Historical development of the Trinity

[Pierac]

It seems this forum has many debates upon on the doctrine of the trinity... Perhaps one must start from the beginning to understand the issues/debate!

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church. But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning? There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not. This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles. An important thing to note in support of this fact is that even at Nicaea when with Emperor Constantine’s help, they rammed this doctrine through as orthodox, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Now back to the subject of Nicaea. For those that think that Nicaea just formalized an already established teaching, think again. Let us now look to the events that followed after the Council of Nicaea. It will shed some light on the matter.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on which emperor is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declared Christianity to be the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. What is plainly obvious is that the emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now being was that there was not going to be any more changing of sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Yet, Conflicts and debates continued for centuries.

In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism. It is quite interesting.


I have given historical dates and documents that are recorded in time... not opinion! As taken from the works of J Baixeras

Paul

[Pierac]

[Replying to Elijah John]

But you must ask.... What is the word?

John 1:1

I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word� (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word� that “he� was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word� that “it� was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he� to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word� a “he� here?

It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It�).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men


Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In itwas lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.�

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it� not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who� he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:

Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"


"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.


John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!


1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

What does scripture teach you about... What was from the beginning?

Pay attention as we need to get a little deeper comparing both John 1:1 with 1 John 1:1

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word." 1 John 1:1 – "What was from the beginning, what we have heard."

Notice that in John what is from the beginning is the word, and in 1 John what is from the beginning is something that they heard (a message) .

Look closely...

1 John 2:7 - "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard."

In 1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning is something that they heard, here in 1 John 2:7 the old commandment is what they have had from the beginning, (sound familiar?) and the old commandment is the "WORD" that they what? Heard! The same as in 1 John 1:1.

So, What commandment is John speaking about?

John is speaking about what Jesus called the greatest commandment, ( Mark 12:29-30 ) the commandment of love which God gave the Hebrews from the beginning. The message of love that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God brings with it.

How do we know for sure that this is the message and/or the commandment that they heard from the beginning? Because John tells you so in 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 3:23:

"For this is the message you have HEARD from the BEGINNING: we should love one another."

"And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."

Loving one another is how the world will know that we are followers of God’s Christ.

John 13:30 – "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
According to Paul (Romans 13:9), the law of love is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and it is the Law in the coming Kingdom of God which the Messiah has come to proclaim. These are Jesus’ own words.

John is talking about the message or Logos (known by you as “word�!)

By making John 1 a Trinity support verse, you lose so much truth!

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 17 by Pierac]

I think you make a lot of good points here Paul, and to Liam's point, the inception of the idea of the Trinity seems to have been with John and Paul's extremely high Christology.

With John, "The Word" was eternally pre-existent, and the Word was God, and the Word was Jesus.

With Paul, Jesus is the "firstborn of all Creation, pre-existent but not eternally so as with John, and through Christ, "all things were made".

If that ain't Divine, it is darn close* Not too hard to see that the early Church had to come to terms with these seed ideas which seemed to challenge Jewish Shema.

The developing idea of the Trinity was it's solution.

(*don't mean to imply that John and Paul were right about these things, only that teachings may have been the inception of developing Trinitarian thought.)

Your reading scripture through the eyes of the Church... Did Paul really say Jesus was the ... how did you put it... "firstborn of all Creation, pre-existent but not eternally so as with John, and through Christ, "all things were made". DOES SCRIPTURE SUPPORT THIS VIEW... I THINK NOT! Let's review...

The various popular English translation are at odds as to whether the Son is "the first-born over all creation" (as in the NIV and NK JV), thus first in rank, or whether he is "the firstborn of all creation" (which reflects a literal translation of the genitive case, as in the KJV, RV and NASB), meaning first in time, which would refer to Christ being the first-created being of creation.

We evidently need the wider context to determine which nuance fits best. It is clear that Paul continues his line of thought in the next verse, as he uses the conjunction “for�: "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created through him and for him" (v.16).
Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.

Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Remember Jesus has a God… "Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (1Co 8:6)

Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word (�̔ῆμα/ rhēma) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Please note that the word used here is not Logos as it is used in John 1 but rhēma .

Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not “the heavens and the earth� as per Genesis 1:1, but rather “all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after “the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).

All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ’s exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ’s] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus’ obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).

It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

There is no God in the flesh hybrid (Theos aner) in these verses.

If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.

Hope this data helps...

Paul

[Pierac]

Christ the First-born of all the creation

The word “first-born� comes to the New Testament with a rich Hebrew heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word “first-born.� The Greek word for “first� can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The “first-born� may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as “my first-born�… preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 49:3)

Although Reubin is “first-born� in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his “first-born� even though Ephraim’s brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to “let my son go that he may worship me.� (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my
salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.

In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king’s superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term “first-born� to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, “He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead� (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the “first-born� of all creation,� here the Son is the "first-born from the dead.� If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.

The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ returned is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.

To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Paul

[Pierac]

[Replying to Pierac]

Elohim

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification:

Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.



Paul

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

“Christ� God or title?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title ‘Messiah’ was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.�

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: “One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word ‘Christ,’ which simply means ‘Messiah’, as though it was a ‘divine’ title.� Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office.

Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.�

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man� (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.� Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.� Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf. (ACTS 2:22)

How much more proof do you need???

Paul

[JLB32168]

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be?

People argued with Christ. Was what he said questionable? I don’t see the value of the argument, “If God had said X and it were truth, then everyone would have fallen in line. Everyone didn’t fall in line; therefore, God didn’t say X.�

If, per Christ’s words, the gates of Hades cannot prevail over the Church and the alleged false teaching of the Trinity triumphed then Christ is in error.

Since Christ cannot be in error then the logical conclusion is that Christ, the Head of the Church, has given His opinion on the Trinity, namely, that it accurately describes God.

[Pierac]

If you believe that Nicaean just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be?

People argued with Christ. Was what he said questionable? I don’t see the value of the argument, “If God had said X and it were truth, then everyone would have fallen in line. Everyone didn’t fall in line; therefore, God didn’t say X.�

If, per Christ’s words, the gates of Hades cannot prevail over the Church and the alleged false teaching of the Trinity triumphed then Christ is in error.

Since Christ cannot be in error then the logical conclusion is that Christ, the Head of the Church, has given His opinion on the Trinity, namely, that it accurately describes God.

Yes... God... His chosen one... Jesus Christ did not give just an opinion! He told you what would mean/be eternal life...as... to know this truth! So listen up you biblical idiot to the words of your Messiah!!!


[size=18 Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. [size}

So.. do you even know the only true God whom sent Jesus? Or are you claiming Jesus is the God whom sent himself... then... falsely claiming to have a God...??? Your not even beginning to start to see the errors of your ways of men..... as Jesus speaks of His God!!! in relationship to men!!!

Dear God.... JLB32168 Please make a comment so I can make you look even... look more stupid![/size]

[onewithhim]

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be?

People argued with Christ. Was what he said questionable? I don’t see the value of the argument, “If God had said X and it were truth, then everyone would have fallen in line. Everyone didn’t fall in line; therefore, God didn’t say X.�

If, per Christ’s words, the gates of Hades cannot prevail over the Church and the alleged false teaching of the Trinity triumphed then Christ is in error.

Since Christ cannot be in error then the logical conclusion is that Christ, the Head of the Church, has given His opinion on the Trinity, namely, that it accurately describes God.

No, Christ is not in error, though he did NOT teach that the Roman Catholic Church was the one that would prevail against the gates of Hades, and he did NOT teach the fallacious Trinity.

He is not in error, because the church he spoke about is not the RCC or any of its off-shoots. His true church exists, though smaller in membership than the big bastion of painted-over pagan traditions that has a membership of almost 2 billion people. His parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt.13) shows what the situation has been for his true church. It got almost choked out by the false sons of the Kingdom, but, as he explains, the false will be separated from the true sons of the Kingdom in the LAST DAYS, the "harvest-time." Even though smaller in number, his church will prevail against the "gates of Hades."

(And where, pray tell, does Jesus indicate that the Trinity accurately describes God???)

[JLB32168]

Yes... God... His chosen one... Jesus Christ did not give just an opinion! He told you what would mean/be eternal life...as... to know this truth! So listen up you biblical [font=Times New Roman](deleted -insult-)[/font] to the words of your Messiah!!!

I’ve no patience for someone who must resort to sophomoric name-calling to get his/her point across. I read no further than the word “idiot.� One who needs insults to get his point across cannot possibly be in possession of truth.

[onewithhim]

I didn't call you a name. Are you going to read my post?