Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Dogknox20]

Worship the Lord God Almighty; The Father; “Yahweh”, His only name by our wording, is his name and that name is for eternity:

• ‘Eternal life depends on knowing HIM; the only true God, and in knowing Jesus Christ, whom HE sent!
  
• Behold the servant of Yahweh, the beloved CHOSEN BY YAHWEH, in whom the soul of Yahweh delights. He, Yahweh, will pour out His holy spirit onto this servant and he will do do good and bring righteousness to the nations…
• And as Jesus came up out of the water a breeze as gentle as a dove slighting on a ledge came down on Jesus - and a voice from Heaven said: ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased!’
• People have you not heard what happened in judea when God anointed Jesus with holy spiritual and with power - and he went around doing good; healing the sick and reSighting the blind, because GOD was WITH him!

Yes, Jesus did not receive worship from anyone. He received obeisance - and that is why the Jews did no arrest him nor his followers when they witnessed the obeisance.

When I ask a trinitarian about this lack of arrest even though the Jews were actively seeking ways to have Jesus killed, and such an act of being worshipped certainly would have given them huge cause, there is a strange vacuum of silence… almost as if they hadn’t thought of the reason and couldn’t think of one now!

Yes, if Jesus had received - or was given - worship, the Jews would have taken action. Reality strikes deeply that they took no action because the act WAS NOT WORSHIP but OBEISANCE which is perfectly legal to give to ANYONE OF PRECEDENCE IN AUTHORITY.

Howbeit that King David’s wife, while David was sick in his dotage, ‘Worshipped’ at David’s feet - yet no one claims that David received ‘worship’ from his wife?

Why?

Because common sense and reality dictated that it was not ‘worship’ but ‘obeisance’.

So, why doesn’t common sense and reality not apply to Trinitarians?
The reason is obvious!!!

Soapy Okay.... Where is the word obeisance used by these scripture scholars? Not one EXPERT used the word.. "obeisance"!
.
John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
KJ21 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “In truth Thou art the Son of God.”
ASV And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
AMP Then those in the boat worshiped Him [with awe-inspired reverence], saying, “Truly You are the Son of God!”
AMPC And those in the boat knelt and worshiped Him, saying, Truly You are the Son of God!
BRG Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
CSB Then those in the boat worshiped him and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
CEB Then those in the boat worshipped Jesus and said, “You must be God’s Son!”
CJB The men in the boat fell down before him and exclaimed, “You really are God’s son!”
CEV The men in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “You really are the Son of God!”
DARBY But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son.
DLNT And the ones in the boat gave-worship to Him, saying, “Truly You are God’s Son”.
DRA And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.
ERV Then the followers in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “You really are the Son of God.”
EHV Those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
ESV And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
ESVUK And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
EXB Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
GNV Then they that were in the ship, came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
GW The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, “You are truly the Son of God.”
GNT Then the disciples in the boat worshiped Jesus. “Truly you are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.
HCSB Then those in the boat worshiped Him and said, “Truly You are the Son of God!”
ICB Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
ISV Then the men in the boat began to worship Jesus, saying, “You certainly are the Son of God!”
PHILLIPS “Come on, then,” replied Jesus. Peter stepped down from the boat and did walk on the water, making for Jesus. But when he saw the fury of the wind he panicked and began to sink, calling out, “Lord save me!” At once Jesus reached out his hand and caught him, saying, “You little-faith! What made you lose your nerve like that?” Then, when they were both aboard the boat, the wind dropped. The whole crew came and knelt down before Jesus, crying, “You are indeed the Son of God!”
JUB Then those that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Truly thou art the Son of God.
KJV Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
AKJV Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
LEB So those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
TLB The others sat there, awestruck. “You really are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.
MSG The two of them climbed into the boat, and the wind died down. The disciples in the boat, having watched the whole thing, worshiped Jesus, saying, “This is it! You are God’s Son for sure!”
MEV Then those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
MOUNCE And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NOG The men in the boat bowed down in front of Yeshua and said, “You are truly the Son of God.”
NABRE Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”
NASB And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly God’s Son!”
NASB1995 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
NCB Those in the boat fell to their knees in worship, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NCV Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
NET Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NIRV Then those in the boat worshiped Jesus. They said, “You really are the Son of God!”
NIV Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NIVUK Then those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’
NKJV Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
NLV Those in the boat worshiped Jesus. They said, “For sure, You are the Son of God!”
NLT Then the disciples worshiped him. “You really are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.

 

[Dogknox20]

NMB Then the men in the boat came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth, you are the Son of God.
NRSV And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NRSVA And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’
NRSVACE And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’
NRSVCE And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NTE The people in the boat worshipped him. ‘You really are God’s son!’ they said.
OJB And the ones in the sirah (boat) fell down before Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, saying, Beemes (Actually) you are the Ben HaElohim!
TPT Then all the disciples bowed down before him and worshiped Jesus. They said in adoration, “You are truly the Son of God!”
RGT Then those who were in the ship, came and worshipped Him, saying, “Truly, You are the Son of God!”
RSV And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
RSVCE And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
TLV And those in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You really are Ben-Elohim!”
VOICE And the disciples worshiped Him. Disciples: Truly You are the Son of God.
WEB Those who were in the boat came and worshiped him, saying, “You are truly the Son of God!”
WE Then the men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus. They said, `You really are the Son of God.'
WYC And they, that were in the boat, came, and worshipped him, and said [saying], Verily, thou art God's Son.
YLT and those in the boat having come, did bow to him, saying, `Truly -- God's Son art thou.'

 

[Clear]

1) THE TACIT CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO READ MINDS DOES NOT HELP CREDIBILITY
Soapy said : “It’s just the same with Trinitarians ; of which you are one but don’t yet know it….” (post #1200)
So now you can read minds and determine individuals believe something they thought they did not believe?

Soapy said : “Also, you dismiss the claim I made that angels, let alone the greatest and most powerful and spiritually glorious of all Yahweh’s angels, could possibly make a human body (post #1200)
Where did I dismiss this additional claim you made?
Is this another episode of mind reading?



2) ATTEMPTS OF STAY FOCUSED ON CLAIMS MADE VERSUS A WANDERING CONVERSATION
Soapy said : “Clear, you seem fixated on the claims I made that it was ‘the angel who became known as Satan’ to whom Yahweh said, ‘Let us create man in our image!’(post #1200)
You seem fixated on deflections and re-directions and complaints that are irrelevant to the questions you are asked regarding the claims you make.

What I notice is that you claim your beliefs are clear to you from the bible text BUT, when asked to provide the text you base your theory on, you want to talk about anything else (usually the trinity) rather than what bible text you base your belief upon.




3) WHY IS ONE INDIVIDUALS' MODERN THEORIES TO BE PREFERRED OVER THE BELIEFS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANTS?

Soapy said : “You say you found ‘Historical Data’ that God was talking to Jesus when God said, ‘Let us make msn in our image!’ (post #1200)

What the early Christian literature shows is that the early Christians themselves believed it was NOT satan to whom God spake “Let us create man in our own likeness (Gen 1:27)”, but instead, they believed it was Jesus whom God was speaking to (That is Jesus who was referred to as "the Word", who "was in the beginning with God". john 1:1).
The early Christians also tell us they did not believe that Satan created the body of Satan, but rather they believed that God created the body of Adam.
I believe that the earliest and most authentic christian traditions are more correct than later traditions.

IF your theories are to be believed in preference to the beliefs of the early Christians, then Why are your theories to take precedent and priority over the interpretations and beliefs of the earliest Christians?




4) IS IT ABSURD TO STUDY ANCIENT CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ANCIENT CHRISTIAN BELIEFS WERE?

Soapy said : “Please, please, please…… can’t you see how absurd that claimed historical data is? Oh, no… no you can’t because it’s ‘Historical data’… I’m so rolling on the floor in sad laughter!!!!! (post #1200)

1) No, I don’t see why your beliefs are more logical and rational and more historically coherent than the beliefs of the most original Christians we have record of.
Why are your theories to take precedent and priority over the interpretations and beliefs of the earliest Christians?
Can you offer some reason?

2) If you are actually “rolling on the floor in sad laughter”, then you need to see a psychiatrist.

3) If you are lying about “rolling on the floor in sad laughter”, then this claim is simply another lie.



5) DOES IT MATTER IF "BIBLICAL QUOTES" ACTUALLY COME FROM THE BIBLE OR ARE POORLY TRANSLATED "PARAPHRASING" OF THE BIBLE GOOD ENOUGH?
Soapy said : “I posted Luke 4:6 to you BUT you claim it wasn’t the EXACT WORDING and so was NOT VALID…. Hmmm… sounds like you are a really bad loser!!!
Here it is again: “I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them,” the devil said, “because they are mine to give to anyone I please. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:6-7) (post #1200)


1) This is NOT the “quote” you originally gave to readers.
You have switched "quotes" on the readers.
Do you think readers will not notice that you switched quotes on us?
You originally “quoted” : “Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (soapy, in Post #1114)


2) I simply pointed out that your “biblical quote” you tried to pass off to readers, was not really a “biblical quote” and was, in fact, not found in any authentic biblical text.

I simply asked you : "This seems to be a quote (or maybe an interpretation of a quote..?). Can you explain where this specific quote came from and why you offered this specific statement.? (Clear, in post #1116)


3) When you depart from the authentic text and modify the bible to make it appear to support your claims this is inappropriate paraphrasing.


Soapy said : “Do you need EXACT WORDING in order to understand the meaning? (post #1200)
What readers do NOT like is to have you inappropriately modify the text to try to trick them into believing the bible says something it does not.
Sometimes people offer an incorrect quote to try to support their own views.

I might point out that you and Dogknox20 are presently offering different opinions on the significance of the words "worship" versus "obeisance" (which differ in nuance).
Your debate with Dogknox20 on whether "worship" or "obeisance" is more correct tells readers that that "exact wording" is even important to YOU when YOU are trying to support YOUR belief.
Sometimes exact wording becomes important.


Clear
φιακακσινεω

 

[Soapy]

Soapy Okay.... Where is the word obeisance used by these scripture scholars? Not one EXPERT used the word.. "obeisance"!
.
John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
KJ21 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “In truth Thou art the Son of God.”
ASV And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
AMP Then those in the boat worshiped Him [with awe-inspired reverence], saying, “Truly You are the Son of God!”
AMPC And those in the boat knelt and worshiped Him, saying, Truly You are the Son of God!
BRG Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
CSB Then those in the boat worshiped him and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
CEB Then those in the boat worshipped Jesus and said, “You must be God’s Son!”
CJB The men in the boat fell down before him and exclaimed, “You really are God’s son!”
CEV The men in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “You really are the Son of God!”
DARBY But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son.
DLNT And the ones in the boat gave-worship to Him, saying, “Truly You are God’s Son”.
DRA And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.
ERV Then the followers in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “You really are the Son of God.”
EHV Those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
ESV And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
ESVUK And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
EXB Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
GNV Then they that were in the ship, came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
GW The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, “You are truly the Son of God.”
GNT Then the disciples in the boat worshiped Jesus. “Truly you are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.
HCSB Then those in the boat worshiped Him and said, “Truly You are the Son of God!”
ICB Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
ISV Then the men in the boat began to worship Jesus, saying, “You certainly are the Son of God!”
PHILLIPS “Come on, then,” replied Jesus. Peter stepped down from the boat and did walk on the water, making for Jesus. But when he saw the fury of the wind he panicked and began to sink, calling out, “Lord save me!” At once Jesus reached out his hand and caught him, saying, “You little-faith! What made you lose your nerve like that?” Then, when they were both aboard the boat, the wind dropped. The whole crew came and knelt down before Jesus, crying, “You are indeed the Son of God!”
JUB Then those that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Truly thou art the Son of God.
KJV Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
AKJV Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
LEB So those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
TLB The others sat there, awestruck. “You really are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.
MSG The two of them climbed into the boat, and the wind died down. The disciples in the boat, having watched the whole thing, worshiped Jesus, saying, “This is it! You are God’s Son for sure!”
MEV Then those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
MOUNCE And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NOG The men in the boat bowed down in front of Yeshua and said, “You are truly the Son of God.”
NABRE Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”
NASB And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly God’s Son!”
NASB1995 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
NCB Those in the boat fell to their knees in worship, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NCV Then those who were in the boat worshiped Jesus and said, “Truly you are the Son of God!”
NET Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NIRV Then those in the boat worshiped Jesus. They said, “You really are the Son of God!”
NIV Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
NIVUK Then those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’
NKJV Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
NLV Those in the boat worshiped Jesus. They said, “For sure, You are the Son of God!”
NLT Then the disciples worshiped him. “You really are the Son of God!” they exclaimed.

There was no need for the ‘proof text verses’.
The scriptures TRANSLATORS were trinitarian and under orders to translate trinitarianally.

But I notice that you don’t include any verses where some one other than Jesus was supposedly ‘Worshipped’!!

Oh, is that because the trinitarian translators uses ‘Bowed down to’ instead… ooooh naughty translators!!!

• “Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the LORD your God.” So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king.” (1 Chro 59:20)

‘Prostrating’ is ‘Shachah’ (Hebrew).

• “And Bathsheba bowed down on her face on the floor and she worshiped before the King, and she said: “Let my Lord King David live for eternity!” (1 Kings 1:31)
• “Bethsabee bowed herself, and worshipped the king. And the king said to her: What is thy will?” (1 Kings 1:16)
  
• “And Bath-sheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?” (1 Kings 1:16?

All ‘Shachah’… So did King David accept SHACHAH from his wife?

From your interpretation, YES, … SO you are saying that King David was ALMIGHTY GOD…

• “The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.’” (Matthew 18:26)
• “The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

Both translations show an obeisance hence the reason none of the Jews called blasphemy on Jesus or his disciples… Showing obeisance is not a sin…

Notice that ‘WORSHIP OF GOD’ was carried ‘On the mountain’ (Samaritans) and ‘In Jerusalem’ (Jews) and so was not a simple thing that occurred every time a person bowed before someone in high authority above them.

 

[Dogknox20]

There was no need for the ‘proof text verses’.
The scriptures TRANSLATORS were trinitarian and under orders to translate trinitarianally.

Notice that ‘WORSHIP OF GOD’ was carried ‘On the mountain’ (Samaritans) and ‘In Jerusalem’ (Jews) and so was not a simple thing that occurred every time a person bowed before someone in high authority above them.

.
Your words... The scriptures TRANSLATORS were trinitarian and under orders to translate trinitarianally
I reply..
NO you are wrong! They are Scripture Scholars! Under ORDERS from whom!?
Where did you get your information? If it is the Watch Tower then it proves beyond all doubt "the Watch Tower" tells lies! LOGIC ALONE says: Impossible for so many "SCHOLERS" to tell a lie!
You cannot get all of them saying the same thing by ordering them! FACT: They TRANSLASTE the Greek and Hebrew as they see it written! HAVE...
Soapy have you even considered that it's the Unscholarly work of the Watch Tower changing the words of God to what they want God to have said!?
It's a documented FACT over 400 scripture changes have been done by the Watch Tower!
LOOK NOT ONE scripture Scholar has "A" God in there interpretation! Its a historical fact the Watch Tower did not have scripture Scholars when they made the "New World"!!
KJ21 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ASV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
AMP In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
AMPC In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
BRG In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CSB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CEB In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
CJB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CEV In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
DARBY In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
DLNT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
DRA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ERV Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
EHV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ESVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
EXB In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; C the Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [C the Father], and the Word was [fully] God.
GNV That Word begotten of God before all worlds, 2 and which was ever with the Father, 14 is made man.  6, 7 For what end John was sent from God. 15 His preaching of Christ’s office. 19, 20 The record that he bare given out unto the Priests. 40 The calling of Andrew, 42 of Peter, 43 Philip, 45 and Nathanael. In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
GW In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GNT In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
HCSB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ICB Before the world began, there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ISV In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
PHILLIPS At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
JUB ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
AKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
LEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
TLB Before anything else existed, there was Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
MSG The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.
MEV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
MOUNCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with · God, and the Word was God.
NOG In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NABRE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB1995 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NCB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NCV In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NET In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
NIRV In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NLV The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NMB In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
NRSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NRSVA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NRSVACE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NRSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NTE In the beginning was the Word. The Word was close beside God, and the Word was God.
OJB Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra]

 

[Dogknox20]

TPT In the beginning the Living Expression was already there. And the Living Expression was with God, yet fully God.
RGT In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.
RSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
RSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
TLV In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
VOICE Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.
WEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
WE The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
WYC In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]
YLT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

 

[Soapy]

.
Your words... The scriptures TRANSLATORS were trinitarian and under orders to translate trinitarianally
I reply..
NO you are wrong! They are Scripture Scholars! Under ORDERS from whom!?
Where did you get your information? If it is the Watch Tower then it proves beyond all doubt "the Watch Tower" tells lies! LOGIC ALONE says: Impossible for so many "SCHOLERS" to tell a lie!
You cannot get all of them saying the same thing by ordering them!

Yow, guy… you arguing with the wrong person. I am not JW.

And I said… ‘Translators’ … you changed that to ‘Scholars’.

The Bible Translators are the WORKERs who did the translation UNDER THE ORDERS of their Scholars… who themselves were TRINITARIAN Because that was what the ‘HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH’ underwritten by the Roman Empire dictated to the churches that that was the belief and any other belief would result in severe punishment.

Are you going to tell me that King James didn’t dictate to his translators what he wanted to see translated?

And this argument about ‘God’ or ‘A God’, to me is completely moot!

The problem is no one has DEFINED what they mean by ‘GOD’.

Not even Trinitarians dare to properly define what ‘GOD’ means and the result is as you see it… disagreements between belief protagonists each with their own definition… or worse… no definition.

‘God’ is a TITLE… so what does the title pertain to.

A title can apply to many different entities by context.

According to your belief, how would you define the title ‘GOD’?

 

[Dogknox20]

Yow, guy… you arguing with the wrong person. I am not JW.

And I said… ‘Translators’ … you changed that to ‘Scholars’.

The Bible Translators are the WORKERs who did the translation UNDER THE ORDERS of their Scholars… who themselves were TRINITARIAN Because that was what the ‘HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH’ underwritten by the Roman Empire dictated to the churches that that was the belief and any other belief would result in severe punishment.

Are you going to tell me that King James didn’t dictate to his translators what he wanted to see translated?

And this argument about ‘God’ or ‘A God’, to me is completely moot!

The problem is no one has DEFINED what they mean by ‘GOD’.

Not even Trinitarians dare to properly define what ‘GOD’ means and the result is as you see it… disagreements between belief protagonists each with their own definition… or worse… no definition.

‘God’ is a TITLE… so what does the title pertain to.

A title can apply to many different entities by context.

According to your belief, how would you define the title ‘GOD’?

.
Soapy Christians worship Jesus because he is God! For two Thousand years Jesus has been worshiped by Christians! You are barking up the wrong tree!
Translators or Scholars it does not matter... ALL Christians worship Jesus! If you don't worship Jesus then I dare say you are NOT Christian!

Arius WAS a Christian until he taught "Jesus is not god" Arius was then removed from the Christians and placed OUTSIDE of the Christian communion! IF....

Soapy if you are OUTSIDE you cannot be INSIDE at the same time! You say; you are NOT JW then what are you????

 

[TiggerII]

Dogknox wrote: "Arius WAS a Christian until he taught "Jesus is not god" Arius was then removed from the Christians and placed OUTSIDE of the Christian communion!"
......................................
Three views were advocated at the Nicene council. (Actually, the real question to be decided at this council was only the first step by Alexandrian philosophizers [and their Roman sympathizers] toward establishing a new doctrine of God. The question was only, “Is Jesus absolutely equal to the Father: all-powerful, always existing, and of the very same substance, or not?” The introduction of a “third person” as being equal to God was not yet being attempted officially.)

(1) Basically, Athanasius, the trinitarian from Alexandria, said,
“Yes, Jesus is absolutely equal to the Father. He has always existed beside the Father. He is of the very same substance or essence (Homoousios) [105-107] as the Father. He is absolute God and must be worshiped as God.”

There was a very small minority of Western Bishops at the council who agreed with him (those most influenced by Alexandria and Neo-Platonism, including the trinitarian Bishop Hosius).[108]

(2) There was another (much larger) minority of Bishops at the council who were led by Arius.

Basically, Arius said,
“Jesus is not God, although he could be called ‘divine.’ He was made by God (the Father alone) so there was a time when he did not exist! He was made out of nothing and is, therefore, of an entirely different substance (or Essence) from that of God. He must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

(Apparently Arius also believed that in his heavenly pre-existence Jesus had been the highest of angels. But this was not an invention of Arius. It was a much earlier Christian tradition which Arius was upholding - p. 50, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985 - but the more recent trinitarians had rejected it.

“Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ [the Angel of Jehovah] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant.” - Gen. 16:7 footnote, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.)

(3) The vast majority (more than 200 bishops) of those at the Council of Nicaea were led by Eusebius of Caesarea. These were the Semi-Arians (see The American People’s Encyclopedia, 1954, p. 8-207). They strongly agreed with the Arians that Jesus was not God[109-111] and must not be worshipped as God! They believed that Jesus did not always exist.

Basically, they said,
“The Father (God alone) generated Jesus (not out of nothing as Arius believed, but) from a substance similar (Homoi ousios) to His own. He is not equal to God, but is subordinate to Him, [118] even though he is above all the rest of creation. Jesus must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

"By contrast [with the Arians and semi-Arians], the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.

"For young militants like Athanasius, however, ... Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith." - p.74, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Notwithstanding the vast majority of bishops' unshakably strong insistence upon a non-trinitarian view of God, the determination and power of the Emperor- supported (and Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist-influenced) bishops of the West prevailed after months of stormy debates.

Eusebius of Caesarea presented the baptismal creed of his own Palestinian community to the Nicene Council. It did not satisfy the trinitarians.

“Accordingly, they [Constantine and Hosius primarily] took another baptismal creed, of much the same type as Eusebius’s, and altered its text to serve their purpose, in the process creating a new, non-liturgical type of confession. .... In the text itself, they inserted the significant expressions ‘true God from true God,’ ‘begotten not made,’ ‘from the substance [ousia] of the Father,’ and - most important of all, as it turned out - ‘of one substance [homoousios] with the Father.’ .... From the very beginning, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and non-technical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. [According to historian Gibbon it was a mysterious term “which either party was free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets.” - p. 686, vol. 1, Random House.] It could in principle be taken to mean exact sameness of being, but it could also be taken to suggest no more than a significant degree of similarity between Father and Son [Origen, in fact, used the term to show merely a ‘unity of will’ between the Father and the Son [88] - p. 46, Lohse.] - which, of course, everyone was glad to affirm. On the other hand, the term was non-Scriptural, it had very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius’ point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed [including the one that was finally adopted and enforced by the Roman Church].”

--- The trinitarians, however, assured Eusebius (and the large majority of other Bishops opposed to them) that homoousios in this new creed would not be interpreted in the way they feared.[105] - pp. 134, 135, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Scribners, 1985.

After Eusebius failed to get a compromise (concerning “substance” or “essence,” but which still rejected any concept promoting any equality for Jesus with God)[111-112] and the Emperor backed the trinitarians with all his secular power, it was forcefully put to the vast majority of bishops present: sign the trinitarian statement or be exiled and treated as heretics.[113-119] It is not too surprising, therefore, that the majority of them signed (although most of them renounced it afterward).[120-122] It is surprising, in fact, that, after escaping from the Emperor’s presence, so many remained faithful to their Arian and Semi-Arian beliefs. As trinitarian Christian historian Kenneth Latourette describes the situation:

“Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius...” - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

But the minority Western trinitarian bishops had won.
“The [new, non-Scriptural Nicene] creed achieved the aim of excluding Arianism and providing the eastern church with a formula to which all could assent in one sense or another [because of the many different meanings possible with such terms as homoousios].” - Williston Walker, History, p. 135.

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [‘out of the substance’ - exousia] and homoousios [‘of the same substance’] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically.” - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

“But [the Council of Nicaea’s] formula of the Son’s ‘consubstantiality’ [homoousios] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance,[148] despite [Emperor] Constantine’s efforts to impose it.” - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

“Before the assembling of the council of Nice, Constantine had been persuaded that the Arian doctrine contained a blasphemy against the divinity of Christ, and that the [homoousian] was absolutely required, in order to maintain the dignity of Christ’s person. …. It was nothing but the influence of the emperor Constantine which induced the eastern bishops at the council of Nice to suffer the imposition of a doctrinal formula which they detested and from which, indeed, they sought immediately to relieve themselves.” - Neander’s History of Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 189, Bohn.

"The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title "ecumenical," that one seems to qualify, but its result - the adoption of an Arian creed - was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the "ecumenical" label but virtually disappeared from the official Church history." - p. 75, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

 

[Soapy]

.
Soapy Christians worship Jesus because he is God! For two Thousand years Jesus has been worshiped by Christians! You are barking up the wrong tree!
Translators or Scholars it does not matter... ALL Christians worship Jesus! If you don't worship Jesus then I dare say you are NOT Christian!

Arius WAS a Christian until he taught "Jesus is not god" Arius was then removed from the Christians and placed OUTSIDE of the Christian communion! IF....

Soapy if you are OUTSIDE you cannot be INSIDE at the same time! You say; you are NOT JW then what are you????

Hi Dogknox20, did I ask you to define what, in your belief, is the definition of ‘God’?

When you can define the term ‘God’ then you will see that it can apply to many things and has the same power of meaning BY CONTEXT:

• ‘A Father is GOD of his household’
• ‘A judge is GOD in his courtroom’
• ‘A Principal is GOD in his School’
• ‘A Professor is GOD of his profession’
• ‘There have been many GODS of the Chess world - True GrandMasters of the game.’
• ‘Usain Bolt was an absolute GOD of the athletics race track - he was above all others of his sport’

What is your opinion of these usages of the term, ‘God’ and ‘Gods’.

And, what does the word, ‘Father’, mean to you?

• ‘Tim Burners-Lee is the FATHER of the Internet’
• Satan was the Father of the lie
• Einstein was the Father of term ‘Relativity’ in the science field

Please let me know your thoughts as these will help to understand why it’s important to define the terms used.

 

[Dogknox20]

Dogknox wrote: "Arius WAS a Christian until he taught "Jesus is not god" Arius was then removed from the Christians and placed OUTSIDE of the Christian communion!"
......................................
Three views were advocated at the Nicene council. (Actually, the real question to be decided at this council was only the first step by Alexandrian philosophizers [and their Roman sympathizers] toward establishing a new doctrine of God. The question was only, “Is Jesus absolutely equal to the Father: all-powerful, always existing, and of the very same substance, or not?” The introduction of a “third person” as being equal to God was not yet being attempted officially.)

(1) Basically, Athanasius, the trinitarian from Alexandria, said,
“Yes, Jesus is absolutely equal to the Father. He has always existed beside the Father. He is of the very same substance or essence (Homoousios) [105-107] as the Father. He is absolute God and must be worshiped as God.”

There was a very small minority of Western Bishops at the council who agreed with him (those most influenced by Alexandria and Neo-Platonism, including the trinitarian Bishop Hosius).[108]

(2) There was another (much larger) minority of Bishops at the council who were led by Arius.

Basically, Arius said,
“Jesus is not God, although he could be called ‘divine.’ He was made by God (the Father alone) so there was a time when he did not exist! He was made out of nothing and is, therefore, of an entirely different substance (or Essence) from that of God. He must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

(Apparently Arius also believed that in his heavenly pre-existence Jesus had been the highest of angels. But this was not an invention of Arius. It was a much earlier Christian tradition which Arius was upholding - p. 50, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985 - but the more recent trinitarians had rejected it.

“Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ [the Angel of Jehovah] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant.” - Gen. 16:7 footnote, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.)

(3) The vast majority (more than 200 bishops) of those at the Council of Nicaea were led by Eusebius of Caesarea. These were the Semi-Arians (see The American People’s Encyclopedia, 1954, p. 8-207). They strongly agreed with the Arians that Jesus was not God[109-111] and must not be worshipped as God! They believed that Jesus did not always exist.

Basically, they said,
“The Father (God alone) generated Jesus (not out of nothing as Arius believed, but) from a substance similar (Homoi ousios) to His own. He is not equal to God, but is subordinate to Him, [118] even though he is above all the rest of creation. Jesus must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

"By contrast [with the Arians and semi-Arians], the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.

"For young militants like Athanasius, however, ... Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith." - p.74, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Notwithstanding the vast majority of bishops' unshakably strong insistence upon a non-trinitarian view of God, the determination and power of the Emperor- supported (and Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist-influenced) bishops of the West prevailed after months of stormy debates.

Eusebius of Caesarea presented the baptismal creed of his own Palestinian community to the Nicene Council. It did not satisfy the trinitarians.

“Accordingly, they [Constantine and Hosius primarily] took another baptismal creed, of much the same type as Eusebius’s, and altered its text to serve their purpose, in the process creating a new, non-liturgical type of confession. .... In the text itself, they inserted the significant expressions ‘true God from true God,’ ‘begotten not made,’ ‘from the substance [ousia] of the Father,’ and - most important of all, as it turned out - ‘of one substance [homoousios] with the Father.’ .... From the very beginning, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and non-technical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. [According to historian Gibbon it was a mysterious term “which either party was free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets.” - p. 686, vol. 1, Random House.] It could in principle be taken to mean exact sameness of being, but it could also be taken to suggest no more than a significant degree of similarity between Father and Son [Origen, in fact, used the term to show merely a ‘unity of will’ between the Father and the Son [88] - p. 46, Lohse.] - which, of course, everyone was glad to affirm. On the other hand, the term was non-Scriptural, it had very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius’ point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed [including the one that was finally adopted and enforced by the Roman Church].”

--- The trinitarians, however, assured Eusebius (and the large majority of other Bishops opposed to them) that homoousios in this new creed would not be interpreted in the way they feared.[105] - pp. 134, 135, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Scribners, 1985.

After Eusebius failed to get a compromise (concerning “substance” or “essence,” but which still rejected any concept promoting any equality for Jesus with God)[111-112] and the Emperor backed the trinitarians with all his secular power, it was forcefully put to the vast majority of bishops present: sign the trinitarian statement or be exiled and treated as heretics.[113-119] It is not too surprising, therefore, that the majority of them signed (although most of them renounced it afterward).[120-122] It is surprising, in fact, that, after escaping from the Emperor’s presence, so many remained faithful to their Arian and Semi-Arian beliefs. As trinitarian Christian historian Kenneth Latourette describes the situation:

“Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius...” - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

But the minority Western trinitarian bishops had won.
“The [new, non-Scriptural Nicene] creed achieved the aim of excluding Arianism and providing the eastern church with a formula to which all could assent in one sense or another [because of the many different meanings possible with such terms as homoousios].” - Williston Walker, History, p. 135.

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [‘out of the substance’ - exousia] and homoousios [‘of the same substance’] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically.” - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

“But [the Council of Nicaea’s] formula of the Son’s ‘consubstantiality’ [homoousios] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance,[148] despite [Emperor] Constantine’s efforts to impose it.” - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

“Before the assembling of the council of Nice, Constantine had been persuaded that the Arian doctrine contained a blasphemy against the divinity of Christ, and that the [homoousian] was absolutely required, in order to maintain the dignity of Christ’s person. …. It was nothing but the influence of the emperor Constantine which induced the eastern bishops at the council of Nice to suffer the imposition of a doctrinal formula which they detested and from which, indeed, they sought immediately to relieve themselves.” - Neander’s History of Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 189, Bohn.

"The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title "ecumenical," that one seems to qualify, but its result - the adoption of an Arian creed - was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the "ecumenical" label but virtually disappeared from the official Church history." - p. 75, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Hello tigger2 good post...
Arius was removed from AMONG Christians as a heretic!
The Prophesy in scripture is proven to be true! "From AMONG YOU will come false teachers"! Arius was a Christian until he was REMOVED as a Heretic!
Arius was placed OUTSIDE he was rejected by Christians! IF...

tigger2 if OUTSIDE you can not be INSIDE at the same time! All who believe as Arius.. "Jesus is not God" are not Christian, they are OUTSIDE of what Christians believe and teach!!

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi Dogknox20, did I ask you to define what, in your belief, is the definition of ‘God’?

When you can define the term ‘God’ then you will see that it can apply to many things and has the same power of meaning BY CONTEXT:

• ‘A Father is GOD of his household’
• ‘A judge is GOD in his courtroom’
• ‘A Principal is GOD in his School’
• ‘A Professor is GOD of his profession’
• ‘There have been many GODS of the Chess world - True GrandMasters of the game.’
• ‘Usain Bolt was an absolute GOD of the athletics race track - he was above all others of his sport’

What is your opinion of these usages of the term, ‘God’ and ‘Gods’.

And, what does the word, ‘Father’, mean to you?

• ‘Tim Burners-Lee is the FATHER of the Internet’
• Satan was the Father of the lie
• Einstein was the Father of term ‘Relativity’ in the science field

Please let me know your thoughts as these will help to understand why it’s important to define the terms used.

.
Hello Soapy you have many questions... I have one for you.. "What religion/Church is it you that profess"?!

You ask.... Who is God the father for me?! First.. All fathers need a mother! No father gains the title "Father" unless a mother gives birth!

• ‘Tim Burners-Lee is the FATHER of the Internet’.... Mother Computer!
• Satan was the Father of the lie..... Mother TRUTH (can't have lie without truth)
• Einstein was the Father of term ‘Relativity’ in the science field.... Mother "All things are linked together in someway"!? (not sure)

FACT: Jesus has a bride... "Holy Mother Church"! The Church was "Empowered" at Pentecost to make children, the Bride is my mother!
"The Great Commission.. "Go make Disciples of all nations BAPTIZING"!
Matthew 12.... "Jesus points to his Disciples and proclaims; Here are my Brothers!" Clearly Jesus is the brother of the "Disciples" (I am a disciple, I was baptized) IF....
Soapy if Jesus is my brother (I was baptized) then God would be my father! If Jesus is my brother then "The Holy Mother Church would be my Mother!"

Acts 2:
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Do you see it? 3000 were made Children of God the first day of Pentecost by... "Baptism"!
Mary is the Mother of Jesus
God; The Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus! Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man!

Soapy I am IN the Holy Catholic Apostolic Body of Jesus. I was re-formed from being a Child of Adam into the Form of the second Adam.. Jesus! I was born again!
Soapy Holy Mother Church formed me anew! I became a child of God by the actions of the Church!
I was "IMMERSED" into the Body of the risen never to die again body of Jesus! Jesus cannot die a second time..(No one can die twice) AS LONG..

Soapy as long as I remain in the holy body of Jesus I also will never die!
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

 

[Clear]

Dogknox wrote: "Arius WAS a Christian until he taught "Jesus is not god" Arius was then removed from the Christians and placed OUTSIDE of the Christian communion!"
......................................
Three views were advocated at the Nicene council. (Actually, the real question to be decided at this council was only the first step by Alexandrian philosophizers [and their Roman sympathizers] toward establishing a new doctrine of God. The question was only, “Is Jesus absolutely equal to the Father: all-powerful, always existing, and of the very same substance, or not?” The introduction of a “third person” as being equal to God was not yet being attempted officially.)

(1) Basically, Athanasius, the trinitarian from Alexandria, said,
“Yes, Jesus is absolutely equal to the Father. He has always existed beside the Father. He is of the very same substance or essence (Homoousios) [105-107] as the Father. He is absolute God and must be worshiped as God.”

There was a very small minority of Western Bishops at the council who agreed with him (those most influenced by Alexandria and Neo-Platonism, including the trinitarian Bishop Hosius).[108]

(2) There was another (much larger) minority of Bishops at the council who were led by Arius.

Basically, Arius said,
“Jesus is not God, although he could be called ‘divine.’ He was made by God (the Father alone) so there was a time when he did not exist! He was made out of nothing and is, therefore, of an entirely different substance (or Essence) from that of God. He must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

(Apparently Arius also believed that in his heavenly pre-existence Jesus had been the highest of angels. But this was not an invention of Arius. It was a much earlier Christian tradition which Arius was upholding - p. 50, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985 - but the more recent trinitarians had rejected it.

“Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ [the Angel of Jehovah] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant.” - Gen. 16:7 footnote, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.)

(3) The vast majority (more than 200 bishops) of those at the Council of Nicaea were led by Eusebius of Caesarea. These were the Semi-Arians (see The American People’s Encyclopedia, 1954, p. 8-207). They strongly agreed with the Arians that Jesus was not God[109-111] and must not be worshipped as God! They believed that Jesus did not always exist.

Basically, they said,
“The Father (God alone) generated Jesus (not out of nothing as Arius believed, but) from a substance similar (Homoi ousios) to His own. He is not equal to God, but is subordinate to Him, [118] even though he is above all the rest of creation. Jesus must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

"By contrast [with the Arians and semi-Arians], the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.

"For young militants like Athanasius, however, ... Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith." - p.74, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Notwithstanding the vast majority of bishops' unshakably strong insistence upon a non-trinitarian view of God, the determination and power of the Emperor- supported (and Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist-influenced) bishops of the West prevailed after months of stormy debates.

Eusebius of Caesarea presented the baptismal creed of his own Palestinian community to the Nicene Council. It did not satisfy the trinitarians.

“Accordingly, they [Constantine and Hosius primarily] took another baptismal creed, of much the same type as Eusebius’s, and altered its text to serve their purpose, in the process creating a new, non-liturgical type of confession. .... In the text itself, they inserted the significant expressions ‘true God from true God,’ ‘begotten not made,’ ‘from the substance [ousia] of the Father,’ and - most important of all, as it turned out - ‘of one substance [homoousios] with the Father.’ .... From the very beginning, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and non-technical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. [According to historian Gibbon it was a mysterious term “which either party was free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets.” - p. 686, vol. 1, Random House.] It could in principle be taken to mean exact sameness of being, but it could also be taken to suggest no more than a significant degree of similarity between Father and Son [Origen, in fact, used the term to show merely a ‘unity of will’ between the Father and the Son [88] - p. 46, Lohse.] - which, of course, everyone was glad to affirm. On the other hand, the term was non-Scriptural, it had very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius’ point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed [including the one that was finally adopted and enforced by the Roman Church].”

--- The trinitarians, however, assured Eusebius (and the large majority of other Bishops opposed to them) that homoousios in this new creed would not be interpreted in the way they feared.[105] - pp. 134, 135, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Scribners, 1985.

After Eusebius failed to get a compromise (concerning “substance” or “essence,” but which still rejected any concept promoting any equality for Jesus with God)[111-112] and the Emperor backed the trinitarians with all his secular power, it was forcefully put to the vast majority of bishops present: sign the trinitarian statement or be exiled and treated as heretics.[113-119] It is not too surprising, therefore, that the majority of them signed (although most of them renounced it afterward).[120-122] It is surprising, in fact, that, after escaping from the Emperor’s presence, so many remained faithful to their Arian and Semi-Arian beliefs. As trinitarian Christian historian Kenneth Latourette describes the situation:

“Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius...” - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

But the minority Western trinitarian bishops had won.
“The [new, non-Scriptural Nicene] creed achieved the aim of excluding Arianism and providing the eastern church with a formula to which all could assent in one sense or another [because of the many different meanings possible with such terms as homoousios].” - Williston Walker, History, p. 135.

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [‘out of the substance’ - exousia] and homoousios [‘of the same substance’] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically.” - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

“But [the Council of Nicaea’s] formula of the Son’s ‘consubstantiality’ [homoousios] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance,[148] despite [Emperor] Constantine’s efforts to impose it.” - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

“Before the assembling of the council of Nice, Constantine had been persuaded that the Arian doctrine contained a blasphemy against the divinity of Christ, and that the [homoousian] was absolutely required, in order to maintain the dignity of Christ’s person. …. It was nothing but the influence of the emperor Constantine which induced the eastern bishops at the council of Nice to suffer the imposition of a doctrinal formula which they detested and from which, indeed, they sought immediately to relieve themselves.” - Neander’s History of Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 189, Bohn.

"The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title "ecumenical," that one seems to qualify, but its result - the adoption of an Arian creed - was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the "ecumenical" label but virtually disappeared from the official Church history." - p. 75, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Hi @tigger2

Very, very nicely done post.

There is an important difference between dogknox20s claim that arius was removed from "Christianity" and the historical truth that arius was simply "removed" from those who followed the minority doctrine of athenasius.

Your post was a wonderful and impressive summary of this specific issue for readers to understand the mechanics of how certain doctrines were abandoned and other doctrine adopted in the place of the older doctrines as schisms developed.

Clear
Fineeitzakvv

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @tigger2

Very, very nicely done post.

There is an important difference between dogknox20s claim that arius was removed from "Christianity" and the historical truth that arius was simply "removed" from those who followed the minority doctrine of athenasius.

Your post was a wonderful and impressive summary of this specific issue for readers to understand the mechanics of how certain doctrines were abandoned and other doctrine adopted in the place of the older doctrines as schisms developed.

Clear
Fineeitzakvv

.
I reply: Arius is NOT the Church!
Arius has NO authority to change anything, he has NO authority to make doctrine! The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church the very same one that decided what the Inspired words of God were and then put all of these inspired letters into one book she named "The Bible!" This Church has the Authority to make doctrine!

Nothing has changed..... Arius was a False Teacher as the Prophesy in the scriptures warned against! He was a Christian until he was removed from AMONG us as a heretic!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

This prophesy proves the Church Arius was AMONG before he was removed as a False Teacher "Is the Way Of Truth"!
Clear this Scripture Prophesy cannot work in the reverse.... The Holy Catholic Church was NOT among Arius!

To reject the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church YOU MUST also reject the scriptures as lies from the mouth of God!

Arius was removed...He was placed OUTSIDE because he refused to "Listen to the Church"! He is OUTSIDE of the Christian communion being OUTSIDE he cannot be inside at the same time!
Matthew 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

A pagan is a person OUTSIDE of God' family, a Pagan is NOT a Christian! Arius rejected what all Christians teach.. "Jesus is God and Jesus is worshiped"!

 

[Clear]

Hi @tigger2


I did like your historical summary of some of the issues with the political council of Nicaea (It scarcely can be called ecumenical when an emperor summons you.) where Constantine confirmed what he wanted taught in the organization that was evolving into the early roman Catholic church.


POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR CONSTANTINE TO CHOOSE WESTERN "HOMOOUSIOS" OVER EASTERN "HOMOIOUSIS" AS THE "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE"?

Constantine himself seemed neither to understand nor to have deep care regarding whether Jesus was of the same type of being as God (homoousios, typical of western Christians) or if he was of a different type of being as God (Homoiousios, typical of eastern Christians).

The question then arises as to why Constantine decreed that the western homoousios position was to be taught and why he would try to suppress the eastern Homoiousios christians?

Ian Waterhouse of trinity college offered political reasons for Constantines choice of doctrine that he wanted to be taught.


For example, Constantine, has only a few bishops from the western Christianity where Constantine had just gained control of the roman empire, but he needed to keep peace between the Eastern and Western empires. Having a unified religion and doctrine would help ensure peace between east and west. Since the anti-arian position was already dominant in the west, it was in his best political interest to support an anti-Arian position.

Another political advantage to this is that the anti-Arian doctrine gave more power to the Church’s clergy so as to better keep the peace in the new “east-west” empire he was forming. Rubenstein pointed out “If Jesus’ life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principle mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire…”

He further points out the political advantage was that “The Church he [Constantine] needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of his own to save them.”


Waterhouse clarifies that Making Jesus "homoousios" (of the same type of being) with God put Jesus at a level that the followers couldn’t reach on their own without the clergy’s ability to give them the sacraments. With the Church able to control access to Jesus and salvation, Constantine would be able to trade the commoners of the empire eternal salvation for stability and peace. If he went with the Arian view, making Jesus lesser than god, this would have made Jesus accessible to the commoner without the help of the church, removing the church’s ability to control the laypeople.


In any case, I thought your historical summary was thoughtful and logical and well done and thought that you also might consider political reasons why the emperor had reasons to be interested in determining doctrines for Christians in his empire.



Clear
φινεφισετωω

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @tigger2


I did like your historical summary of some of the issues with the political council of Nicaea (It scarcely can be called ecumenical when an emperor summons you.) where Constantine confirmed what he wanted taught in the organization that was evolving into the early roman Catholic church.


POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR CONSTANTINE TO CHOOSE WESTERN "HOMOOUSIOS" OVER EASTERN "HOMOIOUSIS" AS THE "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE"?

Constantine himself seemed neither to understand nor to have deep care regarding whether Jesus was of the same type of being as God (homoousios, typical of western Christians) or if he was of a different type of being as God (Homoiousios, typical of eastern Christians).

The question then arises as to why Constantine decreed that the western homoousios position was to be taught and why he would try to suppress the eastern Homoiousios christians?

Ian Waterhouse of trinity college offered political reasons for Constantines choice of doctrine that he wanted to be taught.


For example, Constantine, has only a few bishops from the western Christianity where Constantine had just gained control of the roman empire, but he needed to keep peace between the Eastern and Western empires. Having a unified religion and doctrine would help ensure peace between east and west. Since the anti-arian position was already dominant in the west, it was in his best political interest to support an anti-Arian position.

Another political advantage to this is that the anti-Arian doctrine gave more power to the Church’s clergy so as to better keep the peace in the new “east-west” empire he was forming. Rubenstein pointed out “If Jesus’ life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principle mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire…”

He further points out the political advantage was that “The Church he [Constantine] needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of his own to save them.”


Waterhouse clarifies that Making Jesus "homoousios" (of the same type of being) with God put Jesus at a level that the followers couldn’t reach on their own without the clergy’s ability to give them the sacraments. With the Church able to control access to Jesus and salvation, Constantine would be able to trade the commoners of the empire eternal salvation for stability and peace. If he went with the Arian view, making Jesus lesser than god, this would have made Jesus accessible to the commoner without the help of the church, removing the church’s ability to control the laypeople.


In any case, I thought your historical summary was thoughtful and logical and well done and thought that you also might consider political reasons why the emperor had reasons to be interested in determining doctrines for Christians in his empire.
Clear
φινεφισετωω

.
Historical fact..
265 Popes from Peter to today Pope Francis..
1. St Peter; martyr; 42-67

2. St Linus, of Tuscia (Volterra?); martyr; 67-78

3. St Anacletus I, of Rome; martyr; 78-90 (?)

4. St Clement I, of the Roman Flavian gens; martyr; 90-99 (?)

5. St Evaristus, of Greece (or of Bethlehem); martyr; 99-105 (?)

6. St Alexander I, of Rome; martyr; 105-115 (?)

7. St Sixtus I, of Rome; martyr; 115-125 (?)

8. St Telesphorus, of Greece; martyr; 125-136 (?)

9. St Iginus, of Greece; martyr; 136-140 (?)

10. St Pius I, of Italy; martyr; 140-155 (?)

11. St Anicetus, of Syria; martyr; 155-166 (?)

12. St Soter, of Campania (Fundi?);martyr; 166-175 (?)

13. St Eleutherus, of Epirus(Nicopolis?); martyr; 175-189

14. St Victor I, of Africa; martyr; 189-199

15. St Zephyrinus, of Rome; martyr; 199-217

16. St Calixtus, of Rome; martyr; 217-222

[Hippolytus, 217-235]

17. St Urban I, of Rome; martyr; 222-230

18. St Pontianus, of Rome; martyr; 21 July 230-28 Sept 235

19. St Anterus, of Greece; martyr; 21 Nov 235-3 Jan 236

20. St Fabian, of Rome; martyr; 10 Jan 236-20 Jan 250

21. St Cornelius, of Rome; martyr; March 251-June 253

[Novatian, 251-258]

22. St Lucius I, of Rome; martyr; 25 June 253-5 March 254

23. St Stephen I, of Rome; martyr; 12 May 254-2 Aug 257

24. St Sixtus II, of Greece (?); martyr; 30 Aug 257-6 Aug 258

25. St Dionysius, of Magna Graecia (?); martyr; 22 July 259-26 Dec 268

26. St Felix I, of Rome; martyr; 5 Jan 269-30 Dec 274

27. St Eutychianus, of Luni; martyr; 4 Jan 275-7 Dec 283

28. St Gaius, of Dalmatia (Salona?); martyr; 17 Dec 283-22 April 296

29. St Marcellinus, of Rome; martyr; 30 June 296-25 Oct 304

30. St Marcellus I, of Rome; martyr; 27 May 308-16 Jan 309

31. St Eusebius, of Greece; martyr; 18 April 309-17 Aug 309 or 310

32. St Melchiades or Miltiades, of Africa; martyr; 2 July 311-11 Jan 314

33. St Sylvester I, of Rome; 31 Jan 314-31 Dec 335

34. St Mark, of Rome; 18 Jan 336-7 Oct 336

35. St Julius I, of Rome; 6 Feb 337-12 April 352

36. Liberius, of Rome; 17 May 352-22 Sept 366

[St Felix II, 355-22 Nov 365]

37. St Damasus I, of Spain; 1 Oct 366-11 Dec 384

[Ursinus, 366-367]

38. St Siricius, of Rome; 15 Dec 384-26 Nov 399

39. St Anastasius I, of Rome; 27 Nov 399-19 Dec 401

40. St Innocent I, of Albano; 22 Dec 401-12 March 417

41. St Zosimus, of Greece; 18 March 417-26 Dec 418

42. St Boniface I, of Rome; 29 Dec 418-4 Sept 422

[Eulalius, 27 Dec 418-3 April 419]

43. St Caelestinus I, of Campania; 10 Sept 422-27 July 432

44. St Sixtus III, of Rome; 3 July (?) 432-19 Aug 440

45. St Leo I the Great, of Tusculum; 29 Sept 440-10 Nov 461

46. St Hilarius, of Sardinia; 19 Nov 461-29 Feb 468

47. St Simplicius, of Tivoli; 3 March 468-10 March 483

48. St Felix III (II), of Rome, of the gens Anicia; 13 March 483-1 March 492

49. St Gelasius I, of Africa; 1 March 492-21 Nov 496

50. St Anastasius II, of Rome; 24 Nov 496-19 Nov 498

51. St Symmachus, of Sardinia; 22 Nov 498-19 July 514

[Laurentius, Nov 498-505]

52. St Hormisdas, of Frosinone; 20 July 514-6 Aug 523

53. St John I, of Tusculum; martyr; 13 Aug 523-18 May 526. Died at Ravenna

54. St Felix IV (III), of Samnium (Benevento?); 12 July 526-22 Sept 530
etc
etc

 

[TiggerII]

Hi @tigger2


I did like your historical summary of some of the issues with the political council of Nicaea (It scarcely can be called ecumenical when an emperor summons you.) where Constantine confirmed what he wanted taught in the organization that was evolving into the early roman Catholic church.


POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR CONSTANTINE TO CHOOSE WESTERN "HOMOOUSIOS" OVER EASTERN "HOMOIOUSIS" AS THE "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE"?

Constantine himself seemed neither to understand nor to have deep care regarding whether Jesus was of the same type of being as God (homoousios, typical of western Christians) or if he was of a different type of being as God (Homoiousios, typical of eastern Christians).

The question then arises as to why Constantine decreed that the western homoousios position was to be taught and why he would try to suppress the eastern Homoiousios christians?

Ian Waterhouse of trinity college offered political reasons for Constantines choice of doctrine that he wanted to be taught.


For example, Constantine, has only a few bishops from the western Christianity where Constantine had just gained control of the roman empire, but he needed to keep peace between the Eastern and Western empires. Having a unified religion and doctrine would help ensure peace between east and west. Since the anti-arian position was already dominant in the west, it was in his best political interest to support an anti-Arian position.

Another political advantage to this is that the anti-Arian doctrine gave more power to the Church’s clergy so as to better keep the peace in the new “east-west” empire he was forming. Rubenstein pointed out “If Jesus’ life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principle mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the empire…”

He further points out the political advantage was that “The Church he [Constantine] needed was one that would help him keep order among ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of his own to save them.”


Waterhouse clarifies that Making Jesus "homoousios" (of the same type of being) with God put Jesus at a level that the followers couldn’t reach on their own without the clergy’s ability to give them the sacraments. With the Church able to control access to Jesus and salvation, Constantine would be able to trade the commoners of the empire eternal salvation for stability and peace. If he went with the Arian view, making Jesus lesser than god, this would have made Jesus accessible to the commoner without the help of the church, removing the church’s ability to control the laypeople.


In any case, I thought your historical summary was thoughtful and logical and well done and thought that you also might consider political reasons why the emperor had reasons to be interested in determining doctrines for Christians in his empire.



Clear
φινεφισετωω

Thank you, Clear.

Here's a link to my full study of the History of the Trinity. The numerous comments at the end of the pages (after the triple red lines) do not necessarily reflect my research.
Examining the Trinity: History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST (part 1)

 

[TiggerII]

Dogknox, if you can show me one single verse of scripture which describes God with the word "three," I will take your research and comments more seriously.

I believe that most (if not all) trinity explanations and creeds do use the word "three." But it hasn't come from scripture!

 

[Dogknox20]

Dogknox, if you can show me one single verse of scripture which describes God with the word "three," I will take your research and comments more seriously.

I believe that most (if not all) trinity explanations and creeds do use the word "three." But it hasn't come from scripture!

\
.
Hello tigger2 First off... right out of the Gate: Christians worship Jesus because Jesus is God! Worship is ONLY for God; all Christians know Worship is ONLY for God!

God is the Authority! Speaking for God means you have the Authority of God, you speak in the name of God!
Moses spoke for God, he had God' authority to represent God in voice and deed!
Elijah the same, he also spoke for God, he represented God with all of God' authority in what he said; when Elijah talked it was as if God had said it!

tigger2 Jesus also speaks for God, Jesus represents God in teaching and in miracles;. Jesus is "The WORD of God"! Fact is "ALL the authority of God" has been given to Jesus! Here is the scriptures......
Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

tigger2 WITH AUTHORITY.. Jesus sends out his church to make children for God! (next verse)..
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Do you see it? Do you understand it?

tigger2 ...make disciples of all nations, baptizing... Clearly in this verse; "Disciples are made by baptism!" The Holy Church Jesus established forever; with AUTHORITY OF GOD has been given the power to make disciples!
tigger2 Jesus is the brother of the disciples! If Jesus was your brother then it is very obvious God would be your father! If Jesus was your brother then it is very obvious Mary would also be your mother! If Jesus was your brother then it is very obvious you would be IN God' family!
Matthew 12:49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren!
Do you see it? Do you understand it? The Children of God are made by Baptism! Baptism is not just symbolic it has a spiritual aspect to it; it accomplishes what it signifies!

When you speak with AUTHORITY of another person it is said "you represent them"; like a lawyer or an ambassador of the country speaks for us!
tigger2 Go make God' children of all nations with the authority of God! Speaking for God, in his name baptize and make disciples!
In the name of the Father with all the authority of The Father, make his Children Baptizing!
In the name of the Son with all the authority of The Son make God' Children Baptizing!
In the name of the Holy Spirit with all the authority of The Holy Spirit make God' Children.. ..Baptizing all nations! Speaking for God (Trinity) make Children of all nations!

 

[metis]

I believe that most (if not all) trinity explanations and creeds do use the word "three." But it hasn't come from scripture!

It is not three gods but is one God with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the "essence"* of God.


* essence: a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.