Melito, bishop of Sardis, calls the Son Archangel

[Randy_Carson]

Dan:
You are still clear as mud, to me. Sorry. How about making a real argument, not a theoretical one? That might make more sense to me. It does not matter who thinks what unless it is one of the inspired bible writers teaching it in context.

Dan-

I’m sorry that I have not been able to express myself well. Let me simply ask a few questions…one Bible Student to another.

Do some people who study the Bible believe that the phrase “Son of Man” refers to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity? Yes or no.

Do some people who study the Bible believe that the phrase “Son of Man” refers to Jesus, a created being, who is called Michael the Archangel in heaven? Yes or no.

If not, please clarify for me. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

You have said that the relationship between Jesus and Michael is is a minor point in JW teaching, but as someone who considers himself a Bible Student, I am interested in pursuing truth. I’m sure you want to help me in this regard.

Is my understanding correct? Michael the Archangel was the firstborn of God’s creation; hence, Michael is called the “Son of God”. Michael became the messiah or Christ (called Jesus on earth), and now he is Michael in heaven again. Is that right?

Thanks for your help in understanding this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

I’m still trying to get my arms around a few concepts. I appreciate your help.

A rock is a being with no persons.
I am a being with one person.
God (according to those who accept the doctrine of the trinity) is a being with three persons.

Since the number of persons in a single being is not fixed, is there anything that prevents God from being three persons in one being?

Is a trinity at least *theoretically *possible?

Thanks for your time answering all my questions.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan-

I’m still trying to get my arms around a few concepts. I appreciate your help.

A rock is a being with no persons.
I am a being with one person.
God (according to those who accept the doctrine of the trinity) is a being with three persons.

Since the number of persons in a single being is not fixed, is there anything that prevents God from being three persons in one being?

Is a trinity at least *theoretically *possible?

Thanks for your time answering all my questions.

Humans have conjured up all kinds of beings in their imaginations in fictional works. Are they theoretically possible? Who can say? That is not a good foundation for an argument. If you want to use something concrete, I would use the scientific method. Look for all the examples of persons in Scripture or that you can verify in nature and see if you can come up with any where more than one person shares the same being.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Humans have conjured up all kinds of beings in their imaginations in fictional works. Are they theoretically possible? Who can say? That is not a good foundation for an argument. If you want to use something concrete, I would use the scientific method. Look for all the examples of persons in Scripture or that you can verify in nature and see if you can come up with any where more than one person shares the same being.

Well, that is the issue, isn’t it?

All of the people in the Scriptures are by definition one person since that is the nature of human beings.

Some people think, however, that Jesus was one person with two natures and two wills - human and divine. And that God is one being, one nature, yet three persons.

Scripture clearly teaches that God is one. Yet, some Bible students find evidence of more than one person - persons that they call Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Anyhoo, thanks for recognizing that a trinitarian formulation - that is, one being with three persons - is at least theoretically possible.

I suppose the next logical question would be: is there anything in scripture that explicity or implicitly prohibits this theoretical possibility?

Let me know if you have any thoughts on that…thanks.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Well, that is the issue, isn’t it?

All of the people in the Scriptures are by definition one person since that is the nature of human beings.

Some people think, however, that Jesus was one person with two natures and two wills - human and divine. And that God is one being, one nature, yet three persons.

Scripture clearly teaches that God is one. Yet, some Bible students find evidence of more than one person - persons that they call Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Anyhoo, thanks for recognizing that a trinitarian formulation - that is, one being with three persons - is at least theoretically possible.

I suppose the next logical question would be: is there anything in scripture that explicity or implicitly prohibits this theoretical possibility?

Let me know if you have any thoughts on that…thanks.

This is where my hermeneutic and yours differs greatly. Since you introduce a new concept that is not taught by any bible writer, it is up to you to bear the burden of proof. Let me give you an example.

There is an old movie with James Stuart called Harvey. Harvey is a very large invisible rabbit who is a companion of Jimmy but who no one else can see. How does one disprove the existence of what one cannot see? Touch where you think it is… oops, it moved!

It is hard to disprove that something does not exist if it does not exist. No one talks about it if it does not exist. No bible writer teaches the doctrine. No bible writer teaches explicitly against it. That is consistent with something that does not exist.

Have you seen my post on the quotes from Gregory Nyssa and John of Damascus? They say the Trinity comes from Judaism and Greek teachings and that parts of both remain. This happened after the apostles died.

That is why we don’t see a teaching of the Trinity in Scripture.

 

[Tomster]

This is where my hermeneutic and yours differs greatly. Since you introduce a new concept that is not taught by any bible writer, it is up to you to bear the burden of proof. Let me give you an example.

There is an old movie with James Stuart called Harvey. Harvey is a very large invisible rabbit who is a companion of Jimmy but who no one else can see. How does one disprove the existence of what one cannot see? Touch where you think it is… oops, it moved!

It is hard to disprove that something does not exist if it does not exist. No one talks about it if it does not exist. No bible writer teaches the doctrine. No bible writer teaches explicitly against it. That is consistent with something that does not exist.

Have you seen my post on the quotes from Gregory Nyssa and John of Damascus? They say the Trinity comes from Judaism and Greek teachings and that parts of both remain. This happened after the apostles died.

That is why we don’t see a teaching of the Trinity in Scripture.

Dan,

Have you seen this one?

“The Holy Trinity” by the very same St. John?

I quote:

“In regard to the consubstantial and life-giving Holy Trinity we confess one nature, one will, one operation, one virtue and power and domination, as also one Godhead, three Hypostasis or Persons (1), while preserving the property (2) of each Person. In the plan of the Incarnation (3) of one of the Holy Trinity, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, there are two natures involved, the divine and the human, two wills likewise and two operations, but one Hypostasis or one Person, because He is one and the same who before the ages was begotten incorporally and not as effluence, and who in these most recent times was conceived of the Holy Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God (4) in an indescribable manner and inviolately. The same Person is whole man and God. In one hypostasis, He is acknowledged, in respect to the divine nature, not to be subject to suffering, but subject to be suffering in respect to theassumed nature. And after parturition, of course, the signs of virginity, the seals so to speak, were kept safe.”

St. John’s work entitled The Holy Trinity is a short essay in question and answer form. It deals not only with the doctrine of the Trinity but also with the more important points of Christology.

 

[Tomster]

This is where my hermeneutic and yours differs greatly. Since you introduce a new concept that is not taught by any bible writer, it is up to you to bear the burden of proof. Let me give you an example.

There is an old movie with James Stuart called Harvey. Harvey is a very large invisible rabbit who is a companion of Jimmy but who no one else can see. How does one disprove the existence of what one cannot see? Touch where you think it is… oops, it moved!

It is hard to disprove that something does not exist if it does not exist. No one talks about it if it does not exist. No bible writer teaches the doctrine. No bible writer teaches explicitly against it. That is consistent with something that does not exist.

Have you seen my post on the quotes from Gregory Nyssa and John of Damascus? They say the Trinity comes from Judaism and Greek teachings and that parts of both remain. This happened after the apostles died.

That is why we don’t see a teaching of the Trinity in Scripture.

 

[Tomster]

This is where my hermeneutic and yours differs greatly. Since you introduce a new concept that is not taught by any bible writer, it is up to you to bear the burden of proof. Let me give you an example.

There is an old movie with James Stuart called Harvey. Harvey is a very large invisible rabbit who is a companion of Jimmy but who no one else can see. How does one disprove the existence of what one cannot see? Touch where you think it is… oops, it moved!

It is hard to disprove that something does not exist if it does not exist. No one talks about it if it does not exist. No bible writer teaches the doctrine. No bible writer teaches explicitly against it. That is consistent with something that does not exist.

Have you seen my post on the quotes from Gregory Nyssa and John of Damascus? They say the Trinity comes from Judaism and Greek teachings and that parts of both remain. This happened after the apostles died.

That is why we don’t see a teaching of the Trinity in Scripture.

Dan,

Perhaps you missed this one by the very same St. Gregory?

“To the Greeks: From Universal Ideas”

Again, I quote:

"It is one and the same Person of the Father (1) by whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore and fittingly, there being one Cause of Those whom He has caused, we boldly say there is One God, since He also co-exists (2) with Them. For the Persons of the Godhead are separated one from another neither in time, nor place, nor will, nor practice, nor operation, nor passivity, nor any of the like such things such as are perceived with men, but only in that the Father is Father and not Son, and the Son is Son and not Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.

This short work deals with the expressions and terminology used in describing the Trinity.

I think you may have watching too many movies.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is where my hermeneutic and yours differs greatly. Since you introduce a new concept that is not taught by any bible writer, it is up to you to bear the burden of proof.

Actually, Dan, the burden of proof is upon you for two reasons:

1. This is a Catholic forum, and the Catholics enjoy home court advantage. If you wish to come convince Catholics that something that the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years is in error, then the burden of proof is on YOU. Of course, when you make your arguments, I’m sure that many Catholics will offer counter-arguments. But that’s why you’re here, right? To witness to the truth as you see it?

It is hard to disprove that something does not exist if it does not exist. No one talks about it if it does not exist. No bible writer teaches the doctrine. No bible writer teaches explicitly against it. That is consistent with something that does not exist.

Well, I guess that is what we have to discuss. It seems that the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, upon Peter, the rock, and led by the Holy Spirit has determined that God is a triune being - one God, three persons. Catholics might argue that the Bible speaks implicitly of the Trinity…but, more importantly, Catholics might ask you to demonstrate from scripture where they are required to prove all things from Scripture Alone. If this requirement does not exist, then the absence of the word “Trinity” in scripture would not present a problem, would it?

Have you seen my post on the quotes from Gregory Nyssa and John of Damascus? They say the Trinity comes from Judaism and Greek teachings and that parts of both remain. This happened after the apostles died.

I will review this separate thread as time allows. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.

That is why we don’t see a teaching of the Trinity in Scripture.

To be fair, it might be more accurate to say that we do not see an explicit teaching of the Trinity in Scripture, but obviously, there was something in the early Church’s understanding of the Gospel which led to the development of this doctrine. Obviously, the question comes down to whether the Church is correct in this teaching or not.

Did Jesus promise to build the Church or not?

Did Jesus promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth or not?

Can the Church built by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit ever…EVER…teach error?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

I’m sorry that I have not been able to express myself well. Let me simply ask a few questions…one Bible Student to another.

Do some people who study the Bible believe that the phrase “Son of Man” refers to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity? Yes or no.

Do some people who study the Bible believe that the phrase “Son of Man” refers to Jesus, a created being, who is called Michael the Archangel in heaven? Yes or no.

If not, please clarify for me. Thanks.

Dan-

I realize that you are busy in lots of threads, but I would love to hear back from you on these questions.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

You have said that the relationship between Jesus and Michael is is a minor point in JW teaching, but as someone who considers himself a Bible Student, I am interested in pursuing truth. I’m sure you want to help me in this regard.

Is my understanding correct? Michael the Archangel was the firstborn of God’s creation; hence, Michael is called the “Son of God”. Michael became the messiah or Christ (called Jesus on earth), and now he is Michael in heaven again. Is that right?

Thanks for your help in understanding this.

Dan-

As I do my study, clarification on this would be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Have you seen this one?

“The Holy Trinity” by the very same St. John?

I quote:

“In regard to the consubstantial and life-giving Holy Trinity we confess one nature, one will, one operation, one virtue and power and domination, as also one Godhead, three Hypostasis or Persons (1), while preserving the property (2) of each Person. In the plan of the Incarnation (3) of one of the Holy Trinity, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, there are two natures involved, the divine and the human, two wills likewise and two operations, but one Hypostasis or one Person, because He is one and the same who before the ages was begotten incorporally and not as effluence, and who in these most recent times was conceived of the Holy Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God (4) in an indescribable manner and inviolately. The same Person is whole man and God. In one hypostasis, He is acknowledged, in respect to the divine nature, not to be subject to suffering, but subject to be suffering in respect to the assumed nature. And after parturition, of course, the signs of virginity, the seals so to speak, were kept safe.”

St. John’s work entitled The Holy Trinity is a short essay in question and answer form. It deals not only with the doctrine of the Trinity but also with the more important points of Christology.

I accept that John is a Trinitarian. Thanks for the quote.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Perhaps you missed this one by the very same St. Gregory?

“To the Greeks: From Universal Ideas”

Again, I quote:

"It is one and the same Person of the Father (1) by whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore and fittingly, there being one Cause of Those whom He has caused, we boldly say there is One God, since He also co-exists (2) with Them. For the Persons of the Godhead are separated one from another neither in time, nor place, nor will, nor practice, nor operation, nor passivity, nor any of the like such things such as are perceived with men, but only in that the Father is Father and not Son, and the Son is Son and not Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.

This short work deals with the expressions and terminology used in describing the Trinity.

I think you may have watching too many movies.

I accept that both John and Gregory are Trinitarians. My quote of them deals with their explanation that the source of the Trinity is a syncretization of Jewish and Greek teachings. Neither this quote or the one by John refutes that notion.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan-

As I do my study, clarification on this would be helpful.

Thanks.

The name Michael means ‘Who is like God.’ As such this role of the Son only applies in the spirit realm. The use of the title Word for the Son is similarly used of the Son only when he is in heaven. Because this is such a minor teaching of JWs, not much more is written on it. I can assure you it is discussed much more by critics of JWs than JWs themselves. I am sorry, but I don’t have any more information for you.

 

[Tomster]

Dan,

Have you seen this one?

“The Holy Trinity” by the very same St. John?

I quote:

“In regard to the consubstantial and life-giving Holy Trinity we confess one nature, one will, one operation, one virtue and power and domination, as also one Godhead, three Hypostasis or Persons (1), while preserving the property (2) of each Person. In the plan of the Incarnation (3) of one of the Holy Trinity, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, there are two natures involved, the divine and the human, two wills likewise and two operations, but one Hypostasis or one Person, because He is one and the same who before the ages was begotten incorporally and not as effluence, and who in these most recent times was conceived of the Holy Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God (4) in an indescribable manner and inviolately. The same Person is whole man and God. In one hypostasis, He is acknowledged, in respect to the divine nature, not to be subject to suffering, but subject to be suffering in respect to theassumed nature. And after parturition, of course, the signs of virginity, the seals so to speak, were kept safe.”

St. John’s work entitled The Holy Trinity is a short essay in question and answer form. It deals not only with the doctrine of the Trinity but also with the more important points of Christology.

Dan,

Thanks for your reply. And on all days for your position to be refuted, “9-11.” It’s kind of like Watchtower #1 falling to the ground.

 

[Tomster]

Dan,

Perhaps you missed this one by the very same St. Gregory?

“To the Greeks: From Universal Ideas”

Again, I quote:

"It is one and the same Person of the Father (1) by whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore and fittingly, there being one Cause of Those whom He has caused, we boldly say there is One God, since He also co-exists (2) with Them. For the Persons of the Godhead are separated one from another neither in time, nor place, nor will, nor practice, nor operation, nor passivity, nor any of the like such things such as are perceived with men, but only in that the Father is Father and not Son, and the Son is Son and not Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.

This short work deals with the expressions and terminology used in describing the Trinity.

I think you may have watching too many movies.

Dan,

And there goes Watchtower #2.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Thanks for your reply. And on all days for your position to be refuted, “9-11.” It’s kind of like Watchtower #1 falling to the ground.

Just to clarify, exactly what have you refuted? I see nothing there that says that this ECF did not report that the Trinity doctrine incorporates Greek doctrine.

 

[Tomster]

Just to clarify, exactly what have you refuted? I see nothing there that says that this ECF did not report that the Trinity doctrine incorporates Greek doctrine.

Dan,

When are going to get it straight? The ECF’S gave us their teachings. The Church, which is the final authority in these matters, unlike the JW’S who I might add have no teaching authority, decides who and what is orthodox and who and what isn’t.

The final determination in all matters on faith and morals is made by the Church, the teaching magisterium, in light of Revelation which I have pointed out to you more than once.

The Church Fathers listed above are by your own admission Trinitarians.

Why, by the way, have you failed to mention any of your early fathers, Russell, Rutherford, etc. and their teachings on this matter? Could it be they didn’t have clue, that they were stumbling in the dark just as you are with your own personal interpretations of Scriptures?

 

[Dan_Parker]

You have not denied that the Fathers have admitted that the source of the trinty includes Pagan Greek teaching. Now I see that you are not free to disagee with them! You are comitted to defending (or ignoring) statements that embarrass modern Trinitarians. Who would know better than they and why admit to this if it was not true?