John 1:1 Coptic

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#451 Mar 25, 2013
Example of this qualification:

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...HE IS THEREFORE ONE AND THE SAME GOD, who called Abraham and gave him the promise. BUT HE IS THE CREATOR, WHO DOES ALSO --- THROUGH --- CHRIST PREPARE lights in the world,[namely] those who believe from among the Gentiles. And He says,“Ye are the light of the world;” that is, as the stars of heaven. Him, therefore, I have rightly shown to be known by no man, unless by the Son, and to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him. But the Son reveals the Father to all to whom He wills that He should be known; and NEITHER WITHOUT ----- THE GOODWILL OF THE FATHER ----- NOR WITHOUT THE ((( AGENCY OF ))) THE SON, can any man know God. Wherefore did the Lord say to His disciples,“I am the way, the truth, and the life and NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER but by Me. If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also: and from henceforth ye have both known Him, and have seen Him.” From these words it is evident, that He is known by the Son, that is, by the Word...”-(Book 4, Chapter 7, Section 3. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#452 Mar 25, 2013
Further examples of how this works:

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...THAT THIS IS THE EXPRESS WILL OF THE FATHER, that God should be known. For they shall know Him to whomsoever the Son has revealed Him.[5.] And FOR --- THIS PURPOSE --- DID --- THE FATHER --- REVEAL THE SON, THAT -----((( THROUGH ))) HIS ((( INSTRUMENTALITY )))----- HE MIGHT BE MANIFESTED TO ALL, AND MIGHT RECEIVE THOSE RIGHTEOUS ONES WHO BELIEVE IN HIM INTO INCORRUPTION AND EVERLASTING ENJOYMENT (NOW, TO BELIEVE IN HIM IS TO DO HIS WILL); but He shall righteously shut out into the darkness which they have chosen for themselves, those who do not believe, and who do consequently avoid His light. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like others, have seen, but have not, like others, believed....”-(Book 4, Chapter 6, Sections 4-5. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#453 Mar 25, 2013
Irenaeus' theological north:

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...SINCE HE ( ALONE ) IS GOD,( ALONE ) IS LORD,( ALONE ) IS CREATOR,( ALONE )------ IS FATHER,------( ALONE ) IS THE CONTAINER OF ( ALL THINGS ) AND --- THE ((( CAUSE OF )))--- THE EXISTENCE OF ALL THINGS...”-(Book II, Chapter 1, Section 1, Adv. Haer. Pages 45-46, THE TREATISE OF IRENAEUS OF LUGDUNUM AGAINST THE HERESIES – A TRANSLATION OF THE PRINCIPAL PASSAGES, WITH NOTES AND ARGUMENTS, By F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, Vol 1, Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London: 68, Haymarket, S.W. 1916.)

The Father: "...ALONE..."

Is:

"...THE ((( CAUSE OF )))--- THE EXISTENCE OF --- ALL THINGS..."

Jesus was the instrument and agency through which:

"...HE..." = THE FATHER!

Made and created all things!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#454 Mar 25, 2013
The Father's will predomoinates everything!

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...“..No one can know the Father apart from God’s Word, that is, unless the Son reveals him, and no one can know the Son unless the Father so wills. NOW ------ THE SON ------ FULFILS ------ THE FATHER’S GOOD PLEASURE:------ THE FATHER SENDS, THE SON IS SENT, AND HE COMES. THE FATHER IS BEYOND OUR SIGHT AND COMPREHENSION; BUT HE IS KNOWN BY HIS WORD, WHO TELLS US --- OF HIM --- WHO ( SURPASSES ALL ) TELLING. In turn, the Father alone has knowledge of his Word. And the Lord has revealed both truths. Therefore, the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father by his revelation of himself. Knowledge of the Father consists in the self-revelation of the Son, for all is revealed through the Word.---((( THE FATHER’S PURPOSE )))--- in revealing the Son was to make himself known to us all and so to welcome into eternal rest those who believe in him, establishing them in justice, preserving them from death. TO BELIEVE IN HIM MEANS TO DO HIS WILL. Through creation itself the Word reveals God the Creator. Through the world he reveals the Lord who made the world. Through all that is fashioned he reveals the craftsman who fashioned it all. Through the Son the Word reveals the Father who begot him as Son. All speak of these things in the same language, but they do not believe them in the same way. Through the law and the prophets the Word revealed himself and his Father in the same way, and though all the people equally heard the message not all equally believed it. Through the Word, made visible and palpable, the Father was revealed, though not all equally believed in him. But all saw the Father in the Son, for the Father of the Son cannot be seen, but the Son of the Father can be seen.--- THE SON --- PERFORMS EVERYTHING --- AS ------((( A MINISTRY TO )))------ THE FATHER,------ FROM BEGINNING TO END, and without the Son no one can know God. The way to know the Father is the Son. Knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and is revealed through the Son. For this reason the Lord said: No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son has revealed him. The word “revealed” refers not only to the future - as though the Word began to reveal the Father only when he was born of Mary; it refers equally to all time. From the beginning the Son is present to creation, reveals the Father to all, TO THOSE THE FATHER CHOOSES, WHEN THE FATHER CHOOSES, AND AS THE FATHER CHOOSES. So, there is in all and through all ONE GOD THE FATHER, one Word and Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation for all who believe in him...”-(Book 4, Chapter 6, Section 3-7, Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#455 Mar 25, 2013
Even the creation of man was not according to the will of the Son, but according to?

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said,“Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times (fine), not BY THE WILL OF the flesh, nor BY THE WILL OF man, but ------ BY THE GOOD PLEASURE OF THE FATHER,------ His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God...”-(Book 5, Chapter 1, Section 3 “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#456 Mar 25, 2013
Something else to keep in mid regard the translation of Irenaeus from the Latin.

Note this point in one of the footnotes to the CCEL version:

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.): Against Heresies: Book III: Chapter XIX.

[FOOTNOTE 3668]: "...The original Greek is preserved here by Theodoret, differing in some respects from the old Latin version:[...][GREEK FONTS REMOVED][...] A specimen of the --- liberties taken --- by the Latin translators with the original of Irenæus.---((( OTHERS MUCH LESS INNOCENT )))!..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.x...

Doctrinal liberties!

Doctrinal tampering!

Yes, Irenaeus has been --- tampered with --- in places in the Latin upon which our English translations are largely based.

As testified to in the footnote above.

Keep that in mind.

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#457 Mar 25, 2013
Hello Matt3,
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid there is translation issues here.
This version says differently.
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...For the Word ( IS ) always with ( HIM ), and Wisdom also, that is, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom ( HE ) MADE all things freely and spontaneously...”-(Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 1, Adv. Haer. Page 42, THE TREATISE OF IRENAEUS OF LUGDUNUM AGAINST THE HERESIES – A TRANSLATION OF THE PRINCIPAL PASSAGES, WITH NOTES AND ARGUMENTS, By F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, Vol 1, Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London: 68, Haymarket, S.W. 1916.)
"...IS..." --- vs --- "...WAS..."
Two totally different concepts.
I was quoting that verse to state "I HAVE ALSO LARGELY DEMONSTRATED, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with Him...'

>>All I wanted to point out is that Irenaes spent a lot of time previously describing this relationship. I could not use this exact quote to show Irenaes' view that the word always existed because this quote is from the perspective of the Word. This statement whether it is "IS" or "WAS" made no difference because of the perspective. "The Word was always with the Father"...(Hypothetical alert) Even IF the Word was created, the statement that the Word was (OR IS) always with the Father IS TRUE, but I could not ASSUME the reverse - The Father WAS always with the Son. If I ASSUMED the reverse, I would have applied the logical fallacy of "Affirming the consequent".

That is why I had to go back to where Irenaes did describe this relationship in more detail and again that was the ONLY part of the statement I was highlighting. But again here the more detailed description again:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/00108...
"For with Him <<WERE ALWAYS PRESENT>> the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously,..."

>>As you can see we now have a description of the Word from the perspective of the Father. Also the quote I gave is without any prequalifications. Here it is in context:

"1. As regards His greatness, therefore, it is not possible to know God, for it is impossible that the Father can be measured; but as regards His love (for this it is which leads us to God by His Word), when we obey Him, we do always learn that there is so great a God, and that it is He who by Himself has established, and selected, and adorned, and contains all things; and among the all things, both ourselves and this our world. We also then were made, along with those things which are contained by Him. And this is He of whom the Scripture says,“And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life.” It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, <<as if He did not possess His own hands>>. <<For with Him {GOD THE FATHER} were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying,“Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;” He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world."

Irenaes even gives us the absurd analogy of Him NOT always being with the Word and the Spirit - "as if He did not possess His own hands".

Irenaes makes it 100% clear that he emphatically believes God the Father was ALWAYS WITH the Word and the Spirit, without qualifications.

Peace,
Bob

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#458 Mar 25, 2013
Hello Matt3,
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
Even the creation of man was not according to the will of the Son, but according to?
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said,“Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times (fine), not BY THE WILL OF the flesh, nor BY THE WILL OF man, but ------ BY THE GOOD PLEASURE OF THE FATHER,------ His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God...”-(Book 5, Chapter 1, Section 3 “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
I am not sure what you are trying to show us here but...
the "US" in "Let US make man..." was already described as the Father and the Son and the Spirit. Please see again the quote in my previous reply this morning. It describes the "US".

Peace,
Bob

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#459 Mar 25, 2013
Hello Matt3,
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
Something else to keep in mid regard the translation of Irenaeus from the Latin.
Note this point in one of the footnotes to the CCEL version:
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.): Against Heresies: Book III: Chapter XIX.
[FOOTNOTE 3668]: "...The original Greek is preserved here by Theodoret, differing in some respects from the old Latin version:[...][GREEK FONTS REMOVED][...] A specimen of the --- liberties taken --- by the Latin translators with the original of Irenæus.---((( OTHERS MUCH LESS INNOCENT )))!..."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.x...
Doctrinal liberties!
Doctrinal tampering!
Yes, Irenaeus has been --- tampered with --- in places in the Latin upon which our English translations are largely based.
As testified to in the footnote above.
Keep that in mind.
One thing is painfully clear throughout all of Irenaes writings is that the Word is God. There would have to be an awful lot of devious tampering for all the instances to be tampered with.

But then again the WTBTS does profess an even wider scale and more sinister tampering with ALL of the NT scripture - the removal of "Jehovah" (actually YAHWEH because Jehovah never existed at this time) from the NT in each and every Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, and Latin versions and fragments that ever existed before 800AD. So I personally see this discussion with you, only benefiting me. Because in the end you will just simply dismiss EVERYTHING we have discussed as "it is tampered with" and therefore the WTBTS remains right even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that has been discussed.

So even though I know you have this "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, I still chose to engage with you for 2 reasons:

1)so that you can see that the Trinity has always been believed throughout the ANFs (although the detailed definition took some time) and I do have a solid foundation in which to base my beliefs.
2) when you read the WTBTS' arguments against the trinity when citing ECF and ANF you will see how corrupt they are in quoting the context and original meanings of their writings.

When this all winds down I would like to discuss with you if you have this SAME solid foundation in which to base your beliefs. Can the unique teachings of the WTBTS be found in any way, shape or form in the ECF or ANF writings.

What we have seen so far in researching for this discussion are the following:
1) Christ was raised in the same flesh he died in and still remains that way;
2) The Father has always existed with the Word and the Spirit;
3) The more we dig the more we see Proverbs 8:22-25 being taken 100% poetically and there is not hint of "Wisdom being created in the interpretations;
4) It was the Word Himself that spoke to Moses and gave the laws to Moses;

As a WTBTS supporter it has to be chilling for you to read through these early texts and see a lot of the arguments people use to debate against the WTBTS teachings here are the same arguments used in the first and second centuries.

Peace,
Bob
Sign of things to come

Middletown, NY

#460 Mar 25, 2013
Recommendation for all serious posters:

The waxing Moon may bring awareness of your mental and physical health now. You can enjoy inner and outer beauty if you make a consistent effort to take the very best care of yourself. With your next birthday just around the corner, you may want to focus on letting go of the hurts of the past year. Count your blessings and look forward to a happy and healthy personal new year. Good luck from the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#461 Mar 25, 2013
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
Something else to keep in mid regard the translation of Irenaeus from the Latin.
Note this point in one of the footnotes to the CCEL version:
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.): Against Heresies: Book III: Chapter XIX.
[FOOTNOTE 3668]: "...The original Greek is preserved here by Theodoret, differing in some respects from the old Latin version:[...][GREEK FONTS REMOVED][...] A specimen of the --- liberties taken --- by the Latin translators with the original of Irenæus.---((( OTHERS MUCH LESS INNOCENT )))!..."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.x...
Doctrinal liberties!
Doctrinal tampering!
Yes, Irenaeus has been --- tampered with --- in places in the Latin upon which our English translations are largely based.
As testified to in the footnote above.
Keep that in mind.
WAS IRENAEUS INFLUENCED BY THOSE HE SPENT SO MUCH TIME WRITING ABOUT?
Was Irenaeus Christology influenced by the Gnostics?

Notice his quotation of Valentinius a prominent Gnostic and Christian Apostate concept of “...that which is begotten ( of ) God,- is – God...”

(IRENAEUS-QUOTING-VALENTINIUS c. 130-200 C.E.):“...therefore said he [=Valentinius]...by way of inference ; for that which is begotten of God, is God...”-(Page 28 Gnostic interpretation of the Prolouge of St. John's Gospel. Valentinian perversion of the Holy Scriptures characterized. Five books of S. Irenaeus bishop of Lyons, against heresies. Translated by the Rev. John Keble, with the fragments that remain of his other works. Published 1872 by J. Parker in Oxford.)

Now compare this with Irenaeus personal theology:

(IRENAEUS c. 130-200 C.E.):“...Therefore, the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son...." (On the Apostolic Preaching 2:1:47)

Did Irenaeus adopt this view from Valentinius?

What do you think?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#462 Mar 25, 2013
Who wrote that Matthew?

Since: Mar 13

Denver, NC

#463 Mar 25, 2013
How do we know which translation is the truly correct?

The NWTs or the others...I guess well never know truly know since we didnt live back then.

But to me the Word was God sounds more like it then the word was a god, dont get me wrong Im not trinitarian but the word was a god makes the sentence structure sound odd, like if John really wanted us to know that Jesus was "a god" then I wish he would have worded the sentence differently.

God Bless
~Yogo
jenny talia

Middletown, NY

#464 Mar 25, 2013
Is this the fantasy page?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#465 Mar 26, 2013
PassingTheTest wrote:
Irenaes makes it 100% clear that he emphatically believes God the Father was ALWAYS WITH the Word and the Spirit, without qualifications.
Peace,
Bob
I don't agree with: "...without qualifications..."

As will be shown in subsequent posts.

Aside from these qualifying passages, I would like to ask whether you noticed that, in one of your previous quotations, that Irenaeus called: "...the Spirit..." - the "...Wisdom..." from Proverbs 8:22-31.

He uses Ltn.,( CREAVIT ME ), not Ltn.,( POSSEDIT ME ) as Jerome in much later, Post-Chanceldonian times, in verse 22 concerning the Spirit/Wisdom.

Ltn.,( CREAVIT ME ) "...CREATED ME..."

He is unique in this.

Unique in that, his contemporaries, and others prior to him, tended to identify ( Jesus ) as/with that spirit.

But most, if not all,( aside from )- Irenaeus, identified ( Jesus ) or the Logos as the "...Wisdom..." of Proverbs 8:21-31.

Nonetheless, the implications concerning Irenaeus are that he considered, either:

1.) "...The Spirit..." or
2.) Jesus as the Word

As being: "...CREATED..." as "...THE BEGINNING..." before the age.

Logically, therefore, giving the sense that everything else that God created or brought into existence Ltn.,( PER ) Gk.,( DIA ) through and after Jesus, were subsequent to, anterior, or after that "...BEGINNING..." of creation.

Therefore he, Jesus, was "...BEFORE..." or "...ANTERIOR..." to them, as "...BEGINNING..." and as:

LATIN TEXT:“...PRIMOGENITUS –( IN )– OMNI CONDITIONE...”-(Page 69. Par. 3. Chapter 16. Book 3.“The third&#65279; book of St. Irenaeus Against Heresies” by Henry Deane. Published 1875.)

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN ----((( IN )))----- ALL THE CREATION...”-(Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 3 “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

In case that's not clear enough, he said:

“...THE FIRST ONE TO HAVE BEEN BORN ----((( IN )))----- ALL CREATION...”

"...IN..." all creation, a definite part "...( OF ) ALL ( OF ) CREATION..." as the literal Greek of Col. 1:15 says.

Irenaeus speaks of a two-fold generation theory.

like Irenaeus Proverbs 8:21-31 also speaks of this (Verse 22) "...CREAT[ION]..." and (Verse 23) "...ESTABLISH[ING]/FOUND[ ING]..." and (Verse 25) "...GENERAT[ION]..." .

I would describe Irenaeus as:

BI--{2}--NITARIAN, not as TRI---{3}---NITARIAN in doctrine.

For he emphatically denies, several times, that any-one else, but:

1.) The Father
2.) The Son
3.) Those spiritually adopted as God's sons

Were, or were called "...God...".

If he believed that the holy spirit was indeed "...God..." in the same sense that Jesus and the Father were, then, without a doubt, there is no way he would have passed up the opportunity to make it crystal clear in those passages, if he, and all other "orthodox" Christians of the time, believed that the holy spirit was indeed and truly "...God..." and also part of a Ltn.,( TRINITAS ).

This is irreconcilable with the doctrine that your trying to promote.

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#466 Mar 26, 2013
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with: "...without qualifications..."
As will be shown in subsequent posts.
Aside from these qualifying passages, I would like to ask whether you noticed that, in one of your previous quotations, that Irenaeus called: "...the Spirit..." - the "...Wisdom..." from Proverbs 8:22-31.
He uses Ltn.,( CREAVIT ME ), not Ltn.,( POSSEDIT ME ) as Jerome in much later, Post-Chanceldonian times, in verse 22 concerning the Spirit/Wisdom.
Ltn.,( CREAVIT ME ) "...CREATED ME..."
He is unique in this.
Unique in that, his contemporaries, and others prior to him, tended to identify ( Jesus ) as/with that spirit.
But most, if not all,( aside from )- Irenaeus, identified ( Jesus ) or the Logos as the "...Wisdom..." of Proverbs 8:21-31.
I do not know what else to tell you...

Irenaes tells us that the Father was always with the Son and the Spirit;

Regardless of how Proverbs 8:22 is quoted, the only way to harmonize the quote with Irenaes' statement is to understand Proverbs 8:22 poetically... Created from time indefinite is poetic for not created if the Father was always with the Son and the Spirit and it makes no different if Wisdom is symbolized as the Son or the Spirit.

It appears that you are the one having a problem understanding this and cannot get you hands wrapped around it. If you want to claim tampering and be done - so be it. We can do that, but for now, the only apparent explanation is as I have described. And since this is all we have, it does fit the argument I was making - that the ECF supported the tenets of the Trinity, even though it was not formalized as the trinity definition until years later.

The trinity was always there, but was not fully defined. iNITIALLY The easier way to define the trinity was to describe what it was not via heresies. The ANF and ECF's fought the heresies of modalism, arianism, sybellism, etc. etc. etc. just like every good trinitarian would.

Like I said, I do not know where you want to go from here... Other ECF or ANF?

Against Heresies: Book II
Chapter XXV.—God is not to be sought after by means of letters, syllables, and numbers; necessity of humility in such investigations.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/00107...
3. If, however, any one do not discover the cause of all those things which become objects of investigation, let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God; that he has received grace only in part, and is not yet equal or similar to his Maker; and, moreover, that he cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God; but in the same proportion as he who was formed but to-day, and received the beginning of his creation, is inferior to Him who is uncreated, and who is always the same, in that proportion is he, as respects knowledge and the faculty of investigating the causes of all things, inferior to Him who made him. For thou, O man, art not an uncreated being, nor didst thou <<ALWAYS CO-EXIST WITH GOD>>, <<AS DID HIS OWN WORD>>;

>>Here we have Irenaes stating that the Word always did co-exist with God.

Now it is up to you to reconcile this with Irenaes' quote of Proverbs 8:22. I have this reconciled already with "poetic interpretation". I am not sure how you can do this...

Peace,
Bob

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#467 Mar 26, 2013
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hello David,
..........
3) I do understand that Proverbs 8:22-25 is considered a messianic text for Christ, and I also see that it is used at the same time that the ANFs also held to the belief that the Word was uncreated and always existed. Hence my belief that the ANFs took Proverbs 8:22's "created" in the poetic sense regardless of the version they quoted from. I do believe some trinitarians believe created is literal and try to apply created to Christ flesh only. But this is something i do not agree with because of the poetic description of the very essence of the creation itself.
Are you of the belief that Christ was created and follow the WTBTS' teachings in this regard Christ = Michael the Archangel = Abaddon = currently in a spirit body only? I do not wish to debate this, but I am looking for your perspective only.
Peace,
Bob
Hi Bob

My comments:

(1)Proverbs 8:22 and ECF’s?
My previous post about Athanasius show that the Council of Nicea accepted that Proverbs 8:22 meant created. Also, ECF’s never in their writings cited the Trinity --- Show one statement where any ECF ever said “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, one nature, uncreated, co-equal, co-eternal, three distinct persons, but only One God”? Indeed, look at these statements by the following:

(a)Polycarp prayer:
“O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature,”

(b)Apostles Creed:
1.I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2.I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.

(c)Council Nicea 325 CE
1.“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”
2.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

(d)Council of Constantinople 381 CE
1.“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible”
2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

As can be seen from the above; it is clear that the Father is God Almighty. If the Trinity had been considered --- shouldn’t it have been written as the Athanasian Creed later did? See: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.h... where out of some(40 )statements says at 10-16:

"10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

(2)Proverbs poetic?
I assume that you mean by poetic here that Proverbs 8:22-31 is meant as a “personification”. Is that your position?

(3)Christ created?
(a)Not a JW; but I do agree with their position that Christ was created.
(b)The issue of Michael been Christ. I believe a credible argument from scripture and extra biblical Hebrew writings can be made.
(c)Christ is in Heaven as a Spirit creature. The argument that Christ is now in Heaven as 100% Human and 100 % Spirit and is the 2nd person in the Godhead must mean that God is not immutable and can change. Prior to Christ coming to Earth was he not 100% Spirit?

All the Best

Dave

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#468 Mar 27, 2013
PassingTheTest wrote:
And since this is all we have, it does fit the argument I was making - that the ECF supported the tenets of the Trinity, even though it was not formalized as the trinity definition until years later.
The trinity was always there, but was not fully defined. iNITIALLY The easier way to define the trinity was to describe what it was not via heresies. The ANF and ECF's fought the heresies of modalism, arianism, sybellism, etc. etc. etc. just like every good trinitarian would.

Peace,
Bob
I find other statements of Irenaeus, that if,(hypothetically of course), he really did teach a co-eternal Christ, as you believe and propose, that simply do not make sense.

When comparing the two, his doctrine then becomes highly contradictory and inconsistent. A classic sign and hall mark of later tampering.

When the English translator or editor that commented on the translational: "...Liberties..." taken by the Latin translator of Irenaeus' original Greek work, in a doctrinally sensitive passage concerning Christ, and then says clearly that this was:

"...Innocent..."

In comparison with other doctrinal "...liberties..." taken, then ones suspicion is legitimately aroused.

And a red flag should rightly go up.

When taken in the overall picture of the large scale tampering and retro-editing that has indeed been done by Tri{3}nitarians of the ECF/ANF texts, I then, find your view far far less believable.

For instance, Irenaeus says this:

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...the Word, who existed ( in ) the beginning with God,[...] that every objection is set aside of those who say,“If our Lord&#65279; was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence.” FOR I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE SON OF GOD DID NOT ---((( THEN )))--- BEGIN TO EXIST,--- BEING WITH THE FATHER ---((( FROM )))--- THE BEGINNING...”-(Book 3, Chapter 18, Section 1,“Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Notice how Irenaeus says:

"...For I have shown..."

"...THAT THE SON OF GOD DID NOT ---((( THEN )))--- BEGIN TO EXIST..."

"...THEN.."

Is indicative of time.

And then says it was:

"...BEING WITH THE FATHER ---((( FROM )))--- THE BEGINNING..."

Note that word, and qualification:

"...((( FROM )))--- THE BEGINNING..."

"...IN..." and "...FROM..." are not before the beginning.

Compared with:

LATIN TEXT:“...PRIMOGENITUS –--((( IN )))--– OMNI CONDITIONE...”-(Page 69. Par. 3. Chapter 16. Book 3. The third book of St. Irenaeus "Against Heresies" by Henry Deane. Published 1875.)

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN ----((( IN )))----- ALL THE CREATION...”-(Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 3 “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

The text becomes doubtful.

That's not all, by any means. More to come.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#469 Mar 27, 2013
Lets have another look at this passage.

A closer look.

LATIN TEXT:“...Dominus -( creavit me )- principium viarum suarum -( in )- opera sua, ante saecula fundavit me, in initio antequam terram faceret, priusquam abyssos constitueret, et priusquam procederent fontes aquarum, antequam montes confirmarentur ; ante omnes autem colles genuit me.[…] Quum pararet caelum eram cum illo, et quum firmos faceret fontes abyssi, quando fortia faciebat fundamenta terrae, eram apud eum aptans. Ego eram cui adgaudebat, quotidie autem {3}laetabar ante faciem eius in omni tempore, quum laetaretur orbe perfecto, et {4}iocundabatur in filiis hominum...”-(Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 3.)

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son,( was always with ) the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit,( was present ) with Him,( anterior to ) all creation, He declares by Solomon:“God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” And again:“THE LORD ---((( CREATED ME )))--- THE BEGINNING OF --- HIS WAYS ---((( IN )))--- HIS WORK : He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth.” And again:“When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men...”-(Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 3,“AGAINST HERESIES,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Now I have just put the Latin text of the Proverbs quotation only for now.

That's what I intend to focus on.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#470 Mar 27, 2013
IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son,( was always with ) the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit,( was present ) with Him,( anterior to ) all creation, He declares by Solomon:“God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” And again:“THE LORD ---((( CREATED ME )))--- THE BEGINNING OF --- HIS WAYS ---((( IN )))--- HIS WORK : He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth.” And again:“When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men...”-(Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 3,“AGAINST HERESIES,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Now what's interesting is that Irenaeus puts his own little variant on both Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15:

Compare:

LATIN TEXT:“...DOMINUS -( CREAVIT ME )- PRINCIPIUM VIARUM SUARUM -( IN )- OPERA SUA...”-(Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 3.)

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...THE LORD ---((( CREATED ME )))--- THE BEGINNING OF --- HIS WAYS ---((( IN )))--- HIS WORK...”-(Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 3,“AGAINST HERESIES,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

LATIN TEXT:“...PRIMOGENITUS –--((( IN )))--– OMNI CONDITIONE...”-(Page 69. Par. 3. Chapter 16. Book 3. The third book of St. Irenaeus "Against Heresies" by Henry Deane. Published 1875.)

IRENAEUS OF LYONS (circa. 130-200 C.E.):“...THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN ----((( IN )))----- ALL THE CREATION...”-(Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 3 “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Compare:

“...THE LORD ( CREATED ) ME...”--- with ---“...IN ALL ( THE CREATION )...”

“...( IN ) HIS WORK...”--- with ---“...( IN ) ALL THE CREATION...”

Note his use of Ltn.,( IN ) in both texts.

What is thought is he conveying?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
You know, churchoids- 4 min Brother P 521
News Jehovah's Witness conventions will draw 11,000 ... 37 min aadrivers 36
Brexit voted out of EU, Globalist Must Crease C... 3 hr Brother P 58
Do you churchoids agree with IrishDumb & Dumboy? 3 hr imagoodboy 21
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 5 hr imagoodboy 7,513
1914 5 hr red blood relative 234
How Could God Essentially Turn an Angel Into God? 5 hr red blood relative 116
News Judge sanctions Jehovah's Witnesses 9 hr red blood relative 32
More from around the web