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. But to say that they didn't believe in some sort of Trinity is false; the idea is there, even if the Fathers aren't quite sure how to put it in words. The essence of their statements about God being both One and Three is the same as that of the later Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

For more about St. Ignatius's proto-Trinitarian thought, see here.

Ignatius seems to refer to the Father's passion. That is the Father's death on the cross. I don't believe he is trying to make the express point that the Father as some think of Him now(thanks to the trinity doctrine) was on the cross so much, as in his simplicity he seems to see no difference between God in general and the Father. So, is that trinitarian thought?

"Father; seeing if they were, they would appear to be the branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible; by which he invites you through his passion,"

In fact he says that the holy Spirit is Jesus' Spirit.

"who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit."

So, if the Father was on the cross by Jesus Christ(the human manifestation of God) and the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, then is that trinitarian beliefs?

Look up Sabellism for more on Oneness believers from ancient times. They did exist, we just don't know as much about them because the trinity doctrine became more widely believed as time went on. After all it was eventually adopted officially by the Roman Empire; from which we have the two so called Catholic churches.

 

[Muffled]

there is a big difference from mortals and spirit beings--mortal generals have nothing to do with the facts.

Fact--- a spirit being came down to earth and was born a mortal--- Fact--it was not God according to Jesus' truths.

I believe you should be congtratulated on the smoke screen so you can avoid the argument.

I believe what you have said is fiction and there is no Biblical backing for it.

 

[Muffled]

Aamer,
You have just added to the long list of reasons why Jesus cannot be God.
Think about this also, How could a person be brought in and come before a King on the throne and receive something from that person, and BE that person??? Dan 7:13,14, Rev 5:6-8.
How also does God in heaven speak to Jesus, while on earth, three times, Matt 3:17, 17:5, John 12:28.
Since the Bible says that no deception was found in Jesus mouth, he was not fooling people by the act of a ventriloquist, 1Pet 2:21,22.
Jesus said that the Father is greater that he is, and that the Father in heaven is his Father, and that the Father in heaven is the ONLY TRUE GOD, John 14:28, 20:17, John 17:3.

I beleive we are not talking about a physical person but a spirit person who is omni-present. A spirit is not visible but God is able to represent Himself in as many forms or images in as many places as He likes.

I believe God is one. However Jesus is God in one physical body in one place but the Father is everywhere. God will only be in the flesh for as long as He wishes but the Father is everlasting.

 

[Muffled]

It is odd to me that when one points out truth straight from Jesus truths written in Gods word--- they will not believe him over men' dogma.
You are right--Jesus teaches the one who sent him = Father( John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. at John 17:1-6-- verse 6 = YHWH(Jehovah)

The trinity teaching is calling Jesus a liar--Paul backed Jesus truth at 1 cor 8:6)

trinity translations are filled with errors to mislead.

I believe the truth from God's word and that you should try it some time.

That is true and Jesus says He is one with Him.

I believe this is a false statement that can't be bacled up by scripture.

I beleive the existing transaltions are correct and the New World Translation has systematically removed references to the divinity of Jesus simply because the authors didn't believe in it.

 

[kjw47]

I believe the truth from God's word and that you should try it some time.

That is true and Jesus says He is one with Him.

I believe this is a false statement that can't be bacled up by scripture.

I beleive the existing transaltions are correct and the New World Translation has systematically removed references to the divinity of Jesus simply because the authors didn't believe in it.

Many translations in history--put the a in John 1:1--even trinity translations.

Yes Jesus said--the Father and I are one( in purpose) because it goes on to say we all will be one with them--not being God, but in purpose--that purpose is living 24?7 to do Gods will.
Jesus also taught--The Father is greater than I.

In the light of Daniel 12:4-- every religion claiming Christianity before the last days had error teachings( the hidden truths became abundant in these last days) --- so then corrections to error teachings had to be made--the ones who are correcting the error teachings will prove to be right in the end.

 

[Shiranui117]

Ignatius seems to refer to the Father's passion. That is the Father's death on the cross. I don't believe he is trying to make the express point that the Father as some think of Him now(thanks to the trinity doctrine) was on the cross so much, as in his simplicity he seems to see no difference between God in general and the Father. So, is that trinitarian thought?

No... I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like Theopaschism (the heretical belief that all three members of the Trinity suffered and died on the Cross) mixed with Sabellianism.

Only Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, because only Jesus became man--the Father and the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate, and so did not suffer on the Cross.

"Father; seeing if they were, they would appear to be the branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible; by which he invites you through his passion,"

Interesting. Admittedly, based solely on chapter 11, I can't make heads or tails of what Ignatius is saying here; this is one case where the longer recension actually makes a lot more sense.

Shorter recension:
Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union.

Longer recension:
​

Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his, Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers, the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed. Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called, who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever. These men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, “Let every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up.” For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been “enemies of the cross of Christ,” but rather of those who “killed the Lord of glory.” But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them merely murderers of the prophets. But Christ invites you to [share in] His immortality, by His passion and resurrection, inasmuch as ye are His members.
​

At first blush, it would seem that you're right. But, let's put chapter 11 in context:

9. Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.
10. But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?
11. Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union.

Also, keeping in mind that it's always, always always Christ Who is the head of the Church, and not the Father (see Ephesians 4:15, 5:23), and that it is always the Father Who plants (see Matthew 15:3), it becomes clear that the "Father" only refers to the planting. Even though Jesus' name isn't used in the sentence in question, the sentence is clearly referring to Christ--hence the elaboration made in the longer recension.

So, even though we today have Ignatius' epistles all in chapters, originally they were just letters, and the chapters didn't exist, but were later additions meant to chunk it up and make it easier to read.

In fact he says that the holy Spirit is Jesus' Spirit.

"who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit."

Yes, Trinitarians have no problem with this.

So, if the Father was on the cross by Jesus Christ(the human manifestation of God) and the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, then is that trinitarian beliefs?

Take out the Father being on the Cross, and clean up the Christology you mentioned to reflect the Hypostatic Union, and explicitly acknowledge that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three distinct Persons, and yes, that's Trinitarian.

[quot]Look up Sabellism for more on Oneness believers from ancient times. They did exist, we just don't know as much about them because the trinity doctrine became more widely believed as time went on. After all it was eventually adopted officially by the Roman Empire; from which we have the two so called Catholic churches.[/quote]
I know all about Sabellianism, actually. It's no mystery what they believed. They essentially said that God had three prosopon (masks/outward appearances), but denied the Personhood (hypostasis) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And, two Catholic Churches? Care to clarify?

 

[Dinner123]

No... I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like Theopaschism (the heretical belief that all three members of the Trinity suffered and died on the Cross) mixed with Sabellianism.

Only Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, because only Jesus became man--the Father and the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate, and so did not suffer on the Cross.

Interesting. Admittedly, based solely on chapter 11, I can't make heads or tails of what Ignatius is saying here; this is one case where the longer recension actually makes a lot more sense.

Shorter recension:
Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union.

Longer recension:
​

Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his, Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers, the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed. Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called, who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever. These men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, “Let every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up.” For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been “enemies of the cross of Christ,” but rather of those who “killed the Lord of glory.” But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them merely murderers of the prophets. But Christ invites you to [share in] His immortality, by His passion and resurrection, inasmuch as ye are His members.
​

At first blush, it would seem that you're right. But, let's put chapter 11 in context:

9. Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.
10. But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?
11. Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union.

Also, keeping in mind that it's always, always always Christ Who is the head of the Church, and not the Father (see Ephesians 4:15, 5:23), and that it is always the Father Who plants (see Matthew 15:3), it becomes clear that the "Father" only refers to the planting. Even though Jesus' name isn't used in the sentence in question, the sentence is clearly referring to Christ--hence the elaboration made in the longer recension.

So, even though we today have Ignatius' epistles all in chapters, originally they were just letters, and the chapters didn't exist, but were later additions meant to chunk it up and make it easier to read.

Yes, Trinitarians have no problem with this.

Take out the Father being on the Cross, and clean up the Christology you mentioned to reflect the Hypostatic Union, and explicitly acknowledge that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three distinct Persons, and yes, that's Trinitarian.

[quot]Look up Sabellism for more on Oneness believers from ancient times. They did exist, we just don't know as much about them because the trinity doctrine became more widely believed as time went on. After all it was eventually adopted officially by the Roman Empire; from which we have the two so called Catholic churches.

I know all about Sabellianism, actually. It's no mystery what they believed. They essentially said that God had three prosopon (masks/outward appearances), but denied the Personhood (hypostasis) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And, two Catholic Churches? Care to clarify?[/QUOTE]

Yes Jesus is the head of the body. But as Ignatius points out so often, Jesus is the only God manifest in human form. So, through Jesus, God who is the Father is the head of the body and through Jesus, God was on the cross.

I meant the Roman Catholics and the orthodox Byzantine Catholics. I thought they both claimed to be the universal church. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes Jesus is the head of the body. But as Ignatius points out so often, Jesus is the only God manifest in human form. So, through Jesus, God who is the Father is the head of the body and through Jesus, God was on the cross.

Regarding the bold... Ehhh, this wording is O/orthodox, depending on what you mean by it. If you mean to say that, since Jesus is God and man, and Jesus suffered on the Cross, therefore God suffered on the Cross, then yes, you would be correct.

But just because God (meaning specifically Jesus here) suffered on the Cross, we cannot say that all three members of the Trinity suffered on the Cross. God is impassable--He is incapable of suffering and being in pain. Only Jesus specifically can suffer and be in pain, because He is also man. The pain was suffered by His humanity. Only by merit of the human and divine natures being united in Jesus' one Person can we say that God (i.e. Jesus) suffered in the flesh upon the Cross--and even then, the "in the flesh" part is always crucial to the meaning.

I meant the Roman Catholics and the orthodox Byzantine Catholics. I thought they both claimed to be the universal church. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahh, so you were referring to the Eastern and Oriental Catholics, now I gotcha.

Well, here's a fun fact... If you want to enumerate all the self-governing Eastern Catholic churches, there are 22 total For example, you have the Armenian Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, and a bunch of others. There's more than that if you want to add in those Eastern Catholics (for example, Russian and Greek--Greek as in the nationality, mind you, not the Byzantine Rite) who don't form independent bodies and don't govern themselves, but are under the protection of the local Roman bishops.

Altogether, the Roman church, combined with the various Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches, comprise the one, universal Catholic Church.

But the Eastern Orthodox are different from the Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches; the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church are in schism from one another, and have been for a thousand years.

 

[Dinner123]

Regarding the bold... Ehhh, this wording is O/orthodox, depending on what you mean by it. If you mean to say that, since Jesus is God and man, and Jesus suffered on the Cross, therefore God suffered on the Cross, then yes, you would be correct.

But just because God (meaning specifically Jesus here) suffered on the Cross, we cannot say that all three members of the Trinity suffered on the Cross. God is impassable--He is incapable of suffering and being in pain. Only Jesus specifically can suffer and be in pain, because He is also man. The pain was suffered by His humanity. Only by merit of the human and divine natures being united in Jesus' one Person can we say that God (i.e. Jesus) suffered in the flesh upon the Cross--and even then, the "in the flesh" part is always crucial to the meaning.

Yes, that is what I meant and exactly what I believe. Where I differ from your position is the idea that there are three persons of God, that are separate, (distinct, if you will) beings. So, I would say Jesus was not just God the Son manifest in the flesh as you would say. I don't even believe Jesus is "God the Son, 2nd member of the trinity." Actually, Jesus the Son of God was simply God(the totality, single God) manifest in the flesh.

So, I think that our Ignatius believed as myself. And, when this verse says the Father's passion it means it exactly as you say, by the human, very much in the flesh manifestation of the one true God, yet when read literally, we can admit it excludes the idea of distinct(non-crossing over) persons in the Divine nature.

Thank you for the fun facts on the Eastern Orthodox churches.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, that is what I meant and exactly what I believe. Where I differ from your position is the idea that there are three persons of God, that are separate, (distinct, if you will) beings. So, I would say Jesus was not just God the Son manifest in the flesh as you would say. I don't even believe Jesus is "God the Son, 2nd member of the trinity." Actually, Jesus the Son of God was simply God(the totality, single God) manifest in the flesh.

So, I think that our Ignatius believed as myself. And, when this verse says the Father's passion it means it exactly as you say, by the human, very much in the flesh manifestation of the one true God, yet when read literally, we can admit it excludes the idea of distinct(non-crossing over) persons in the Divine nature.

Thank you for the fun facts on the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Yo, just wanted to say, I will be responding to this eventually, but I'm in the UK without my laptop until late Sunday.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, that is what I meant and exactly what I believe. Where I differ from your position is the idea that there are three persons of God, that are separate, (distinct, if you will) beings.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds like tritheism. But no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Trinity is three distinct Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--united within one Being, God. Each of the three Persons is completely and fully God, yet all three together still compose the same Being, God.

So, I would say Jesus was not just God the Son manifest in the flesh as you would say. I don't even believe Jesus is "God the Son, 2nd member of the trinity." Actually, Jesus the Son of God was simply God(the totality, single God) manifest in the flesh.

And we would agree with this. But we would not say that Jesus is also the Father and the Spirit incarnate in the flesh; Jesus is only the Son incarnate in the flesh.

So, I think that our Ignatius believed as myself. And, when this verse says the Father's passion it means it exactly as you say, by the human, very much in the flesh manifestation of the one true God, yet when read literally, we can admit it excludes the idea of distinct(non-crossing over) persons in the Divine nature.

As I pointed out, the passage from Ignatius doesn't actually mean the Father's passion. It refers, instead, to the Son's passion. When taken in the context of the previous parts of Ignatius's letter, and the whole of the Scriptures, it's the only way it can be read--it is the Son's passion, and not the Father's. We must always keep things within the larger context. When Ignatius composed his epistles, there were no "verses" or even "chapters". Those were later additions made by other people.

Thank you for the fun facts on the Eastern Orthodox churches.

No problem.

 

[Dinner123]

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds like tritheism. But no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Trinity is three distinct Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--united within one Being, God. Each of the three Persons is completely and fully God, yet all three together still compose the same Being, God.

And we would agree with this. But we would not say that Jesus is also the Father and the Spirit incarnate in the flesh; Jesus is only the Son incarnate in the flesh.

As I pointed out, the passage from Ignatius doesn't actually mean the Father's passion. It refers, instead, to the Son's passion. When taken in the context of the previous parts of Ignatius's letter, and the whole of the Scriptures, it's the only way it can be read--it is the Son's passion, and not the Father's. We must always keep things within the larger context. When Ignatius composed his epistles, there were no "verses" or even "chapters". Those were later additions made by other people.
No problem.

Okay, so the trinity is somewhere in between tritheism and modalism?

Can you prove that Jesus was ONLY "God the Son" manifest in the flesh? I can quote from the article you provided to show a different sort of belief.
"And so He ‘manifested Himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word proceeding from silence, and who in all things was pleasing to Him who sent Him’ (Magn. 8.2)"
Who is it that manifested Himself in Jesus? It doesn't say "God the Son" but it clearly says the Father is manifested in His Son. So Jesus the Son is the Father manifest in the flesh.

I realize there were no verses. You claim the wider context proves the trinity doctrine. But, that is far from being the case. Are you using circular reasoning to come to that conclusion?

 

[Shiranui117]

Okay, so the trinity is somewhere in between tritheism and modalism?

Pretty much.

Can you prove that Jesus was ONLY "God the Son" manifest in the flesh? I can quote from the article you provided to show a different sort of belief.
"And so He ‘manifested Himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word proceeding from silence, and who in all things was pleasing to Him who sent Him’ (Magn. 8.2)"
Who is it that manifested Himself in Jesus? It doesn't say "God the Son" but it clearly says the Father is manifested in His Son. So Jesus the Son is the Father manifest in the flesh.

The Father is manifested through the Son.

I realize there were no verses. You claim the wider context proves the trinity doctrine. But, that is far from being the case. Are you using circular reasoning to come to that conclusion?[/quote]
Not at all. Or at least, I am unaware of doing so. You are assuming that the "he" in chapter 11 refers to the Father. Given that chapters 9, 10 and 11 are primarily about Christ's Resurrection, and speak of the Father and the Son as separate (Jesus is raised up by the Father), and the end of chapter 11 speaks of us being "His members," clearly referring to us being members of Christ's body, not the Father's (see Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12:27, Eph. 5:29-30). I'm using the wider context to show who the "he" in question is referring to. You assume it is the Father, because of its immediate positioning just before the "He." But looking at the language St. Ignatius employs, this "he" cannot refer to the Father, but only to Christ.

St. Ignatius makes the same distinction in his Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4:

Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, ye may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that ye are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus ye may always enjoy communion with God.

Also, Jesus Christ does not need embody the Father in order for the Son to manifest the Father. See John 17:6, where Jesus is praying to the Father:

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."

Jesus is also the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). The fact that Jesus prays to the Father as a separate person, and the fact that the Father in Heaven testifies to the Son on earth, would clearly indicate a distinction between the two Persons.

 

[Dinner123]

The Father is manifested through the Son.

Jesus clearly taught the Father was in Him. "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
That goes with Col 2:8-9
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

And Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." So, the Spirit of the Father is what indwells the body of the Son which is the church.

Not at all. Or at least, I am unaware of doing so. You are assuming that the "he" in chapter 11 refers to the Father. Given that chapters 9, 10 and 11 are primarily about Christ's Resurrection, and speak of the Father and the Son as separate (Jesus is raised up by the Father), and the end of chapter 11 speaks of us being "His members," clearly referring to us being members of Christ's body, not the Father's (see Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12:27, Eph. 5:29-30). I'm using the wider context to show who the "he" in question is referring to. You assume it is the Father, because of its immediate positioning just before the "He." But looking at the language St. Ignatius employs, this "he" cannot refer to the Father, but only to Christ.

You say this "he" cannot refer to the Father but only the Son. You're assuming that the Father and the Son are separate right off. The "he" can really refer to both as one being.

St. Ignatius makes the same distinction in his Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4:

Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, ye may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that ye are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus ye may always enjoy communion with God.

Right, but I'm not arguing against that. Of course all that is true. Jesus is the head of the body of the Son of God. (Col 1:18) This is Jesus' flesh that was born the Son of God. (Luke 1:35) As a cornerstone, sure foundation for the temple of the Spirit of God. (Isa. 28:16) God is head over the whole body including the head of the body itself which is the human nature of Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3)
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Notice that Paul doesn't say the Father is head of Christ. But simply God is the head of Christ. That is the Divine nature is head over His own temple which begins with the flesh of Jesus and is the totality of the church the body of Christ.

And, it is as 1 Tim. 2:5 says. One God and one mediator the man(human) Christ Jesus. That is the duality of His nature. Not that He is two persons of God. But, He is one God that has manifested Himself in one man.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

As Ignatius says "There is one Physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; God incarnate; true life in death; both of Mary and of God: first passible, then impassible; even Jesus Christ our Lord."

That is the duality of Christ's nature. Created, and uncreated at once. Flesh and Spirit, God and man. As Isa. 9:6 says. He is both a child that is born(human) and yet the "Everlasting Father" at once.

Also, Jesus Christ does not need embody the Father in order for the Son to manifest the Father. See John 17:6, where Jesus is praying to the Father:

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."

Jesus is also the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

But, now let's go to the wider context. Not only does Jesus say that He manifests the name of the Father. But, He also says to Philip's question, show us the Father. "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" Which was a fulfillment of what He said before in Luke 10:22 "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." So, the Son is revealing the identity of the Father to Philip. Himself.

Yes, Jesus is the image of the invisible God which is the Father. However, He is the image of God in human flesh. Before then He is the invisible God. As Ignatius says, and I quote your article here:
"He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2)."

So Jesus is a manifestation of the invisible God in the flesh. That's what Ignatius apparently believes. And, if you ask what about now? Jesus rose again His flesh was animated and His flesh is alive in heaven. Still a duality of natures. Except now He has a body Celestial. Which John saw when Jesus spoke to Him. He had eyes like fire etc. That is the Son of man in heaven, the beginning of the temple of God. The firstborn from the dead. The beginning of God's new creation. He is filled with the invisible Spirit of God and is God in-bodied.

The fact that Jesus prays to the Father as a separate person, and the fact that the Father in Heaven testifies to the Son on earth, would clearly indicate a distinction between the two Persons.

I may repeat my main argument here; which is the duality of Christ's nature. Jesus was in the flesh and as a born Son of God He submits to God as His Father in all things. He must walk by faith as all flesh should and prayer is part of that. He is in fact a Man communing with His God and Father. Why would God need to pray to God? If you think it is one member of the trinity praying to another. God is God and doesn't need to pray to Himself except in the flesh. Even trinitarians teach that Jesus had a duality of natures. That He was both God and man.

God spoke from heaven to testify of His Son, not to confuse people. But, to show them that this Son of Man was indeed His own Son. God is omnipresent and can in fact be in heaven and manifest on earth at once.

 

[Shiranui117]

Jesus clearly taught the Father was in Him. "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
That goes with Col 2:8-9
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

And Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." So, the Spirit of the Father is what indwells the body of the Son which is the church.

You say this "he" cannot refer to the Father but only the Son. You're assuming that the Father and the Son are separate right off. The "he" can really refer to both as one being.

I agree that the Father and the Son are not separate, merely distinct. They still together constitute the one Being of God, yet they are each full and distinct Persons in their own right.

Right, but I'm not arguing against that. Of course all that is true. Jesus is the head of the body of the Son of God. (Col 1:18) This is Jesus' flesh that was born the Son of God. (Luke 1:35) As a cornerstone, sure foundation for the temple of the Spirit of God. (Isa. 28:16) God is head over the whole body including the head of the body itself which is the human nature of Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3)
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Jesus has a human soul and mind and will, as well.

Notice that Paul doesn't say the Father is head of Christ. But simply God is the head of Christ. That is the Divine nature is head over His own temple which begins with the flesh of Jesus and is the totality of the church the body of Christ.

Fair.

And, it is as 1 Tim. 2:5 says. One God and one mediator the man(human) Christ Jesus. That is the duality of His nature. Not that He is two persons of God. But, He is one God that has manifested Himself in one man.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Right, Christ is only one Person of God, the Son. The Son is fully God. The Father is fully God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence and undivided. That is what I profess.

As Ignatius says "There is one Physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; God incarnate; true life in death; both of Mary and of God: first passible, then impassible; even Jesus Christ our Lord."

Agreed.

That is the duality of Christ's nature. Created, and uncreated at once. Flesh and Spirit, God and man. As Isa. 9:6 says. He is both a child that is born(human) and yet the "Everlasting Father" at once.

The "Everlasting Father" bit is very interesting. It certainly is an assertion of Christ's Divinity, and testifying that He is one with the Father. I still do not want to confuse or mix the Persons of Father and Son. Do you believe that they are one and the same Person, or do you admit that there is a distinction between Father and Son?

But, now let's go to the wider context. Not only does Jesus say that He manifests the name of the Father. But, He also says to Philip's question, show us the Father. "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" Which was a fulfillment of what He said before in Luke 10:22 "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." So, the Son is revealing the identity of the Father to Philip. Himself.

Yes, Jesus is the image of the invisible God which is the Father. However, He is the image of God in human flesh. Before then He is the invisible God. As Ignatius says, and I quote your article here:
"He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2)."

So Jesus is a manifestation of the invisible God in the flesh. That's what Ignatius apparently believes. And, if you ask what about now? Jesus rose again His flesh was animated and His flesh is alive in heaven. Still a duality of natures. Except now He has a body Celestial. Which John saw when Jesus spoke to Him. He had eyes like fire etc. That is the Son of man in heaven, the beginning of the temple of God. The firstborn from the dead. The beginning of God's new creation. He is filled with the invisible Spirit of God and is God in-bodied.

I may repeat my main argument here; which is the duality of Christ's nature. Jesus was in the flesh and as a born Son of God He submits to God as His Father in all things. He must walk by faith as all flesh should and prayer is part of that. He is in fact a Man communing with His God and Father. Why would God need to pray to God? If you think it is one member of the trinity praying to another. God is God and doesn't need to pray to Himself except in the flesh. Even trinitarians teach that Jesus had a duality of natures. That He was both God and man.

God spoke from heaven to testify of His Son, not to confuse people. But, to show them that this Son of Man was indeed His own Son. God is omnipresent and can in fact be in heaven and manifest on earth at once.

This is all true, and Trinitarians would agree with you on every point. The Proskomedia (the Orthodox mini-service of preparation of the bread and wine before the Liturgy) speaks of Christ being in the grave bodily, descending to Hades in His soul, and escorting the good thief to Paradise all at once.

 

[Dinner123]

Jesus has a human soul and mind and will, as well.

Right, Christ is only one Person of God, the Son. The Son is fully God. The Father is fully God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence and undivided. That is what I profess.


I still do not want to confuse or mix the Persons of Father and Son. Do you believe that they are one and the same Person, or do you admit that there is a distinction between Father and Son?

I expected you to agree with some of what I said, but I'm surprised you agreed to almost all of it. That is interesting about the Proskomedia. I can't say for sure, but that sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation.

But, when it comes to persons, I must disagree with you. God manifests Himself in different ways. You will agree that Jesus for example, has so many different “portraits” of Himself. These portraits are manifestations of Jesus, but we would not call these distinct persons would we? We know Jesus is all of these but, He is one person. These are simply revelations about Jesus' nature. To list only a few of them you will know that Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lamb of God, the Chief Cornerstone of the temple of God, the Door, the Way, the Good Shepherd, the High priest of the order of Melchizedek who offers the sacrifice(the Lamb of God) and you will agree that He is the God of the temple as well who receives the sacrifice.

So, Jesus remains the same, but the only thing that has changed is our perspective(understanding) of Him. Therefore, I conclude that the Father, Son and holy Spirit are not different persons. But, different revelations of the same God. God relates to us in ways we can understand. He is in an infinite multidimensional Being that is beyond our limited understanding. We cannot know these things except that which He gives unto us.

All that being said, there is a distinction. But, as I've been saying, I believe that distinction is between the Divine and human natures. Jesus (who has a human soul mind and will) referred to God the totality of God as His Father. And the holy Spirit is God's Spirit.

Therefore, assured of this: that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. We realize that the name of Jesus is the name that God chose to bear in the manifestation. Keep in mind that this is not just God the Son that has chosen to manifest Himself with this name, but the Father, Son and holy Spirit are simply different revelations of the nature of the same exact God. And, therefore we believe in baptism in the name of Jesus which is the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit. To be precise the name by which God chose to reveal Himself in the flesh. Every knee will bow to that name and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. The Son of God is the human manifestation of the Father.

The Son did exist, in foreknowledge and predestination with God. He existed in God's will and His appearing was established beforehand by God's spoken Word. In other words, God had already spoken and planned to come in the flesh. But, there was an appointed time when He became in reality what He was already in foreknowledge. So the Sonship is due to the incarnation which was planned(indeed, unfailingly established, spoken from the mouth of God) before the foundation of the world. Therefore, the Sonship is not because of some unknown, extra-biblical, pre-existing reason. It is by human birth. (Luke 1:35) God doesn't change (Heb. 13:8), but He does do new things. (Isaiah 43:19)

 

[Muffled]

Many translations in history--put the a in John 1:1--even trinity translations.

Yes Jesus said--the Father and I are one( in purpose) because it goes on to say we all will be one with them--not being God, but in purpose--that purpose is living 24?7 to do Gods will.
Jesus also taught--The Father is greater than I.

In the light of Daniel 12:4-- every religion claiming Christianity before the last days had error teachings( the hidden truths became abundant in these last days) --- so then corrections to error teachings had to be made--the ones who are correcting the error teachings will prove to be right in the end.

I believe this is an addition to the text that is made because the people involved don't like what the Bible says. I believe such people make the word of God into a lie.

So the JW's think they know the truth better than God does? I believe it is human error in the so called corrections.

 

[Shiranui117]

I expected you to agree with some of what I said, but I'm surprised you agreed to almost all of it.

Yeah, though I did mess up one part of the quoting thing, making it look like one of your statements was one of my own I tend to do that a lot.

That is interesting about the Proskomedia. I can't say for sure, but that sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation.

Right. Here's the relevant text of the Proskomedia itself:

In the grave bodily, but in Hades with Thy soul as God; in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the inexpressible.

But, when it comes to persons, I must disagree with you. God manifests Himself in different ways. You will agree that Jesus for example, has so many different “portraits” of Himself. These portraits are manifestations of Jesus, but we would not call these distinct persons would we?

He has titles, yes, but all these titles refer clearly to one Person. We don't see Jesus manifesting one day as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the next day as the Pantocrator and Judge of the world.

We know Jesus is all of these but, He is one person. These are simply revelations about Jesus' nature.

I don't believe most of the titles refer to His nature (aside from, of course, the Theanthropos (God-Man), Only-Begotten Son of God, God the Son, Word of God, etc. Many of them also clarify what our relationship with Him is and must be.

To list only a few of them you will know that Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lamb of God, the Chief Cornerstone of the temple of God, the Door, the Way, the Good Shepherd, the High priest of the order of Melchizedek who offers the sacrifice(the Lamb of God) and you will agree that He is the God of the temple as well who receives the sacrifice.

Yes, and all of these show Christ's roles in our salvation.

So, Jesus remains the same, but the only thing that has changed is our perspective(understanding) of Him. Therefore, I conclude that the Father, Son and holy Spirit are not different persons. But, different revelations of the same God. God relates to us in ways we can understand. He is in an infinite multidimensional Being that is beyond our limited understanding. We cannot know these things except that which He gives unto us.

Yes, He is beyond all understanding, and I would even agree that they are all different revelations of the same God. But it goes further than that. Even after Christ had fully reassumed all the splendor, wisdom and might of His Divinity, He still refers to His Father as to another Person. For example, in Revelations 3:12,

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

And if you look at how Jesus opens up this dictation to John for the letters to the seven churches, you'll see that it isn't just Jesus speaking from His humanity, but both humanity and Divinity.

And one thing about the one God and one Mediator... The one mediator cannot be Jesus' human nature alone, because that would amount to there being two persons within Jesus Christ, and there is no union between the human and Divine natures if this is the case. Rather, Jesus Christ with both natures is the Mediator, and the one God is the Trinity.

All that being said, there is a distinction. But, as I've been saying, I believe that distinction is between the Divine and human natures. Jesus (who has a human soul mind and will) referred to God the totality of God as His Father. And the holy Spirit is God's Spirit.

So you only admit of a distinction between the human and divine natures. How strong is this distinction? Do you go as far as Nestorianism, to admit that there are two persons in Christ, one human and one divine, or do you affirm the Chalcedonian formula of the two natures being united in the one Person of Jesus Christ, without division, separation, mixing or absorption of one nature by/from the other?

Therefore, assured of this: that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. We realize that the name of Jesus is the name that God chose to bear in the manifestation. Keep in mind that this is not just God the Son that has chosen to manifest Himself with this name, but the Father, Son and holy Spirit are simply different revelations of the nature of the same exact God.

And, therefore we believe in baptism in the name of Jesus which is the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit. To be precise the name by which God chose to reveal Himself in the flesh. Every knee will bow to that name and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. The Son of God is the human manifestation of the Father.

Then why are the Father and the Spirit never referred to as Jesus, only the Son?

The Son did exist, in foreknowledge and predestination with God. He existed in God's will and His appearing was established beforehand by God's spoken Word. In other words, God had already spoken and planned to come in the flesh. But, there was an appointed time when He became in reality what He was already in foreknowledge. So the Sonship is due to the incarnation which was planned(indeed, unfailingly established, spoken from the mouth of God) before the foundation of the world. Therefore, the Sonship is not because of some unknown, extra-biblical, pre-existing reason. It is by human birth. (Luke 1:35) God doesn't change (Heb. 13:8), but He does do new things. (Isaiah 43:19)

So you say that the Son is not the Son because of His relationship to the Father, merely because of the Incarnation. Is that right? And the Son only existed prior to the Incarnation as an intention and spoken Word of God?

Would you say that the relationship between the Father and the Son is more akin to two facets on a gem, or is there a true Father-Son relationship?

 

[kjw47]

I believe this is an addition to the text that is made because the people involved don't like what the Bible says. I believe such people make the word of God into a lie.

So the JW's think they know the truth better than God does? I believe it is human error in the so called corrections.

Daniel 12:4--- God is giving these truths to his chosen.