I Was A Jehovah's Witness from age 28-44. I'm now 55

[SingleMomMonica]

And this is why…

If you compare the two Bible texts, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and John 5:25-28 it is fairly easy to see why this is one of the strongest cases for supporting the idea that Michael is Jesus.

1 Thess. 4:16 reads: For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.

Okay, so God Himself will come down from heaven with one of the archangels shout and another being or beings playing a trumpet. Nothing about Jesus being St Michael, one of the 7 Archangels.

John 5:24-29 reads: Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear Him will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and He has given Him authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in graves will hear His voice and come forth-those who have done good, to the resurrection, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Okay, so Jesus says that right at that moment He is speaking to the dead, that is the spiritually dead as He always refers to the physically dead as those who are ‘asleep’ and those who listen (and obey Him) will avoid judgement. And that those who believe in God the Father who sent Jesus will pass from death, spiritual dead, will pass into life, eternal life (reborn through baptism). Then He says the in the future thoses in the graves will hear His voice and will rise, some to eternal life with God and some to eternal life without God. Again, nothing about Jesus being one of the 7 Archangels St. Michael.

One passage refers to His decent from Heaven accompanied any at least 2 other beings, one of whom is one of the Archangels and the one is playing a musical instument.

The other passage He speaks about the present and His speak to the people in front of Him and then He talks about the future once He has already completed His descent from Heaven.

So coming down an archangel shouts and once He’s hear, those in graves hear Jesus and rise. Nothing remotely close to stating that Jesus is one of the 7 Archangels.

 

[JohnOneOne]

How do they reconcile their belief the Jesus is “a god” when the Scripture is clear that there is only One God and all other “gods” are false gods?

When examining Jesus’ words at John 10:34, 35, as he was quoting from Psalm 82:6, we can see that others are called “gods,” commonly identified as the magistrate judges of Israel. (And this is not the only example within the Bible where others, those not in opposition to Almighty God, are referred to as “gods.”)

“The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elōhîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…”

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado. “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary.” (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Certainly, because of the faithfulness of Jesus as God’s “servant” (Isaiah 43:1; 52:13; Matthew 12:18) and due to the obedience (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 5:8) of Jesus as God’s ‘Anointed One’ (Acts 10:38), that which he willingly displayed (John 4:34) toward his heavenly Father (John 5:36), his God (John 20:17), even to his own death (Matthew 26:39), as God’s “apostle” (Hebrews 3:1), our “Savior” (Luke 2:11; John 3:17; Acts 5:31; 1 John 4:14), serving as our appointed “Lord” (Acts 2:34)**, designated “Judge” (John 5:22; Acts 17:31), heavenly Ruler (Revelation 3:21) and “King” (1 Corinthians 15:25), he has surely more right to the title “god” (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:18), than any other earthly (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), or heavenly “representative” **(Psalm 8:5) **of God. ** (John 7:29. Compare also: 1 Corinthians 15:27).

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

 

[Monica4316]

Christians have always believed that Jesus is God, from the very beginning

the people who were taught by the Apostles believed He is God. Did the Apostles get it wrong? how can we presume to know better than the Apostles?

 

[JohnOneOne]

Christians have always believed that Jesus is God, from the very beginning

the people who were taught by the Apostles believed He is God. Did the Apostles get it wrong? how can we presume to know better than the Apostles?

Dear Monica,

Although some do believe this, the following might prove to be of interest:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Taken from: Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The import of such a statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during the same time period as the Apostles themselves - perhaps, with some having even been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if even among “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept about God, that is, as had been held by the Jews for centuries before Jesus’ and the Apostles time.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

 

[SingleMomMonica]

When examining Jesus’ words at John 10:34, 35, as he was quoting from Psalm 82:6, we can see that others are called “gods,” commonly identified as the magistrate judges of Israel. (And this is not the only example within the Bible where others, those not in opposition to Almighty God, are referred to as “gods.”)

“The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elōhîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…”

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado. “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary.” (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Certainly, because of the faithfulness of Jesus as God’s “servant” (Isaiah 43:1; 52:13; Matthew 12:18) and due to the obedience (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 5:8) of Jesus as God’s ‘Anointed One’ (Acts 10:38), that which he willingly displayed (John 4:34) toward his heavenly Father (John 5:36), his God (John 20:17), even to his own death (Matthew 26:39), as God’s “apostle” (Hebrews 3:1), our “Savior” (Luke 2:11; John 3:17; Acts 5:31; 1 John 4:14), serving as our appointed “Lord” (Acts 2:34)**, designated “Judge” (John 5:22; Acts 17:31), heavenly Ruler (Revelation 3:21) and “King” (1 Corinthians 15:25), he has surely more right to the title “god” (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:18), than any other earthly (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), or heavenly “representative” **(Psalm 8:5) **of God. ** (John 7:29. Compare also: 1 Corinthians 15:27).

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

I know that God became human so that humans could become gods. That’s the theosis (salvation) is all about. That’s what the early Church Fathers and the Church still teaches.

 

[Monica4316]

Dear Monica,

Although some do believe this, the following might prove to be of interest:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Taken from: Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The import of such a statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during the same time period as the Apostles themselves - perhaps, with some having even been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if even among “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept about God, that is, as had been held by the Jews for centuries before Jesus’ and the Apostles time.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

Hi John,

there’s something I learned about the Catholic Church that might help

some people say that no one believed in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, or the Infallibility of the Pope, before they were officially declared as dogma… and they use this as an argument against the Catholic Church, saying that it ‘invented’ these doctrines.

However, many Catholics know that these ideas were already believed by the faithful, and the reason they were declared as doctrines is because there was opposition to them at the time…and the Church wanted to clarify its position for people. This happened a lot during the Counter Reformation.

Imagine a person living a thousand years from now…they’ll say, “oh those Catholics, they only started believing the Immaculate Conception in 1854, because before then we can’t find any evidence for it…”
however, although the term is new, the concept is not. It was just given new terminology. The idea that Mary had not sinned goes to the early Church Fathers.

In the early Church, it was similar. There were many heresies… and councils were called to deal with these heresies and clarify what Christianity really teaches. These councils were lead by the Holy Spirit and we should not reject them. It is because of them we have the Creeds. Maybe that quote from the 4th century comes from a time when the concept of the Trinity needed to be formally defined, to fight heresies.

However, you’re incorrect that there’s no mention of it before then.

Look at this quote from St Ignatius of Antioch. It’s from 110 AD. That’s extremely early on. He probably knew the Apostles themselves. He said:

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

here are two more:

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

In case you think this was just Ignatius, here are several more:

Aristides
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things,** in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit**” (Apology 16 [A.D. **140]).

Tatian the Syrian
“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. **170]).

and here’s a lot more:
catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

The Divinity of Christ

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of** Jesus Christ, our God**, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things,** in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit**” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis

“It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the** deity hidden in his flesh**.** Being God and likewise perfect man**, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

“Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself** in his own right God and Lord **. . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth” (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, **he might both be acknowledged as God **and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

 

[Monica4316]

Hippolytus of Rome

“For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” (ibid., 10:34).

Novatian

“If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Arnobius

“‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’” (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).

Lactantius

"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

“We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . **[But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father” **(ibid., 4:28–29).

Council of Nicaea I

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made" (Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

“But those who say, ‘There was a time when he [the Son] did not exist,’ and ‘Before he was born, he did not exist,’ and ‘Because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call** ‘God the Son of God **changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes” (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Patrick of Ireland

"Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe, and whose coming we expect will soon take place, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to everyone according to his works" (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).**

 

[Monica4316]

The early Church Fathers all agree and this has been the consistent teaching of the Church till today.

God bless

 

[JohnOneOne]

I know that God became human so that humans could become gods. That’s the theosis (salvation) is all about. That’s what the early Church Fathers and the Church still teaches.

Dear Monica,

Or, you might wish to consider that, because Adam proved unfaithful to his God and Father, apart from other purposes as well, Jehovah had then decided to send his only-begotten Son to earth to do what Adam had failed to do, to prove that Adam could have, as a perfect creation, been obedient, even if it meant that the test of Jesus’ integrity to his own God and Father would lead to his own death. (John 20:17)

(Romans 5:18-19) “So, then, as through one trespass {by Adam} the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification {by Jesus} the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man {Adam} many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] {Jesus} many will be constituted righteous.”

(1 Timothy 2:5-6) “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all..*.”, that is, to offset what Adam had done.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Dear Monica,

Although some do believe this, the following might prove to be of interest:

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Taken from: Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The import of such a statement becomes all the more significant when we appreciate the fact that “the Apostolic Fathers” are those who were said to have lived during the same time period as the Apostles themselves - perhaps, with some having even been taught by them as well.

Therefore, if even among “the Apostolic Fathers” “there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective,” and, especially, for this teaching to not have ever been a part of the Christian “profession of faith,” that is, as expressed within any Christian ‘declaration of belief’ until the end of the 4th century, then this would unequivocally substantiate the fact that neither the Apostles nor any of the earliest of Christians had ever believed and/or been taught, nor, in turn, had ever sensed the need to defend any such radically new concept about God, that is, as had been held by the Jews for centuries before Jesus’ and the Apostles time.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

The word “Trinity” had not yet been made ‘official’ to describe the reality of the Triune God as revealed by Christ until the Council, but make no mistake the earliest Christians and Martyrs did believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is One. Just read the lives of the early Christians - like St. Marina of Antioch who was Martyred on July 17th in the 200s during her numerorous tortures, one of the ways they tried to kill her was by drowning her and she prayed that when she entered the boiling water that it would be for her baptism and when she entered the cauldrin her bonds were loosed and when she emerged, the Holy Trinity was their in the form of a Dove, a Fiery Column and a Cross in the sky, “she glorified and magnified, with all her soul, the All-Holy Trinity”. Then a voice, which all the people in the city heard when God said, “Come to the upper mansions of Paradise, of godly bride Marina, to enjoy the incorruptible crown in the beloved tents of God, so that thou might eternally rejoice with the choirs of the saints in a place of rest.” Then, 1,015 men plus women and children were converted to Christianity & immediately martyred. They were not baptized by water, but by the blood of their martyrdom. So you see, even the Saints/Martyrs before the councils did believe in the Trinity. The example I gave is just one of many.

 

[Monica4316]

Dear Monica,

Or, you might wish to consider that, because Adam proved unfaithful to his God and Father, apart from other purposes as well, Jehovah had then decided to send his only-begotten Son to earth to do what Adam had failed to do, to prove that Adam could have, as a perfect creation, been obedient, even if it meant that the test of Jesus’ integrity to his own God and Father would lead to his own death. (John 20:17)

(Romans 5:18-19) “So, then, as through one trespass {by Adam} the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification {by Jesus} the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man {Adam} many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] {Jesus} many will be constituted righteous.”

(1 Timothy 2:5-6) “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all..*.”, that is, to offset what Adam had done.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.

John, first I thought this was a response to me, haha that’s what happens when two people have the same name

I see now it’s not, but I thought of something while reading it.

In this case, how was Jesus able to be sinless, if He’s not God, but ONLY a man? and if all men have original sin through Adam; what did God do to make him sinless? for example, we believe Mary is sinless, but this happened by grace, as she was saved at her conception (the Immaculate Conception). But what about Jesus?

further, this has theological implications… the debt that we owed to God was so great that only He could pay it, but it needed to be paid by a human… the only solution is God becoming a Man (the hypostatic union)

it was a great act of Mercy on His part. That He wouldn’t just send another… but come Himself. It shows His love for us…,. that He would be willing to die Himself.

The word “Trinity” had not yet been made ‘official’ to describe the reality of the Triune God as revealed by Christ until the Council, but make no mistake the earliest Christians and Martyrs did believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is One. Just read the lives of the early Christians - like St. Marina of Antioch who was Martyred on July 17th in the 200s during her numerorous tortures, one of the ways they tried to kill her was by drowning her and she prayed that when she entered the boiling water that it would be for her baptism and when she entered the cauldrin her bonds were loosed and when she emerged, the Holy Trinity was their in the form of a Dove, a Fiery Column and a Cross in the sky, “she glorified and magnified, with all her soul, the All-Holy Trinity”. Then a voice, which all the people in the city heard when God said, “Come to the upper mansions of Paradise, of godly bride Marina, to enjoy the incorruptible crown in the beloved tents of God, so that thou might eternally rejoice with the choirs of the saints in a place of rest.” Then, 1,015 men plus women and children were converted to Christianity & immediately martyred. They were not baptized by water, but by the blood of their martyrdom. So you see, even the Saints/Martyrs before the councils did believe in the Trinity. The example I gave is just one of many.

wow!

 

[JohnOneOne]

The early Church Fathers all agree and this has been the consistent teaching of the Church till today.

God bless

Dear Monica,

Yes, as you might imagine, I am certainly quite aware of such claims, statements and/or quotations.

First of all, I stand by the quote of the New Catholic Encyclopedia I referenced earlier, whereby even they admitted, regarding "…the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

Taken from: Richard, R. L. (b.?-d.?). Article on “Trinity, Holy” appearing within: The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an Editorial Staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV [14], p. 299. BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

To which, I would also add:

“…by the end of the periods of the Apostolic Fathers there was no belief in a preexistent Trinity.”

Taken from: Wolfson, Harry Austryn (b.1887-d.1974), Nathan Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy, Emeritus, Harvard University. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. vol. 1 – Faith, Trinity, Incarnation. 2nd Edition. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 191. BT25 .W62 / 64005600.

Otherwise, little known to some, when many of these ‘Early Church Fathers’ are quoted, there are some common problems. Many (if not most): are being quoted out of context; are being quoted from translations done by some with ‘a theological axe to grind’; or, are being quoted from sources which are in question of their own authenticity.

Although such issues might give the impression that nothing of what they had written can be relied upon, that is, as a source to determine what and/or how they thought, on the other hand, just knowing of such difficulties should cause us to use some caution when citing them as a proof point.

Besides examining their writings with a scrutinizing eye, that is also why I like to give serious consideration to what scholars, like Richard and Wolfson, have to say on the matter. Even though these can, likewise, possess and display their own bias, when these have said as they have above, quick dismissal of their assessments cannot, in my view, be summarily dismissed.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Dear Monica,

Or, you might wish to consider that, because Adam proved unfaithful to his God and Father, apart from other purposes as well, Jehovah had then decided to send his only-begotten Son to earth to do what Adam had failed to do, to prove that Adam could have, as a perfect creation, been obedient, even if it meant that the test of Jesus’ integrity to his own God and Father would lead to his own death. (John 20:17)

(Romans 5:18-19) “So, then, as through one trespass {by Adam} the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification {by Jesus} the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man {Adam} many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] {Jesus} many will be constituted righteous.”

(1 Timothy 2:5-6) “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all..*.”, that is, to offset what Adam had done.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.

Right. Adam was created in God’s Image and Likeness.

Image: Adam had in full as he is a person just as God is Person. Person in that he is: free, unique and relational

Likeness: Basically his potential and goal given to Adam, to become god. Adam messed up in this regard because he tried to become god with out God - thinking he could do it on his own.

Christ came to restore humanity to it’s origninal potential and to let us know the goal - the New Testament is full of this.

Jesus tells us to be holy as our Father in Heaven is Holy, to be merciful as He is, to become like Him, to become one with God as He and Christ are one, instructing us to be godly and to (2 Peter 1:3-4) “as divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may Be Partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

 

[Monica4316]

Dear Monica,

Yes, as you might imagine, I am certainly quite aware of such claims, statements and/or quotations.

First of all, I stand by the quote of the New Catholic Encyclopedia I referenced earlier, whereby even they admitted, regarding "…the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

I think they’re talking about the title “the Trinity”. The title did not always exist, but the concept did. This is NOT a debated area in Church history… Catholics know this is what the Church has always taught. I just provided you with many quotes… would you say they are fabricated? because to be honest, they’re hard to ignore. Whenever the early Church Fathers agree on something…that means that’s what was taught at the time.

To which, I would also add:

“…by the end of the periods of the Apostolic Fathers there was no belief in a preexistent Trinity.”

Taken from: Wolfson, Harry Austryn (b.1887-d.1974), Nathan Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy, Emeritus, Harvard University. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. vol. 1 – Faith, Trinity, Incarnation. 2nd Edition. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 191. BT25 .W62 / 64005600.

That’s just one person’s opinion/view in a book… many more disagree with him. These books are not infallible. But it remains that there’s a lot of evidence out there, some of which I provided.

Otherwise, little known to some, when many of these ‘Early Church Fathers’ are quoted, there are some common problems. Many (if not most): are being quoted out of context; are being quoted from translations done by some with ‘a theological axe to grind’; or, are being quoted from sources which are in question of their own authenticity.

when more than 20 quotes all say “Christ is God”, in the most direct language, I dont see how they could be taken “out of context”. Just think about this …does it even matter what the context is, if they say it so directly? and they all agree. As for translations, the word “God” has never been mistranslated in Church history, to my knowledge. It’s all very clear. As for authenticity, I dont know, there might be a couple sources that are questionable (who knows), but 90% of them are not so again, it doesn’t sway the argument.

Although such issues might give the impression that nothing of what they had written can be relied upon, that is, as a source to determine what and/or how they thought, on the other hand, just knowing of such difficulties should cause us to use some caution when citing them as a proof point.

Besides examining their writings with a scrutinizing eye, that is also why I like to give serious consideration to what scholars, like Richard and Wolfson, have to say on the matter. Even though these can, likewise, possess and display their own bias, when these have said as they have above, quick dismissal of their assessments cannot, in my view, be summarily dismissed.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books.

well John, let me ask you…what is your evidence that Christ is not God? this is something that has not been historically believed by Christians… it’s a fairly new concept, taught mostly by the JWs… many of the Biblical explanations for it seem a little far- fetched to me. To be honest, for me it’s much easier just believing that Christ is God. What is preventing you from believing this? I’ve never found a convincing argument against the idea. (and even if I did, I’d still believe that Jesus is God, because this is the core of my faith.) Just a sincere question

God bless

 

[JohnOneOne]

John, first I thought this was a response to me, haha that’s what happens when two people have the same name

I see now it’s not, but I thought of something while reading it.

In this case, how was Jesus able to be sinless, if He’s not God, but ONLY a man? and if all men have original sin through Adam; what did God do to make him sinless? for example, we believe Mary is sinless, but this happened by grace, as she was saved at her conception (the Immaculate Conception). But what about Jesus?

(Luke 1:35) ...the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

further, this has theological implications… the debt that we owed to God was so great that only He could pay it, but it needed to be paid by a human… the only solution is God becoming a Man (the hypostatic union)

it was a great act of Mercy on His part. That He wouldn’t just send another… but come Himself. It shows His love for us…,. that He would be willing to die Himself.

Actually, if it were, indeed, God who came to offset the sin of Adam, then this would have been an unbalanced offering. That is why, when the Apostle Paul was discussing this, he said:

(Romans 5:18-19) “So, then, as through one trespass {by Adam} the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification {by Jesus} the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man {Adam} many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] {Jesus} many will be constituted righteous.”

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

 

[Monica4316]

I just read John 1… it’s perfect Scriptural evidence for the divinity of Christ. It says that the Word is God, and then that Jesus is the Word who was made flesh… thus: Jesus is God. I’m bolding the relevant parts.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.**

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us**. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

it also shows the Trinity in verse 1… that the Word was both with God and was God. This is only possible if the Trinity is true.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

(Luke 1:35) ...the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

sure, that is true, but it does not show that God’s Son is not God. We also believe Jesus is God’s Son

Actually, if it were, indeed, God who came to offset the sin of Adam, then this would have been an unbalanced offering. That is why, when the Apostle Paul was discussing this, he said:

(Romans 5:18-19) “So, then, as through one trespass {by Adam} the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification {by Jesus} the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man {Adam} many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] {Jesus} many will be constituted righteous.”

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

It would only have been an unbalanced offering if the God who made the offering was not also a Man. Since Jesus is both God and Man, His offering is both balanced and perfect and sufficient

if Jesus was only a man, His offering would not have been sufficient.

God bless

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I think they’re talking about the title “the Trinity”. The title did not always exist, but the concept did. This is NOT a debated area in Church history… Catholics know this is what the Church has always taught. I just provided you with many quotes… would you say they are fabricated? because to be honest, they’re hard to ignore. Whenever the early Church Fathers agree on something…that means that’s what was taught at the time.

That’s just one person’s opinion/view in a book… many more disagree with him. These books are not infallible. But it remains that there’s a lot of evidence out there, some of which I provided.

when more than 20 quotes all say “Christ is God”, in the most direct language, I dont see how they could be taken “out of context”. Just think about this …does it even matter what the context is, if they say it so directly? and they all agree. As for translations, the word “God” has never been mistranslated in Church history, to my knowledge. It’s all very clear. As for authenticity, I dont know, there might be a couple sources that are questionable (who knows), but 90% of them are not so again, it doesn’t sway the argument.

well John, let me ask you…what is your evidence that Christ is not God? this is something that has not been historically believed by Christians… it’s a fairly new concept, taught mostly by the JWs… many of the Biblical explanations for it seem a little far- fetched to me. To be honest, for me it’s much easier just believing that Christ is God. What is preventing you from believing this? I’ve never found a convincing argument against the idea. (and even if I did, I’d still believe that Jesus is God, because this is the core of my faith.) Just a sincere question

God bless

Arius of the 4th century was the first one to believe/teach that Christ is not God. But that’s 4 centuries after Christ’s death & resurrection. In the Council that was called to address this new teaching that Christ wasn’t God, Arius’ novel idea was completely squashed as it didn’t jive with the teachings handed down by Christ, but Arianism did infect the Church for a while.

 

[Monica4316]

Arius of the 4th century was the first one to believe/teach that Christ is not God. But that’s 4 centuries after Christ’s death & resurrection. In the Council that was called to address this new teaching that Christ wasn’t God, Arius’ novel idea was completely squashed as it didn’t jive with the teachings handed down by Christ, but Arianism did infect the Church for a while.